I was just looking at all the blog writing about Google’s new announcement. Hey, what an awesome PR machine Google has. They don’t talk to a single blogger and we all talk about them anyway. I think bloggers like the abuse! 😉
Anyway, Dare Obasanjo, who works for Microsoft just wrote his reactions and in the middle of all that wrote this line: “As usual, the technology blogs are full of the Microsoft vs. Google double standard.”
Absolutely 100% true. Bloggers will hype up Google stuff over Microsoft’s stuff almost everytime. Why?
A few reasons:
1) Google isn’t yet on top of the mountain. They don’t own a monopoly. They are getting close, yes, but they certainly don’t have the market share even there that Microsoft has on the desktop.
2) Google’s offerings are focused 100% on the Web. Microsoft is only about 5% on the Web. Lest we forget the biggest parts of Microsoft are Windows, Office, and Xbox. We cheer companies that pour themselves into supporting what we like. Bloggers are VERY Web-centric.
3) Office Live didn’t have a position of strength to get us excited by. Google has Gmail. Nearly every blogger I know uses Gmail. When I asked a room of Pepperdine MBA students every hand went up when I said Gmail. Yeah, a few had Hotmail, but they said they liked Gmail better. So, until Microsoft completes its rollout of the new Hotmail, er Windows Live Mail (which is very nice) then Google will continue getting the hype for its office suite.
4) Google gives us a LOT of cool free stuff. That turns into hype later on. We cheer a company on that gives us free stuff without putting a bunch of ads in our face. Microsoft still hasn’t quite figured this one out yet.
5) Expectations. When you say “Microsoft Office” to us we have a certain image of what that means in our heads. But say “Google Office” and most of us aren’t sure what that really means. That means that Google, while it explains its story, will get more attention as we all flail around and try to figure out whether it’s better or worse than what we already know, which is Microsoft’s stuff. And, Microsoft’s “Office Live” fell flat because it didn’t match our expectations of what Microsoft should do in this space.
6) Branding. Microsoft doesn’t have a cool Web brand right now. In fact, the one that they had, MSN, is being thrown in the trash and they are switching over to Windows Live. That probably will turn out to be the right decision in the long term, but in the short term Google has the better naming team — by far. Calling Google Maps “Google Maps?” Sheer brilliance! Who came up with the name “Windows Live Local?” Blllleeeeccchhh.
Anyway, we don’t cut the guy on top any slack. That’s gonna be a problem for Microsoft to get its stuff noticed. On the other hand Microsoft can get our attention the old fashioned way: it can spend its $60 billion in cash. There are plenty of bloggers out there who’ll write about you if you send some cash into the system.
Typically, I’m guilty of this double standard. This time, however, I recently ended a post: “Given that GAFYD is a browser-based version of the network computer, one wonders if history is destined to repeat itself.”
LikeLike
Typically, I’m guilty of this double standard. This time, however, I recently ended a post: “Given that GAFYD is a browser-based version of the network computer, one wonders if history is destined to repeat itself.”
LikeLike
“There are plenty of bloggers out there who’ll write about you if you send some cash into the system.”
You’re not proposing that Microsoft send cash into the system to get blogger coverage, are you? 😉
I try to pull away, but you keep pulling me back in any time you talk about Google. 🙂
LikeLike
“There are plenty of bloggers out there who’ll write about you if you send some cash into the system.”
You’re not proposing that Microsoft send cash into the system to get blogger coverage, are you? 😉
I try to pull away, but you keep pulling me back in any time you talk about Google. 🙂
LikeLike
Be curious to see what your numbers show but about 85% of the traffic from search engines to my sites is from Google.
LikeLike
Be curious to see what your numbers show but about 85% of the traffic from search engines to my sites is from Google.
LikeLike
Andrew: the market share numbers that most people accept are around 60%. But, more influentials use Google so blog traffic is heavier.
LikeLike
Andrew: the market share numbers that most people accept are around 60%. But, more influentials use Google so blog traffic is heavier.
LikeLike
I see Google as the keeper of the flame lit by Netscape with all the hopes and dreams of the Silicon Valley faithful in the ultimate world wide high-tech competition.
LikeLike
Matt: well, there are certainly quite a few bloggers who are willing to sell their souls. It’s why I stopped taking free stuff.
Speaking of which I’d love to have you on my video show. Interested?
LikeLike
I see Google as the keeper of the flame lit by Netscape with all the hopes and dreams of the Silicon Valley faithful in the ultimate world wide high-tech competition.
LikeLike
Matt: well, there are certainly quite a few bloggers who are willing to sell their souls. It’s why I stopped taking free stuff.
Speaking of which I’d love to have you on my video show. Interested?
LikeLike
Matt: ironically enough what I’d do if I were Microsoft is buy Google ads, but just buy ads on specific blogs and write the copy to get attention. The same way you guys targetted smart developers with ads at Microsoft for recruiting. The bloggers would appreciate that and would start commenting on the fact that Microsoft is targeting them with personalized advertising.
LikeLike
Sure. Also, when you stop by Google to rake folks over the coals for missing the mark on enterprise stuff–stop by and say hello. You’ve got my email to contact me. 🙂
LikeLike
Robert – I don’t think Dare’s point is about Microsoft alone – I think it’s about bloggers too. Whatever else Microsoft might be, it is still a huge presence online and in software.
I find it weird that no blogger mentions a Microsoft product with the same set of features.
This is incredible herd mentality – and definitely not ‘long tail’.
Also, I found it interesting that all the traditional news sources like Reuters mentioned Office Live.
I’m not doing ‘blogger bashing’ here. I think there’s some introspection that needs to be done on why the mainstream media is doing a lot more fact checking on this particular story.
LikeLike
Robert – I don’t think Dare’s point is about Microsoft alone – I think it’s about bloggers too. Whatever else Microsoft might be, it is still a huge presence online and in software.
I find it weird that no blogger mentions a Microsoft product with the same set of features.
This is incredible herd mentality – and definitely not ‘long tail’.
Also, I found it interesting that all the traditional news sources like Reuters mentioned Office Live.
I’m not doing ‘blogger bashing’ here. I think there’s some introspection that needs to be done on why the mainstream media is doing a lot more fact checking on this particular story.
LikeLike
Matt: ironically enough what I’d do if I were Microsoft is buy Google ads, but just buy ads on specific blogs and write the copy to get attention. The same way you guys targetted smart developers with ads at Microsoft for recruiting. The bloggers would appreciate that and would start commenting on the fact that Microsoft is targeting them with personalized advertising.
LikeLike
Sure. Also, when you stop by Google to rake folks over the coals for missing the mark on enterprise stuff–stop by and say hello. You’ve got my email to contact me. 🙂
LikeLike
Sriram: Microsoft has an AWESOME PR machine to try to make sure its story gets heard, even when its competitor is creating a media storm.
LikeLike
Sriram: Microsoft has an AWESOME PR machine to try to make sure its story gets heard, even when its competitor is creating a media storm.
LikeLike
Sriram: it’s not true that no blogger talked about Office Live. I did and many other bloggers did too. But I saw the team personally. What they showed me was lame and for microbusinesses. It is NOT what I expected to see from Microsoft’s Office team.
LikeLike
Sriram: it’s not true that no blogger talked about Office Live. I did and many other bloggers did too. But I saw the team personally. What they showed me was lame and for microbusinesses. It is NOT what I expected to see from Microsoft’s Office team.
LikeLike
Bloggers will hype up Google stuff over Microsoft’s stuff almost everytime. Why?
Because Google’s products are better. I know it’s a tough concept for softies to understand. Google’s products work and are fun. Even their limitations are obvious.
Microsoft’s idea of fun is an AJAX-ENABLED CLIPPY.
LikeLike
Bloggers will hype up Google stuff over Microsoft’s stuff almost everytime. Why?
Because Google’s products are better. I know it’s a tough concept for softies to understand. Google’s products work and are fun. Even their limitations are obvious.
Microsoft’s idea of fun is an AJAX-ENABLED CLIPPY.
LikeLike
Oh well, what we are seeing is just the tip of the iceberg. Google has turned the knob in terms of services and web apps.
Yeah, its free and I still dont mind paying for all em services when the time is right :)-
LikeLike
Oh well, what we are seeing is just the tip of the iceberg. Google has turned the knob in terms of services and web apps.
Yeah, its free and I still dont mind paying for all em services when the time is right :)-
LikeLike
Microsoft’s idea of fun is an AJAX-ENABLED CLIPPY.
CLIPPY: It looks like you’re trying to be sarcastic. Would you like some help with this feature? 😉
LikeLike
Microsoft’s idea of fun is an AJAX-ENABLED CLIPPY.
CLIPPY: It looks like you’re trying to be sarcastic. Would you like some help with this feature? 😉
LikeLike
Ironically, in the example you mention, “Google Maps” was changed to “Google Local Search” for a while (at the url local.google.com IIRC)
After a while, they seemed to figure out that most users preferred “maps” (by typing maps.google.com into the address bar, which forwarded to “local”), so they changed it back.
Google isn’t immune to branding mistakes.
I agree “Windows Live” is better than “MSN”, but I still think it’s not the best brand they could have come up with. Two words is kind of bleh, and Windows itself doesn’t exactly have the best brand in the minds of consumers these days. If I was MS I’d have gone with “start.com” (which I presume MS still owns?) and made it the “start menu for the web” or something like that.
And FWIW, I think bloggers are more fair minded than you give them credit for. Windows Live Writer got a fair bit of attention when it was released… because it’s actually a good product, not a “me too”. The MS Office ribbon has gotten attention as well. I think bloggers simply like innovation; the attention is reflective of which company they see the most innovation coming out of.
LikeLike
Ironically, in the example you mention, “Google Maps” was changed to “Google Local Search” for a while (at the url local.google.com IIRC)
After a while, they seemed to figure out that most users preferred “maps” (by typing maps.google.com into the address bar, which forwarded to “local”), so they changed it back.
Google isn’t immune to branding mistakes.
I agree “Windows Live” is better than “MSN”, but I still think it’s not the best brand they could have come up with. Two words is kind of bleh, and Windows itself doesn’t exactly have the best brand in the minds of consumers these days. If I was MS I’d have gone with “start.com” (which I presume MS still owns?) and made it the “start menu for the web” or something like that.
And FWIW, I think bloggers are more fair minded than you give them credit for. Windows Live Writer got a fair bit of attention when it was released… because it’s actually a good product, not a “me too”. The MS Office ribbon has gotten attention as well. I think bloggers simply like innovation; the attention is reflective of which company they see the most innovation coming out of.
LikeLike
Additional Bullet Points…
1. So only fair to kick the big dogs? Not in my book, equal opportunity kicking.
2. 100% Web, compliments the Blogger myopia navel-gazing, only whatever is in their nose-level view, matters. Just say “ERP” to a Blogger and watch his/her eyes glaze over.
3. Agree. Office Live is a a Ray Ozzie lucid dream. Not hosted real Office, just some micro-portal fantasy joke.
4. Microsoft ALSO gives away TONS of free stuff, I mean Junkets, Launch Parties and MVP Entitlement techie drugs ahoy. Microsoft beats Google easy in free. Can’t buy love, either way tho.
5. Google is fuzzy because we yet not know, Microsoft is fuzzy because we do. Once Google comes out of its turtled shell, the awe will fade. But not knowing, is part of their Apple like marketing-strategy. It allows dimbulb journalists and bloggers to fill in blanks.
6. Branding. Well Microsoft, in getting their bread and butter from the Enterprise, likes boring names. Horrid branding, yes, but not necessarily a bad move. Boring can be good, and quite lucrative. The flashy Web 2.0 branding doesn’t exactly play in Peoria.
LikeLike
Additional Bullet Points…
1. So only fair to kick the big dogs? Not in my book, equal opportunity kicking.
2. 100% Web, compliments the Blogger myopia navel-gazing, only whatever is in their nose-level view, matters. Just say “ERP” to a Blogger and watch his/her eyes glaze over.
3. Agree. Office Live is a a Ray Ozzie lucid dream. Not hosted real Office, just some micro-portal fantasy joke.
4. Microsoft ALSO gives away TONS of free stuff, I mean Junkets, Launch Parties and MVP Entitlement techie drugs ahoy. Microsoft beats Google easy in free. Can’t buy love, either way tho.
5. Google is fuzzy because we yet not know, Microsoft is fuzzy because we do. Once Google comes out of its turtled shell, the awe will fade. But not knowing, is part of their Apple like marketing-strategy. It allows dimbulb journalists and bloggers to fill in blanks.
6. Branding. Well Microsoft, in getting their bread and butter from the Enterprise, likes boring names. Horrid branding, yes, but not necessarily a bad move. Boring can be good, and quite lucrative. The flashy Web 2.0 branding doesn’t exactly play in Peoria.
LikeLike
“Google is fuzzy because we yet not know, Microsoft is fuzzy because we do. Once Google comes out of its turtled shell, the awe will fade. But not knowing, is part of their Apple like marketing-strategy. It allows dimbulb journalists and bloggers to fill in blanks.”
But Scoble says we should be transparent 😦
LikeLike
“Google is fuzzy because we yet not know, Microsoft is fuzzy because we do. Once Google comes out of its turtled shell, the awe will fade. But not knowing, is part of their Apple like marketing-strategy. It allows dimbulb journalists and bloggers to fill in blanks.”
But Scoble says we should be transparent 😦
LikeLike
Google vs MS, sure, but increasingly it’s Google vs everyone, including Apple … more at http://blogs.zdnet.com/Gardner/?p=2338.
LikeLike
I remember when .NET was very fuzzy. Yet, people didn’t really buy the hype.
It’s a real art to sell vaporware.
LikeLike
Google vs MS, sure, but increasingly it’s Google vs everyone, including Apple … more at http://blogs.zdnet.com/Gardner/?p=2338.
LikeLike
I remember when .NET was very fuzzy. Yet, people didn’t really buy the hype.
It’s a real art to sell vaporware.
LikeLike
Without changing their hard nosed business practices it is entirely possible for Microsoft to appear ‘cooler’, ‘softer’, ‘gentler’. They are just not leveraging the incredible philanthrophy of Bill Gates for example, well enough, for example. Perversely it is Google which sports the aura of being responsible social citizen!
In India, we have a cell ph service company called Hutch, which came up with a briliant set of ads, featuring a kid playing with his Dog. The ads were so powerful that they established Hutch’s image firmly as a very customer friendly company. So much so, that despite their service being no where compared to their image, it was proven in survey after survey, that customers took a lenient view.
Never underestimate the power of branding and communicating the brand.Microsoft has failed miserably in connecting to their customers at a ‘humane’ level.
LikeLike
Without changing their hard nosed business practices it is entirely possible for Microsoft to appear ‘cooler’, ‘softer’, ‘gentler’. They are just not leveraging the incredible philanthrophy of Bill Gates for example, well enough, for example. Perversely it is Google which sports the aura of being responsible social citizen!
In India, we have a cell ph service company called Hutch, which came up with a briliant set of ads, featuring a kid playing with his Dog. The ads were so powerful that they established Hutch’s image firmly as a very customer friendly company. So much so, that despite their service being no where compared to their image, it was proven in survey after survey, that customers took a lenient view.
Never underestimate the power of branding and communicating the brand.Microsoft has failed miserably in connecting to their customers at a ‘humane’ level.
LikeLike
3.5) By giving out 2Gb of space, Google ensured no matter what Yahoo and Microsoft does with web email services, transitioning will be a pain – unless its a revolutionary jump on gmail. Is Windows Mail revolutionary? No.
7) Mashups. Google is aligned well with the web 2.0 hacking mentality. It thorws out stuff that developers can use, create something else out of it, and let the early adopters drive the brand and image further. If web 2.0 is participatory, Google content creation apps are a natural fit.
LikeLike
I still don’t get why anyone would get excited over an internet application. I mean really, is there anyone who actually uses this stuff? To me it just seems ridiculous. Hell, I don’t even like using online mail (but I do use gmail because it allows me to download it to my computer).
LikeLike
3.5) By giving out 2Gb of space, Google ensured no matter what Yahoo and Microsoft does with web email services, transitioning will be a pain – unless its a revolutionary jump on gmail. Is Windows Mail revolutionary? No.
7) Mashups. Google is aligned well with the web 2.0 hacking mentality. It thorws out stuff that developers can use, create something else out of it, and let the early adopters drive the brand and image further. If web 2.0 is participatory, Google content creation apps are a natural fit.
LikeLike
I still don’t get why anyone would get excited over an internet application. I mean really, is there anyone who actually uses this stuff? To me it just seems ridiculous. Hell, I don’t even like using online mail (but I do use gmail because it allows me to download it to my computer).
LikeLike
For what it’s worth I thought it was a non-story. I don’t care about Office software if it comes from Microsoft, Google or God. I know a lot of people use it, but you can’t touch the stuff if you care about getting locked in. Office Wars will be all about who locks you in the nicest trunk. I prefer to ride up front, even if the ride is rough and the door doesn’t stay closed without a bit of rope.
LikeLike
For what it’s worth I thought it was a non-story. I don’t care about Office software if it comes from Microsoft, Google or God. I know a lot of people use it, but you can’t touch the stuff if you care about getting locked in. Office Wars will be all about who locks you in the nicest trunk. I prefer to ride up front, even if the ride is rough and the door doesn’t stay closed without a bit of rope.
LikeLike
I don’t see a double standard here. It’s fight fans pulling up chairs for the rumble, that’s all.
This is sports kibbitzing. When Microsoft entered the game console market against the dominant brand (Sony PS2), they got a lot of buzz and attention. As Microsoft prepares to enter the portable media player market against the dominant brand (iPod), they’re getting huge buzz and attention. Any time a credible, well-resourced challenger comes along, people gather around to watch the fight. So, now, here comes Google. “Google Makes Its Move” pretty well captures the story. People have been anticipating this–and more–since about forever. That’s not to say that folks are necessarily rooting for Google to take down Office. But they do want the spectacle of a fight. And the prospect of competition to improve the choices for businesses large and small.
Office Live is just a product announcement. (yawn) “Google Apps for Your Domain” (did someboday say Google knows naming?) is a prelude to an epic battle. It’s the Sharks vs. the Jets… King Kong vs. Godzilla… Ali vs. Frazier. Olbermann vs. O’Reilly. That’s why there’s extra juice around this. How good are the products? That’s pretty much besides the point at this stage.
LikeLike
I don’t see a double standard here. It’s fight fans pulling up chairs for the rumble, that’s all.
This is sports kibbitzing. When Microsoft entered the game console market against the dominant brand (Sony PS2), they got a lot of buzz and attention. As Microsoft prepares to enter the portable media player market against the dominant brand (iPod), they’re getting huge buzz and attention. Any time a credible, well-resourced challenger comes along, people gather around to watch the fight. So, now, here comes Google. “Google Makes Its Move” pretty well captures the story. People have been anticipating this–and more–since about forever. That’s not to say that folks are necessarily rooting for Google to take down Office. But they do want the spectacle of a fight. And the prospect of competition to improve the choices for businesses large and small.
Office Live is just a product announcement. (yawn) “Google Apps for Your Domain” (did someboday say Google knows naming?) is a prelude to an epic battle. It’s the Sharks vs. the Jets… King Kong vs. Godzilla… Ali vs. Frazier. Olbermann vs. O’Reilly. That’s why there’s extra juice around this. How good are the products? That’s pretty much besides the point at this stage.
LikeLike
There’s no double standard if it doesn’t matter to anyone but a single company. When you’re talking about a race of peole or an age range, then it matters.
LikeLike
There’s no double standard if it doesn’t matter to anyone but a single company. When you’re talking about a race of peole or an age range, then it matters.
LikeLike
Honestly, I think alot of the time other companies get blog press over Microsoft or extra hype simply boils down to “it ain’t Microsoft”. I think Microsoft still has lots of bad rap out there and anything that is against or competeing with Microsoft gets the hype and praise of the geeks. Microsoft is still viewed as Goliath and people are looking for a David to take it down. Google has been branded the company with the sling and stone in many ways and people want to see if they can throw hard enough to slay the giant.
LikeLike
Honestly, I think alot of the time other companies get blog press over Microsoft or extra hype simply boils down to “it ain’t Microsoft”. I think Microsoft still has lots of bad rap out there and anything that is against or competeing with Microsoft gets the hype and praise of the geeks. Microsoft is still viewed as Goliath and people are looking for a David to take it down. Google has been branded the company with the sling and stone in many ways and people want to see if they can throw hard enough to slay the giant.
LikeLike
“2. 100% Web, compliments the Blogger myopia navel-gazing…. Just say “ERP” to a Blogger and watch his/her eyes glaze over.”
Please explain what you think is exciting about ERP. To my eyes, ERP is an over-kill solution in search of a problem.
“When Microsoft entered the game console market against the dominant brand (Sony PS2), they got a lot of buzz and attention. As Microsoft prepares to enter the portable media player market against the dominant brand (iPod), they’re getting huge buzz and attention”
If (unlikely) they managed to accomplish anything in either of those markets, they would surely get plenty of media/blogger attention.
Google has been able to deliver actual interesting products. What has MSFT done lately? You can’t get buzz in absence of pollen (to use a bumblebee metaphor).
LikeLike
“2. 100% Web, compliments the Blogger myopia navel-gazing…. Just say “ERP” to a Blogger and watch his/her eyes glaze over.”
Please explain what you think is exciting about ERP. To my eyes, ERP is an over-kill solution in search of a problem.
“When Microsoft entered the game console market against the dominant brand (Sony PS2), they got a lot of buzz and attention. As Microsoft prepares to enter the portable media player market against the dominant brand (iPod), they’re getting huge buzz and attention”
If (unlikely) they managed to accomplish anything in either of those markets, they would surely get plenty of media/blogger attention.
Google has been able to deliver actual interesting products. What has MSFT done lately? You can’t get buzz in absence of pollen (to use a bumblebee metaphor).
LikeLike
Robert, consider your point number 4. Google gives everything for free must be one of the reason people should not lock themselves into Google product. This is plain common sense economics.
Suppose you go to a new city. You take a cab. Why do you trust the drivers driving skill? Do you check his driving license? No. You trust because if he is in an accident then he has as much chance of getting hurt as you. You basically have tied your safety with his.
A lot of Google’s free stuff is a loss leader for them. They have not yet figured out a profit strategy for everything or at least not yet have conveyed to us. Remember Google is a public company. If their profit strategy, which is still a unknown to us, fails then wall street will force them to drop the loss leaders. Or else their stock will be punished which makes all the googlers unhappy. (Note: their cash reserves is made from selling goog, they did not need that cash except they may be expecting a rainy day).
What happens if goog app turn out to be one of the loss leaders they drop? Do you want to tie your company’s profit with another companies loss? I would not. Basic game theory says, you should tie your company’s profit to another company’s profit and not their loss.
Following is a reasonable possibility: Suppose Yahoo’s panama turns out to be a success. They increase the ROI for their advertisers. That implies that advertisers bid on adwords may fall. Decrease growth, no matter how much current profit, invariably punishes the stock. In that case Wall street expect companies to stop putting money in loss leaders. See what happened when Microsoft announced a meagre, by microsoft standards, 2 billion extra expense. Google has not faced such a day and no body knows what Google’s reaction would be. Microsoft announced buy back to bring wall street into confidence again. Google won’t be able to do that either.
So think twice if you want to lock in your company’s infrastructure to an unproven, uncommitted and unprofitable product.
Disclaimer: The commentator is a Microsoft employee but the analysis in the comment is his own.
LikeLike
Robert, consider your point number 4. Google gives everything for free must be one of the reason people should not lock themselves into Google product. This is plain common sense economics.
Suppose you go to a new city. You take a cab. Why do you trust the drivers driving skill? Do you check his driving license? No. You trust because if he is in an accident then he has as much chance of getting hurt as you. You basically have tied your safety with his.
A lot of Google’s free stuff is a loss leader for them. They have not yet figured out a profit strategy for everything or at least not yet have conveyed to us. Remember Google is a public company. If their profit strategy, which is still a unknown to us, fails then wall street will force them to drop the loss leaders. Or else their stock will be punished which makes all the googlers unhappy. (Note: their cash reserves is made from selling goog, they did not need that cash except they may be expecting a rainy day).
What happens if goog app turn out to be one of the loss leaders they drop? Do you want to tie your company’s profit with another companies loss? I would not. Basic game theory says, you should tie your company’s profit to another company’s profit and not their loss.
Following is a reasonable possibility: Suppose Yahoo’s panama turns out to be a success. They increase the ROI for their advertisers. That implies that advertisers bid on adwords may fall. Decrease growth, no matter how much current profit, invariably punishes the stock. In that case Wall street expect companies to stop putting money in loss leaders. See what happened when Microsoft announced a meagre, by microsoft standards, 2 billion extra expense. Google has not faced such a day and no body knows what Google’s reaction would be. Microsoft announced buy back to bring wall street into confidence again. Google won’t be able to do that either.
So think twice if you want to lock in your company’s infrastructure to an unproven, uncommitted and unprofitable product.
Disclaimer: The commentator is a Microsoft employee but the analysis in the comment is his own.
LikeLike
Steve Jobs said it best earlier this month: “Microsoft spends $5 Billion a year in reseach and development, and what do they come up with? All they can do is copy Apple and Google.”
Its true. Google innovates, and MS copies.
LikeLike
Steve Jobs said it best earlier this month: “Microsoft spends $5 Billion a year in reseach and development, and what do they come up with? All they can do is copy Apple and Google.”
Its true. Google innovates, and MS copies.
LikeLike
“YOUR POST:Branding. Microsoft doesn’t have a cool Web brand right now. In fact, the one that they had, MSN, is being thrown …”
Robert, brands can have an expiration date but I assure you among its users MSN is a brand they won’t soon part with–it is more than its technology. The constant pinging of multiple incoming instant messages in the ajoining room is testament! If they are rebranding or rolling up the brand, they better be careful lest they lose that immmense equity. My 17 year old just told me. “it’s [the name] cold and unfriendly”. Yikes.
About brand extensions:
When one brand is extremely successful their caretakers tend to stretch that brand to the point of snapping. Japanese corporations have put the same name on everything from cars to photocopiers and have effectively diluted and commoditized their brands. This can be very destructive because there is an emotional resonance with a brand–it is complex and deep. And stretching its meaning (key element) can dilute its strength. Google things are good. But too much Google will hurt. This I stake my experience on. It’s not about techonology and functionality–it’s about personal resonance. How you identify with a social network. I am so glad you brought up branding. Tech folks needs to pay close attention to the deepest human element. Good post Robert.
YOUR POST: “That probably will turn out to be the right decision in the long term, but in the short term Google has the better naming team — by far. Calling Google Maps “Google Maps?” Sheer brilliance! Who came up with the name “Windows Live Local?” Blllleeeeccchhh.”
I think you’ve got here. Naming is very important. The use of public or common use language again commoditizes a brand. But Google Maps is effectively a product feature of its search engine. They search many a thing, text, maps–images on their way with both Microsoft and Google. Did you know Larry Zitnick at the Microsoft lab is developing an image search engine yet unnamed? Hopefully it will be called something new and fresh–perhaps another onomatapoeia like Yahoo or Google. How about Swissh or Swoosh or zippitydodade. Hey, Blllleeeeccchhh might even work in this world of counter cultures. Kudos for your 360 approach to a new launch.
LikeLike
“YOUR POST:Branding. Microsoft doesn’t have a cool Web brand right now. In fact, the one that they had, MSN, is being thrown …”
Robert, brands can have an expiration date but I assure you among its users MSN is a brand they won’t soon part with–it is more than its technology. The constant pinging of multiple incoming instant messages in the ajoining room is testament! If they are rebranding or rolling up the brand, they better be careful lest they lose that immmense equity. My 17 year old just told me. “it’s [the name] cold and unfriendly”. Yikes.
About brand extensions:
When one brand is extremely successful their caretakers tend to stretch that brand to the point of snapping. Japanese corporations have put the same name on everything from cars to photocopiers and have effectively diluted and commoditized their brands. This can be very destructive because there is an emotional resonance with a brand–it is complex and deep. And stretching its meaning (key element) can dilute its strength. Google things are good. But too much Google will hurt. This I stake my experience on. It’s not about techonology and functionality–it’s about personal resonance. How you identify with a social network. I am so glad you brought up branding. Tech folks needs to pay close attention to the deepest human element. Good post Robert.
YOUR POST: “That probably will turn out to be the right decision in the long term, but in the short term Google has the better naming team — by far. Calling Google Maps “Google Maps?” Sheer brilliance! Who came up with the name “Windows Live Local?” Blllleeeeccchhh.”
I think you’ve got here. Naming is very important. The use of public or common use language again commoditizes a brand. But Google Maps is effectively a product feature of its search engine. They search many a thing, text, maps–images on their way with both Microsoft and Google. Did you know Larry Zitnick at the Microsoft lab is developing an image search engine yet unnamed? Hopefully it will be called something new and fresh–perhaps another onomatapoeia like Yahoo or Google. How about Swissh or Swoosh or zippitydodade. Hey, Blllleeeeccchhh might even work in this world of counter cultures. Kudos for your 360 approach to a new launch.
LikeLike
Couple of points.
1. Google is doing a heck of a lot of client side work for a company 100 percent focused on the web.
2. Market share on Gmail does not bear out your point — you could have said the same thing 10 years ago about mac use, or five years ago about Palm use, or 2 years ago about RIM use.
Bottom line, the press love the competition, they love the insurgent. Google, despite its success, is still seen as the insurgent fighting against an industry leader.
LikeLike
Couple of points.
1. Google is doing a heck of a lot of client side work for a company 100 percent focused on the web.
2. Market share on Gmail does not bear out your point — you could have said the same thing 10 years ago about mac use, or five years ago about Palm use, or 2 years ago about RIM use.
Bottom line, the press love the competition, they love the insurgent. Google, despite its success, is still seen as the insurgent fighting against an industry leader.
LikeLike
“what an awesome PR machine Google has. They don’t talk to a single blogger and we all talk about them anyway.”
———-
Same with Apple. Seems when you have the juice, blogging/bloggers are irrelevant, the traditional PR/marketing methods work just fine and everyone picks it up. When you don’t have juice, or are a small tech/web-2.0 company you have to rely on, include, Arrington and the rest of the blogsphere.
LikeLike
“what an awesome PR machine Google has. They don’t talk to a single blogger and we all talk about them anyway.”
———-
Same with Apple. Seems when you have the juice, blogging/bloggers are irrelevant, the traditional PR/marketing methods work just fine and everyone picks it up. When you don’t have juice, or are a small tech/web-2.0 company you have to rely on, include, Arrington and the rest of the blogsphere.
LikeLike
Kamal: you’re thinking like a Microsoft employee.
Truth is you gotta think like a mall owner in this new world. As long as one store in the mall makes a crapload of money, you’ll do just fine, thank you very much.
This is why we all go to Valley Fair instead of Vallco. Valley Fair has a lot better selection of small stores that don’t make them much money. But, while I’m there I’m very likely to head into Macy’s too.
LikeLike
Kamal: you’re thinking like a Microsoft employee.
Truth is you gotta think like a mall owner in this new world. As long as one store in the mall makes a crapload of money, you’ll do just fine, thank you very much.
This is why we all go to Valley Fair instead of Vallco. Valley Fair has a lot better selection of small stores that don’t make them much money. But, while I’m there I’m very likely to head into Macy’s too.
LikeLike
Frank, be careful about your market share numbers. I think a far more important number is the growth number. How fast is Gmail doubling in share vs. Hotmail? That’ll end up being the far more important number to watch. It’s certainly what Wall Street looks at.
LikeLike
Frank, be careful about your market share numbers. I think a far more important number is the growth number. How fast is Gmail doubling in share vs. Hotmail? That’ll end up being the far more important number to watch. It’s certainly what Wall Street looks at.
LikeLike
Whoever came up with “Windows Live Local” should be moved to another job! I agree that “Live Local” and the corresponding URL are about the dumbest anybody could have come up with. They used to have a recognizable name “VirtualEarth” and they torched it. Why???
LikeLike
Whoever came up with “Windows Live Local” should be moved to another job! I agree that “Live Local” and the corresponding URL are about the dumbest anybody could have come up with. They used to have a recognizable name “VirtualEarth” and they torched it. Why???
LikeLike
I want to be able to create my own mall and not be stuck with only two choices, the MSMall and the GMall. If Microsoft or Google provides me with the best store in a certain category of goods then I will want to sign a lease with them. For the same reason I don’t want WalMart to come into my neighborhood and drive out all the innovative shop owners that can do a better job of serving my needs. I think the battle for real estate will shift once open identity systems catch on.
LikeLike
I want to be able to create my own mall and not be stuck with only two choices, the MSMall and the GMall. If Microsoft or Google provides me with the best store in a certain category of goods then I will want to sign a lease with them. For the same reason I don’t want WalMart to come into my neighborhood and drive out all the innovative shop owners that can do a better job of serving my needs. I think the battle for real estate will shift once open identity systems catch on.
LikeLike
It’s all about cash in the system. Google sends me a monthly cheque (AdSense). Microsoft doesn’t.
LikeLike
It’s all about cash in the system. Google sends me a monthly cheque (AdSense). Microsoft doesn’t.
LikeLike
“They used to have a recognizable name “VirtualEarth” and they torched it. Why???”
Because they are f**king dumb! Yes that was a resonably good name…before this whole “Live” mania started and I don’t see why “Windows” had to be attached to it….this was an opportunity to drop that “Windows” legacy behind….granted it (Windows) keeps bringing home the bacon….but there was absolutely no reason to carry that baggage into the web world.
Oh well….there is enough hate spewing around…that I don’t necessarily see MS going in the right direction in the long term (but hey, I am just a simple guy – what do I know…I am no Ballmer).
LikeLike
“They used to have a recognizable name “VirtualEarth” and they torched it. Why???”
Because they are f**king dumb! Yes that was a resonably good name…before this whole “Live” mania started and I don’t see why “Windows” had to be attached to it….this was an opportunity to drop that “Windows” legacy behind….granted it (Windows) keeps bringing home the bacon….but there was absolutely no reason to carry that baggage into the web world.
Oh well….there is enough hate spewing around…that I don’t necessarily see MS going in the right direction in the long term (but hey, I am just a simple guy – what do I know…I am no Ballmer).
LikeLike
Chris: Microsoft’s theory is that they have hundreds of millions of people who recognize the name “Windows” and who use Microsoft Windows and so they’ll be more likely to also use “Windows Live.”
I personally would rather invest in building a new brand, but that’s just me. I’m from the Trout and Reis school, though, (they wrote that a brand should stand for one thing, not two) and that school of branding thought isn’t well respected at Microsoft.
LikeLike
Chris: Microsoft’s theory is that they have hundreds of millions of people who recognize the name “Windows” and who use Microsoft Windows and so they’ll be more likely to also use “Windows Live.”
I personally would rather invest in building a new brand, but that’s just me. I’m from the Trout and Reis school, though, (they wrote that a brand should stand for one thing, not two) and that school of branding thought isn’t well respected at Microsoft.
LikeLike
Sadly, by the time people wake up to the amount of information and subsequent control Google will have over their users, it will be too late to complain and too hard to get out from the grips of all of their free apps. These free apps of course only help solidify their hold on aggregating more valuable data about us. When that day comes, we will sit around pining for the days where Microsoft was the lord of the manor 😉
LikeLike
Sadly, by the time people wake up to the amount of information and subsequent control Google will have over their users, it will be too late to complain and too hard to get out from the grips of all of their free apps. These free apps of course only help solidify their hold on aggregating more valuable data about us. When that day comes, we will sit around pining for the days where Microsoft was the lord of the manor 😉
LikeLike
Wasn’t there a Business Week article last month saying that Google has basically FAILED in everything it’s tried except search and ads? GMail uptake is flat, Google Maps is played with for a few minutes but rarelly actually used, their other stuff is far behind the market leaders (instant messaging, voice messaging, video sharing, etc).
Apple gets tons of blogger press, yet Mac’s usershare is still 4%. Linux’s is 0.4% despite years and years of hype.
http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=2
http://www.onestat.com/html/aboutus_pressbox46-operating-systems-market-share.html
http://www.thecounter.com/stats/2006/April/os.php
http://www.artlebedev.com/tools/browsers/
There’s a HUGE difference between the tech-hype media/bloggers and the real world.
LikeLike
Wasn’t there a Business Week article last month saying that Google has basically FAILED in everything it’s tried except search and ads? GMail uptake is flat, Google Maps is played with for a few minutes but rarelly actually used, their other stuff is far behind the market leaders (instant messaging, voice messaging, video sharing, etc).
Apple gets tons of blogger press, yet Mac’s usershare is still 4%. Linux’s is 0.4% despite years and years of hype.
http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=2
http://www.onestat.com/html/aboutus_pressbox46-operating-systems-market-share.html
http://www.thecounter.com/stats/2006/April/os.php
http://www.artlebedev.com/tools/browsers/
There’s a HUGE difference between the tech-hype media/bloggers and the real world.
LikeLike
Robert, Trout and Ries were wrong. The mind is extremely complex–associating a brand if one thing is associating with little or nothing. You understood Trout and Ries well and they made a good buck with their theory. But they were wrong. The neuro-scientific fact is the reverse. Consumers have memories, a collection of interconnected thoughts called mental models( thoughts are themselves a collection of neurons)and many consumers share similar models. This is where the gold is. You must identify these thoughts/models and know the cues that elicit the right emotions and the right behavior–and its not a word. People are not simpletons–not stupid, they are very very complex. that’s a beautiful thing. I’ll bet MS and Google have yet to do this work–but it is the most reliable course to take. The rest is a crapshoot that lines the pockets of promoters and lazy marketers. I spend my time (when I am not immersed in conferencing in web 2.0) undoing their doings in executive seminars by explaining how the mind works and reacts. Everything changes after day. Aaarrrrgh! to those who still have not flamed their marshmellows over this useful fire-starter.
LikeLike
Robert, Trout and Ries were wrong. The mind is extremely complex–associating a brand if one thing is associating with little or nothing. You understood Trout and Ries well and they made a good buck with their theory. But they were wrong. The neuro-scientific fact is the reverse. Consumers have memories, a collection of interconnected thoughts called mental models( thoughts are themselves a collection of neurons)and many consumers share similar models. This is where the gold is. You must identify these thoughts/models and know the cues that elicit the right emotions and the right behavior–and its not a word. People are not simpletons–not stupid, they are very very complex. that’s a beautiful thing. I’ll bet MS and Google have yet to do this work–but it is the most reliable course to take. The rest is a crapshoot that lines the pockets of promoters and lazy marketers. I spend my time (when I am not immersed in conferencing in web 2.0) undoing their doings in executive seminars by explaining how the mind works and reacts. Everything changes after day. Aaarrrrgh! to those who still have not flamed their marshmellows over this useful fire-starter.
LikeLike
Marie: heheh, bringing up Reis and Trout sure does get passions going, doesn’t it?
Kermit: I thought I read that Apple’s market share has gone up a lot lately. If I remember right someone said it was up to 12% in the latest quarter.
You’ve described how hard it is to get people to change their usage, right. Google talk usage is heading up, by the way. Watch for that number to change at next report.
Google Maps has 17% of the market and is going up. The trick is to watch its rate of growth. That’ll tell you more than the current market share.
LikeLike
Marie: heheh, bringing up Reis and Trout sure does get passions going, doesn’t it?
Kermit: I thought I read that Apple’s market share has gone up a lot lately. If I remember right someone said it was up to 12% in the latest quarter.
You’ve described how hard it is to get people to change their usage, right. Google talk usage is heading up, by the way. Watch for that number to change at next report.
Google Maps has 17% of the market and is going up. The trick is to watch its rate of growth. That’ll tell you more than the current market share.
LikeLike
“Steve Jobs said it best earlier this month: “Microsoft spends $5 Billion a year in reseach and development, and what do they come up with? All they can do is copy Apple and Google.””
It’s that kind of childishness that contributed that recent WWDC keynote to being the worst WWDC keynote ever.
See what GarageGames’ Jeff Tunnell said regarding it:
http://makeitbigingames.com/blog/?p=32
“Lately, I have been having second thoughts about OS-X games and committing to “cross platform” development in the sense of PC and OS-X. After spending 1 1/2 hours watching Apple’s Steve Jobs give the worst WWDC keynote in history, I decided to air my concerns on this blog. …
…
…
Somehow, between this initial elation and the audience raving about pricing of X-Serve, the famed “reality distortion” field wore off. It was as if a bubble popped. Maybe it was because Steve had multiple people giving the presentation, maybe it was the continued jabs at Microsoft, or maybe it was just that Apple had so little to talk about.”
Oh, and Jeff Tunnell used to be a rabid Microsoft hater; see his 2001 blogs. 😉
LikeLike
“Steve Jobs said it best earlier this month: “Microsoft spends $5 Billion a year in reseach and development, and what do they come up with? All they can do is copy Apple and Google.””
It’s that kind of childishness that contributed that recent WWDC keynote to being the worst WWDC keynote ever.
See what GarageGames’ Jeff Tunnell said regarding it:
http://makeitbigingames.com/blog/?p=32
“Lately, I have been having second thoughts about OS-X games and committing to “cross platform” development in the sense of PC and OS-X. After spending 1 1/2 hours watching Apple’s Steve Jobs give the worst WWDC keynote in history, I decided to air my concerns on this blog. …
…
…
Somehow, between this initial elation and the audience raving about pricing of X-Serve, the famed “reality distortion” field wore off. It was as if a bubble popped. Maybe it was because Steve had multiple people giving the presentation, maybe it was the continued jabs at Microsoft, or maybe it was just that Apple had so little to talk about.”
Oh, and Jeff Tunnell used to be a rabid Microsoft hater; see his 2001 blogs. 😉
LikeLike
I’m convinced MS hires marketing MBA’s that failed branding classes.
LikeLike
I’m convinced MS hires marketing MBA’s that failed branding classes.
LikeLike
“I thought I read that Apple’s market share has gone up a lot lately. If I remember right someone said it was up to 12% in the latest quarter.”
Note quite Robert…check this out:
Apple’s Macintosh market share soars 16 percent…to 4.8%. Still pretty low…
http://www.macworld.com/news/2006/07/20/marketshare/index.php
LikeLike
“I thought I read that Apple’s market share has gone up a lot lately. If I remember right someone said it was up to 12% in the latest quarter.”
Note quite Robert…check this out:
Apple’s Macintosh market share soars 16 percent…to 4.8%. Still pretty low…
http://www.macworld.com/news/2006/07/20/marketshare/index.php
LikeLike
Two things I like to keep in mind…
1 – one of the first, and best, uses of real-time web pages (aka ajax) is Microsoft Outlook Web Access. Nothing beats it.
2 – google, via adsense, has screwed up the Web MUCH more than microsoft ever has…
LikeLike
Two things I like to keep in mind…
1 – one of the first, and best, uses of real-time web pages (aka ajax) is Microsoft Outlook Web Access. Nothing beats it.
2 – google, via adsense, has screwed up the Web MUCH more than microsoft ever has…
LikeLike
Scoble, pardon me while I go get a big violin and play it for MS. Every body’s out to get them – the Feds, the EEC, now bloggers. Consumers give them $ 40 billion a year. They give their R&D teams $ 6 billion a year. Results – late products, poor quality, then turn around and give massive payouts to investors rather than lower prices, improve product output. Google may get these bad habits some day but to date it has been an innvoator in a lot of areas…Even Larry Ellison has commented he cannot believe MS has Google envy. MS needs to quit looking backwards at Google and more towards much bigger players like IBM, Verizon, Oracle…ad revenue is puny compared to the $ 500 billion MS can get from markets of the top 20 IT and telecom vendors
LikeLike
Scoble, pardon me while I go get a big violin and play it for MS. Every body’s out to get them – the Feds, the EEC, now bloggers. Consumers give them $ 40 billion a year. They give their R&D teams $ 6 billion a year. Results – late products, poor quality, then turn around and give massive payouts to investors rather than lower prices, improve product output. Google may get these bad habits some day but to date it has been an innvoator in a lot of areas…Even Larry Ellison has commented he cannot believe MS has Google envy. MS needs to quit looking backwards at Google and more towards much bigger players like IBM, Verizon, Oracle…ad revenue is puny compared to the $ 500 billion MS can get from markets of the top 20 IT and telecom vendors
LikeLike
What the heck?
I feel like I just crashed a party for the Web’s blogging luminaries. Is this truly the comment thread for the IlumiBloggerati? I’ll go hide my hyundai behind this ferrari over here.
LikeLike
What the heck?
I feel like I just crashed a party for the Web’s blogging luminaries. Is this truly the comment thread for the IlumiBloggerati? I’ll go hide my hyundai behind this ferrari over here.
LikeLike
Two words: Cross Platform.
That’s why Google gets my respect, and Microsoft can kiss my apple.
LikeLike
Two words: Cross Platform.
That’s why Google gets my respect, and Microsoft can kiss my apple.
LikeLike
“Google talk usage is heading up, by the way. Watch for that number to change at next report.”
Of course it’ll head up, but you talk as if it’ll constantly double evern N days.
But this July 2006 report shows how pathetic GTalk’s share really is:
http://www.techcrunch.com/2006/07/24/instant-messaging-and-trashing-google
“The user numbers coming out on Google Talk are staggeringly terrible. Comscore usage numbers show that nearly a year after launch Google is a distant, distant 4th after MSN, Yahoo and AIM. They hold a pitiful 1% of total instant messaging market share, with 3.4 million unique users in May 2006. See the Comscore chart below for more details (I wonder where Skype IM falls in those stats). Note that Comscore does not include Google Talk usage within Gmail itself (where it is embedded), but even factoring that in, the numbers are just awful.
The NYT picked up on this as well, noting that “Google Talk chat software had only 44,000 users in June”. Om Malik notes that there have been only about a million total downloads of the client.
Where does Google go from here? I suggest they roll some heads and figure out a real product strategy.”
I don’t “quote” the chart itself; you can click the link to see it.
I’m sure that GTalk’s usage will increase over time, but I’ve grown tired of seeing Google portrayed like they can do no wrong, when in reality they seem to do very little right.
I don’t really like the direction that they’re taking the web anyway. Seems like more and more articles are 20 pages long, each with only a few sentences per page, so that the article can be filled to the brim with google ads.
LikeLike
“Google talk usage is heading up, by the way. Watch for that number to change at next report.”
Of course it’ll head up, but you talk as if it’ll constantly double evern N days.
But this July 2006 report shows how pathetic GTalk’s share really is:
http://www.techcrunch.com/2006/07/24/instant-messaging-and-trashing-google
“The user numbers coming out on Google Talk are staggeringly terrible. Comscore usage numbers show that nearly a year after launch Google is a distant, distant 4th after MSN, Yahoo and AIM. They hold a pitiful 1% of total instant messaging market share, with 3.4 million unique users in May 2006. See the Comscore chart below for more details (I wonder where Skype IM falls in those stats). Note that Comscore does not include Google Talk usage within Gmail itself (where it is embedded), but even factoring that in, the numbers are just awful.
The NYT picked up on this as well, noting that “Google Talk chat software had only 44,000 users in June”. Om Malik notes that there have been only about a million total downloads of the client.
Where does Google go from here? I suggest they roll some heads and figure out a real product strategy.”
I don’t “quote” the chart itself; you can click the link to see it.
I’m sure that GTalk’s usage will increase over time, but I’ve grown tired of seeing Google portrayed like they can do no wrong, when in reality they seem to do very little right.
I don’t really like the direction that they’re taking the web anyway. Seems like more and more articles are 20 pages long, each with only a few sentences per page, so that the article can be filled to the brim with google ads.
LikeLike
related cartoon:
http://www.gapingvoid.com/Moveable_Type/archives/003230.html
LikeLike
related cartoon:
http://www.gapingvoid.com/Moveable_Type/archives/003230.html
LikeLike
Please explain what you think is exciting about ERP
Exciting? Wotchtalkingaboutwillis? Put down the coding Mountain Dew. Nothing is exciting about ERP. But it be vital. Try wrapping a Fortune 100 supply-chain management heavy app around a Googleish Webby-Mash-up, well, instant death. ERP is a commodity sure, but a bad implementation can ruin companies, see AT&T Wireless and that failed Siebel upgrade.
My point being tho, most bloggers are of the HTML markup webby sort, and have no idea of the real needs of the Enterprise. Mostly Comp-Sci grads tossed into software, with zero understanding of the underlining business processes at work, yabbing away on their blogs, thinking “exciting” Webby software is the only path to salvation.
LikeLike
Please explain what you think is exciting about ERP
Exciting? Wotchtalkingaboutwillis? Put down the coding Mountain Dew. Nothing is exciting about ERP. But it be vital. Try wrapping a Fortune 100 supply-chain management heavy app around a Googleish Webby-Mash-up, well, instant death. ERP is a commodity sure, but a bad implementation can ruin companies, see AT&T Wireless and that failed Siebel upgrade.
My point being tho, most bloggers are of the HTML markup webby sort, and have no idea of the real needs of the Enterprise. Mostly Comp-Sci grads tossed into software, with zero understanding of the underlining business processes at work, yabbing away on their blogs, thinking “exciting” Webby software is the only path to salvation.
LikeLike
Christopher: ahhhh the voice of reason. Web apps must be celebrated within their means! For now.
Kermit: it’s just marketing as a root cause. The ol brand extension I posted earlier today. Many good brands die on execution. Googling everything does not bode well because they have attached themselves too strongly to product (search) rather than meaning. There’s no stretch room. A new brand is required to win the hearts of these consumers. Yahoo on the other ahnd has broader emotional meaning. And MSN is been the original social enabler. See?
Good night everybody and thanks Robert for all the fun.
Tomorrow I’ll get some real work done. So don’t go posting something interesting that gets me all fired up again.
LikeLike
Christopher: ahhhh the voice of reason. Web apps must be celebrated within their means! For now.
Kermit: it’s just marketing as a root cause. The ol brand extension I posted earlier today. Many good brands die on execution. Googling everything does not bode well because they have attached themselves too strongly to product (search) rather than meaning. There’s no stretch room. A new brand is required to win the hearts of these consumers. Yahoo on the other ahnd has broader emotional meaning. And MSN is been the original social enabler. See?
Good night everybody and thanks Robert for all the fun.
Tomorrow I’ll get some real work done. So don’t go posting something interesting that gets me all fired up again.
LikeLike
Robert,
Some good points. But you forgot to mention the all-important common perception of Microsoft and Google as companies. This is possibly the giant killer, the make or break deal when all this Web 2.0 stuff finally shakes out.
Google’s “Don’t be evil” mantra and demonstrated (read that again, *demonstrated*) good will has won the hearts of millions. I used to be a Microsoft zealot. For years, I pushed MS products to my friends and bosses because I was loyal. Now I push Google stuff where applicable.
Mindshare. Microsoft’s got it. Google’s got it. But it looks like Google has the most sustainable mindshare with possibly the least churn (in the web space only, of course. But isn’t that where everything is going?). Even if Google and Microsoft are doing the same evil things to us and our data inside their respective black boxes, Google has at least made public claims for us to hold them accountable to, and this brings a certain peace of mind – however misplaced it may or may not be.
Microsoft – ignoring Vista delays – just hasn’t given us anything to rally to in a long time. Now, I love what is happening with Xbox, and opening up the platform for indie developers was a sweet move indeed. We need more of that.
Anyway, with Ray, it looks like we’re seeing the twinkle of new beginnings at Microsoft. With the blogosphere and new media taking shape the way it is, the people have eyes and ears in all places now. We watch companies closely. We hold companies accountable and flay them alive when they behave badly.
Sure, Microsoft can get by on brute force for probably a long time to come still, but I think it knows it needs to play ball in order to win more quality mindshare; the kind of brand loyalty that makes the products sell themselves. This may yet be the only battle that matters in the future as commodity technologies and services distribute among the masses.
I’m grateful for the competition Google has brought, and I hope it makes a better, smarter, and – most of all – a more lovable Microsoft.
LikeLike
Robert,
Some good points. But you forgot to mention the all-important common perception of Microsoft and Google as companies. This is possibly the giant killer, the make or break deal when all this Web 2.0 stuff finally shakes out.
Google’s “Don’t be evil” mantra and demonstrated (read that again, *demonstrated*) good will has won the hearts of millions. I used to be a Microsoft zealot. For years, I pushed MS products to my friends and bosses because I was loyal. Now I push Google stuff where applicable.
Mindshare. Microsoft’s got it. Google’s got it. But it looks like Google has the most sustainable mindshare with possibly the least churn (in the web space only, of course. But isn’t that where everything is going?). Even if Google and Microsoft are doing the same evil things to us and our data inside their respective black boxes, Google has at least made public claims for us to hold them accountable to, and this brings a certain peace of mind – however misplaced it may or may not be.
Microsoft – ignoring Vista delays – just hasn’t given us anything to rally to in a long time. Now, I love what is happening with Xbox, and opening up the platform for indie developers was a sweet move indeed. We need more of that.
Anyway, with Ray, it looks like we’re seeing the twinkle of new beginnings at Microsoft. With the blogosphere and new media taking shape the way it is, the people have eyes and ears in all places now. We watch companies closely. We hold companies accountable and flay them alive when they behave badly.
Sure, Microsoft can get by on brute force for probably a long time to come still, but I think it knows it needs to play ball in order to win more quality mindshare; the kind of brand loyalty that makes the products sell themselves. This may yet be the only battle that matters in the future as commodity technologies and services distribute among the masses.
I’m grateful for the competition Google has brought, and I hope it makes a better, smarter, and – most of all – a more lovable Microsoft.
LikeLike
the biggest target is the one anyone with a (half) brain can hit. sorry if I speak the truth (I mean, offend somebody)
LikeLike
the biggest target is the one anyone with a (half) brain can hit. sorry if I speak the truth (I mean, offend somebody)
LikeLike
Hm, you did not touch reasons which I would like to see listed:
– Google said “don’t be evil”; sure, they made their mistakes, but Microsoft never even said something like that, the philosophy tends in another direction
– Google keeps close to real standards: whenever I start something from Microsoft I can be sure that it will not work with any other solution except the other solution also comes from Microsoft: Google even supports independent and open development, Microsoft oppresses it wherever it can catch it
– although Google has a huge market share (in Germany for example it is often said more than 85%!), it is clear that Microsoft will battle this down, with the usual way of bundled monopoly, so why care about Google as a monopolist when it will not last?
Both of them are guilty in case of forwarding private data of users to government structures which are not democratic or “good”, whatever that means.
And last but not least: Microsoft is an aggressive monopolist, condemned several times but continues this way of marketing. That is not really a company which I would celebrate, even if they have some nice things.
The level Microsoft has to reach to be celebrated because of something new is much higher, some of the reasons I mentioned probably have caused this, too.
LikeLike
Hm, you did not touch reasons which I would like to see listed:
– Google said “don’t be evil”; sure, they made their mistakes, but Microsoft never even said something like that, the philosophy tends in another direction
– Google keeps close to real standards: whenever I start something from Microsoft I can be sure that it will not work with any other solution except the other solution also comes from Microsoft: Google even supports independent and open development, Microsoft oppresses it wherever it can catch it
– although Google has a huge market share (in Germany for example it is often said more than 85%!), it is clear that Microsoft will battle this down, with the usual way of bundled monopoly, so why care about Google as a monopolist when it will not last?
Both of them are guilty in case of forwarding private data of users to government structures which are not democratic or “good”, whatever that means.
And last but not least: Microsoft is an aggressive monopolist, condemned several times but continues this way of marketing. That is not really a company which I would celebrate, even if they have some nice things.
The level Microsoft has to reach to be celebrated because of something new is much higher, some of the reasons I mentioned probably have caused this, too.
LikeLike
Google is an innovative company, and Microsoft steals almost ALL of its ideas for products from small companies with big ideas and even bigger balls. That is why anyone who appreciates the internet for its innovation, appreciates Google over Microsoft. Sad… but true. Get over it.
LikeLike
Google is an innovative company, and Microsoft steals almost ALL of its ideas for products from small companies with big ideas and even bigger balls. That is why anyone who appreciates the internet for its innovation, appreciates Google over Microsoft. Sad… but true. Get over it.
LikeLike
Google gets comment share because its positioning is currently hot. Google is both salient and relevant to most of what is going on in the Internet space. Web marketing is hot as corporations shift advertising dollars from traditional to new media. Search is hot as advertisers increasingly embrace both paid and natural strategies to boost ROI. Web 2.0 is hot as Myspace et al make the news. Google is central to all of this activity. By comparison Microsoft – and its core psoitioning as a provider of desktop software – seems so 1990s.
LikeLike
Google gets comment share because its positioning is currently hot. Google is both salient and relevant to most of what is going on in the Internet space. Web marketing is hot as corporations shift advertising dollars from traditional to new media. Search is hot as advertisers increasingly embrace both paid and natural strategies to boost ROI. Web 2.0 is hot as Myspace et al make the news. Google is central to all of this activity. By comparison Microsoft – and its core psoitioning as a provider of desktop software – seems so 1990s.
LikeLike
7. Google doesn’t do a lot of breathless, in your face advertising, previews and announcements 6 months in advance of a product. They typically release a decent product on the day they announce it and let the product stand for itself.
LikeLike
7. Google doesn’t do a lot of breathless, in your face advertising, previews and announcements 6 months in advance of a product. They typically release a decent product on the day they announce it and let the product stand for itself.
LikeLike
Brilliant post! And somehow the fact that Google is a bloody coprporate giant is lost in all the free stuff they dole out.
LikeLike
Brilliant post! And somehow the fact that Google is a bloody coprporate giant is lost in all the free stuff they dole out.
LikeLike
Excellent ppst, Scoble. As Google makes its way to the top, the Establishment, I am beginning to notice this “double-standard” in that people are bashing Google’s stuff, and hyping smaller companies. It is just a cycle. No matter who is doing better work, people always seem to go for the little guy. I do my best not to be biased against (or for) Microsoft, Google, or any small startups.
LikeLike
Excellent ppst, Scoble. As Google makes its way to the top, the Establishment, I am beginning to notice this “double-standard” in that people are bashing Google’s stuff, and hyping smaller companies. It is just a cycle. No matter who is doing better work, people always seem to go for the little guy. I do my best not to be biased against (or for) Microsoft, Google, or any small startups.
LikeLike
Chris P., (Crispy?) Robert is partly right. Apple’s share in recently sold laptops is 12 percent. Also, about five percent overall doubles Apple computer sells from two or three years ago.
LikeLike
Chris P., (Crispy?) Robert is partly right. Apple’s share in recently sold laptops is 12 percent. Also, about five percent overall doubles Apple computer sells from two or three years ago.
LikeLike
Google does talk to bloggers, well he does me. He sent me this peace of paper, that says “Pay to the Order of” I get this same message every few months. Google also says here try this new applicaion, its free enjoy. Gmail, Analytics, Adsense, Desktop all come to mind, all rock and make my day go better.
Microsoft on the other hand has never sent me anything with the words “Pay to the order of” they come close but usually theirs say “Pay in order to use our software”
LikeLike
Google does talk to bloggers, well he does me. He sent me this peace of paper, that says “Pay to the Order of” I get this same message every few months. Google also says here try this new applicaion, its free enjoy. Gmail, Analytics, Adsense, Desktop all come to mind, all rock and make my day go better.
Microsoft on the other hand has never sent me anything with the words “Pay to the order of” they come close but usually theirs say “Pay in order to use our software”
LikeLike
Microsoft just doesnt get it. The reason Google is now a verb for searching is because of intention.
The difference between MS and Google:
Goole tried to build the best search engine based on innovative search retrieval technology. They succeeded, and subsequently monetized their invention.
Microsoft created a system to deliver ads (MSN), then tried to pretend it was a search engine.
Throughout the 30 year history of Microsoft, they have proven they cannot be trusted. In Google’s short 8 year history, they have thus far not betrayed users trust.
LikeLike
Microsoft just doesnt get it. The reason Google is now a verb for searching is because of intention.
The difference between MS and Google:
Goole tried to build the best search engine based on innovative search retrieval technology. They succeeded, and subsequently monetized their invention.
Microsoft created a system to deliver ads (MSN), then tried to pretend it was a search engine.
Throughout the 30 year history of Microsoft, they have proven they cannot be trusted. In Google’s short 8 year history, they have thus far not betrayed users trust.
LikeLike