Microsoft & U!

[aim-wsc]

Microsoft all the way!

We used to have such discussions with friends, and rookie IIM (Indian IT male) always used to take side of linux.
I've one simple q. if u think linux as uf OS, why u dont instal it on ur home PC? most of us dont instal it and some who instal, keep a dual OS and most of the times go with windows unless they want to do some R&D with linux.
so it's not a uf OS. forget about MAC my engg frds dont even know whats it

[macora]

Though MS has quashed competition, though MS has a majority of the software market.

It is made possible by consistent effort by them. I wont undermine their hard work towards that even though there are a few faults in that.

MS is consistently working towards more and more improvements. This can be seen from their growth in other software markets especially database, Business intelligence and server market.

[andy4u]

Warning - This is a bit off-topic.

The deliberations so far have mainly revolved around the Microsoft OS and other softwares provided by it.But MS isn't just about that,it is also about the business model which should be followed,about what you should charge for and what you shouldn't.

Bill Gates is probably correct when he says that they can't move to the freeware model, for all the research to take place,they need good amount of money.

But just look around and see what google has done.To me,google is the most amazing company in the world.They don't charge people,yet their 'charge for clicking on ads' model has given them sufficient revenues and it continues to surge in the stock market.Why,even their desktop softwares are proving to be much superior to the one offered by MS.Just try using Google desktop search,though not comprehensive,its far better then the normal MS desktop search.(BTW,Google has given sufficient headaches to MS and Yahoo by poaching in on their talent).

And regarding philanthropy,I think Google is actually doing a better job at it by not charging the people for their services.
BTW,I find Vista worse than XP or is it a case of having got used to XP?

[rmbt]

Originally Posted by andy4u

Warning - This is a bit off-topic.

The deliberations so far have mainly revolved around the Microsoft OS and other softwares provided by it.But MS isn't just about that,it is also about the business model which should be followed,about what you should charge for and what you shouldn't.

Bill Gates is probably correct when he says that they can't move to the freeware model, for all the research to take place,they need good amount of money.

But just look around and see what google has done.To me,google is the most amazing company in the world.They don't charge people,yet their 'charge for clicking on ads' model has given them sufficient revenues and it continues to surge in the stock market.Why,even their desktop softwares are proving to be much superior to the one offered by MS.Just try using Google desktop search,though not comprehensive,its far better then the normal MS desktop search.(BTW,Google has given sufficient headaches to MS and Yahoo by poaching in on their talent).

And regarding philanthropy,I think Google is actually doing a better job at it by not charging the people for their services.
BTW,I find Vista worse than XP or is it a case of having got used to XP?

There is a big difference betweeent he products and the MODELS follwed by MICROSOFT and Google.

Microsoft has an OS where as google has a search engine. Without OS you cant have a search engine. Also, Google can cover its expenditure for search engine easily with advertsing where as MICROSOFT can recover its cost in the amount of R&D it has to put in for OS and the packages associated with it.

Hence, the comparision cant be made as two are very different companies which have a very differnt product.

[subodh_iit]

Originally Posted by andy4u

Warning - This is a bit off-topic.

The deliberations so far have mainly revolved around the Microsoft OS and other softwares provided by it.But MS isn't just about that,it is also about the business model which should be followed,about what you should charge for and what you shouldn't.

Bill Gates is probably correct when he says that they can't move to the freeware model, for all the research to take place,they need good amount of money.

But just look around and see what google has done.To me,google is the most amazing company in the world.They don't charge people,yet their 'charge for clicking on ads' model has given them sufficient revenues and it continues to surge in the stock market.Why,even their desktop softwares are proving to be much superior to the one offered by MS.Just try using Google desktop search,though not comprehensive,its far better then the normal MS desktop search.(BTW,Google has given sufficient headaches to MS and Yahoo by poaching in on their talent).

And regarding philanthropy,I think Google is actually doing a better job at it by not charging the people for their services.
BTW,I find Vista worse than XP or is it a case of having got used to XP?

Its very much on topic.. The reason for MS's success have never been technical superiority.

In fact, I tend to smile when people mentions that Windows is a best OS, best User Interface et al. It is the Busineess Model, Shrewdness of top executive, and other such random factors that have contributed to Windows success.

All said and done, u cant really blame Microsoft for not coming out with an Ad-Supported free OS, because unlike Google, Microsoft DOS/Windows was not a research project, rather the business idea/brainchild of a young man striving to earn big bucks.

Probably they can look at this now. How to provide a free OS and charge for support. Something which Sun is doing.

And Yes, Vista is horrible in terms of performance. But if u get used to it with a much better configuration, you can have the same sort of user-friendliness as Vista. In fact, with each passing version, Windows becomes worse.

@AIM_WSC

It is because the pirated softwares for Linux are not easily available that people use Windows, even those who have Linux installed. Try using Linux day-in and day-out after getting all the programs setup and you will surely not found in worse than Windows.

[andy4u]

Originally Posted by rmbt

There is a big difference betweeent he products and the MODELS follwed by MICROSOFT and Google.

Microsoft has an OS where as google has a search engine. Without OS you cant have a search engine. Also, Google can cover its expenditure for search engine easily with advertsing where as MICROSOFT can recover its cost in the amount of R&D it has to put in for OS and the packages associated with it.

Hence, the comparision cant be made as two are very different companies which have a very differnt product.

Google is no more merely a search engine.Just go and explore in the google homepage to see how many diverse things they are offering.When,Google had launched its desktop search,it became an instant hit all across.It was being seen as a move by Google into a new domain.It was as if they have given a message to Microsoft - 'OK,you continue making the OS..but that is where your role will end.We will provide every service the user needs after that'

Now think about MS Office,word,excel and all that.Do you know that only a few days back Google launched an offline version of its spreadsheet,notepad,etc.They are trying to make word,excel redundant.And MS knows very well about this.Besides,Microsoft had also tried to enter into the domain of internet services.They flunked badly.

And regarding their business model,oh yes it's different.Google doesn't believe in charging users for its tools/services.Microsoft does.
After all,the Unix people also have a point when they say that 'C'mon don't charge for an OS atleast.That should be offered free of cost'

To be honest,no company is a match for Google in various things.I guess there are a few Google employees in PG.They may be able to shed some more light.

[subodh_iit]

But Google is not all that Altruism Personified as everyone seems to believe.

It has broken the back of several small Businessman by tacitly encorging Click Fraud. Searches across the world are free. So what is the big deal if Google is providing a free Search Engine..

As for the other services, Google is providing them free of cost, just because it want to wean away Microsoft's market share. Besides, I wont love the sight of Ads popping up while editing a Word document.

[rmbt]

Originally Posted by andy4u

Google is no more merely a search engine.Just go and explore in the google homepage to see how many diverse things they are offering.When,Google had launched its desktop search,it became an instant hit all across.It was being seen as a move by Google into a new domain.It was as if they have given a message to Microsoft - 'OK,you continue making the OS..but that is where your role will end.We will provide every service the user needs after that'

Now think about MS Office,word,excel and all that.Do you know that only a few days back Google launched an offline version of its spreadsheet,notepad,etc.They are trying to make word,excel redundant.And MS knows very well about this.Besides,Microsoft had also tried to enter into the domain of internet services.They flunked badly.

And regarding their business model,oh yes it's different.Google doesn't believe in charging users for its tools/services.Microsoft does.
After all,the Unix people also have a point when they say that 'C'mon don't charge for an OS atleast.That should be offered free of cost'

To be honest,no company is a match for Google in various things.I guess there are a few Google employees in PG.They may be able to shed some more light.

Dude,

There is no denying that Google coontiues to troubel MICROSOFT and gives its products for free. But again google dektop is redundent if there is no OS of Microsoft.

The point I am trying to make is Google started with soemthing such as search engine and continues to diviersify itself with the profit it has made, where as the MICROSOFT started with the biggest thing i.e. OS and slowly diversified into smaller things and hence cant sell there OS for freee. It does give you load of packages for free and allows free upgrades of different softwares time to time.

I reitrate, you cant compare the 2 giants as there products, models and time they started there companies are very different.

[andy4u]

Originally Posted by subodh_iit

But Google is not all that Altruism Personified as everyone seems to believe.

Yes,they are not altruists and neither are they driven by altruist motives.The beauty of their model is that it doesn't charge people for using their products(these things can be charged,but if they start doing it,how many would be able to use them?Again piracy or some other illegal way would come up and they anyway wouldn't have a control over it.The point is why do you have to make things so costly that people in general can't buy it easily and you would yourself have trouble controlling the piracy).This ad-model now seems so obvious.But they were the ones who came up with this idea.And their motto is 'Don't be evil'.They wudn't charge the companies for displaying their ads,but only if there is a click on their link.Isn't that fair enough.(More about the clickbots later in the post).

Originally Posted by subodh_iit

It has broken the back of several small Businessman by tacitly encorging Click Fraud. Searches across the world are free. So what is the big deal if Google is providing a free Search Engine..

Google spends a good no. of resources to take care of the click fraud.They have their own softwares and methods(and they have kept it secret,much like the details of the Page rank algorithm) to detect the legitimacy of such claims.There have been umpteen no. of cases where they have reimbursed the suffering company the full amount.But,yes there have also been numerous cases where they have rejected such claims.However,still it is a truth that Yahoo compensate more companies asking for such compensations than Google.But,Google too have a process so it can't be argued much.All said and done,fraud-click is a big industry in western world.There are numerous ways to execute it.

Originally Posted by subodh_iit

As for the other services, Google is providing them free of cost, just because it want to wean away Microsoft's market share.

Or may be beacuse they still don't want to charge for anything and they will sustain this model till they can.They are going very well anyway.Though this is contentious,I still think that they actually don't Charge because they do noT want to charge users for every small thing.When,Google had started(Around 96 i think) they had sufficient problems with funds.I think either of Sergey or Larry had even been rejected by Yahoo,Altavista, Microsoft or some other company for being just another techie.They could have started charging for their site.It was still nearly the best search engine available and used by millions across US.They didn't,they persisted and see where have they reached now.

Originally Posted by subodh_iit

Besides, I wont love the sight of Ads popping up while editing a Word document.

You can be sure that they will provide you the option of turning off the ads.You can still do it in gmail or while doing a google search('don't be evil' ).Besides,there isn't any ad shown if you are doing a search using the Google Desktop search.

[andy4u]

Originally Posted by rmbt

Dude,

There is no denying that Google contiues to troubel MICROSOFT and gives its products for free. But again google dektop is redundent if there is no OS of Microsoft.

The point I am trying to make is Google started with soemthing such as search engine and continues to diviersify itself with the profit it has made, where as the MICROSOFT started with the biggest thing i.e. OS and slowly diversified into smaller things and hence cant sell there OS for freee. It does give you load of packages for free and allows free upgrades of different softwares time to time.

I reitrate, you cant compare the 2 giants as there products, models and time they started there companies are very different.

I mainly tried to compare the way they make money today,their underlying philosophy. Both are working to provide non-hardware related services.

Obviously,both of them have their own reasons for conducting things the way they do.But,that is a separate matter.If you are to compare two things,you just look at the end result,not why they are that way or how they reached there.That is a separate subject.