Google-Microsoft battle hurts consumers | Hacker News Reader

Google-Microsoft battle hurts consumers

newsweek.com

13 pointsedw51919 comments

Meh. Google doesn't care about Microsoft nearly as much as this article states it does. It's not like Google is "out to get Microsoft". It's not. It just does the things it wants to do without following any directives from Microsoft or being afraid of what Microsoft might do. Go ahead and use Windows, that's fine. Google supports it with their products -- and sometimes, supports it first, and exclusively. Look at the Chrome browser. If lowering the cost of a laptop by $50 means more people can have one, then that's good for Google -- more (potential) users. It's not about hurting Microsoft at all. Similarly, if very capable, open-platform phones are the norm, there's more "mobile internet users". Android isn't about Microsoft, it's about raising the bar for what a smartphone is and enabling more mobile internet usage.

The idea that everything revolves around Microsoft is a stupid one. Google doesn't make decisions that way, regardless of what Fake Steve says.

On the other hand. Microsoft is all about killing its enemies. It sees the world in those terms. So sad.

"Their fighting has little to do with helping customers and a lot to do with helping themselves to a bigger slice of the money we all spend to buy computers and surf the Internet."

We call this capitalism. A byproduct of trying to make more money than the competition is better products for us. Lyons conclusion that we will end up with devices bloated with ads also makes the assumption that Google won't continue to innovate on advertisement.

I'd love to see the day where I don't think of ads as ads, but instead "cool reminders for new products I might enjoy." For example, I go out of my way every day to read Engadget even though it's basically a giant piece of advertising, and I love coming to Hacker News to hear about start ups and services that could benefit me.

Lyons seems to have really oversimplified the issue here.

Its kinda sad to see Google - "the big daddy of innovation", now turning into a Microsoft killer. I understand the importance of competition in the market, but its coming at the price of Google's innovation, which is going down. Google should stick to the web, innovate there and Microsoft should stick to the Desktop -- they are good at it, and there are so many unsolved problems in both fields. Stabbing each other is not going to help anyone. At the end of the day, as a human race, we just loose time to do good things.

Contrary to popular belief, Google is not an innovator. Even their own CEO has admitted this. Google takes existing ideas and improves upon them, they rarely invent new ideas.

Think of a new idea Google has come up with. News? Gmail? Search? Maps? nope... most of their innovative stuff is acquired, not innovated internally.

> Google takes existing ideas and improves upon them, they rarely invent new ideas.

That's the definition of innovation.

Not according to MW:

    Innovation
    1 : the introduction of something new
    2 : a new idea, method, or device : novelty

innovation

in - nova - tion

nova = new in latin language

Er, Google isn't "turning into a Microsoft killer". Google simply doesn't make decisions that way -- unlike Ballmer, who wants to "kill" other companies, and "cut off their oxygen".

It's fallacious to equate Microsoft's business practices with those of Google.

Ballmer has made it clear that he wants Microsoft to hurt Google, but I don't think Larry or Sergey set out with the intention of Google hurting Microsoft. I think that they just can't help it. By their very nature, Google upsets the balance of every industry. Google's primary mode of operation is to invent. Invention hurts incumbents. Microsoft's primary mode of operation is to negotiate business deals. Business deals make globs of money, but they slow invention.

Let's look at it the other way around:

Increasing competition in the Operating System business: Good for Consumers.

Introducing Segmentation of the Searchable Web: Bad for Consumers.

It's not the battle that's bad for consumers. It's the ammunition chosen by Microsoft. Really, that's nothing new.

Every company invents. even incumbents. Google can upstes so many industries because it's business model enables it to give stuff for free(or less then free).

The abstract of the article is that companies want to make money. Therefore, anything companies do is the result of them thinking it will help them make (more) money. Seems pretty basic to me.

Humans lead these companies. While they may have a fiduciary duty to their stock holders, no human decision is perfect.

You can't ignore the role played by ego, altruism, greed, short-sightedness, and other human emotions. I'm not saying that "thinking it will help make (more) money" isn't important. But these decisions are anything but basic.

"It just wants to get more people onto the Internet and show them more ads."

An over abundance of advertising would have the exact opposite effect.

There is already an overabundance of ads on the internet. I block ads and when I go to someone else's computer and browse around, I'm absolutely amazed at how many ads there are. Flash ads that show stuff outside the flash container. Blinking banner ads, flash movies that play sound...

Their browsing experience is horribly slow. The browser is slowed down by flash. The blinking is totally distracting. The ad based internet is a travesty.

Isn't this the place where microsoft can both innovate and hurt google ? Some ad replacement technology that replaces unusefull or distractring ads , with more usefull ads , and probably in less quantity. There biggest advantage over google here is that they don't depend on advertising money , so they can select add experience that is best for their users.

I think this view is overly cynical. The reason why google is doing what it's doing also to protect it's buisness. One attack is that browser manufacturers and operating system manufactures will route traffic away from their site.

Advertisment for google is very sucessful, but it is what funds the service. Seems clear that Google is beginning to charge for services from those willing to pay.

What I like about Google is their funding of an environment where all can compete. There are things that they don't do well, but the competition is getting Microsoft to create their own opensource communities.

The only move that is bad for consumers is a deal with the media. But it would seem to be a ploy to me to bring Google to the table to play by another industry's rules.

Why do we always take the side of consumers, what about producers rights ?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com