

Google-Microsoft battle hurts consumers - edw519
http://www.newsweek.com/id/224597/output/print

======
1010011010
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.

~~~
1010011010
On the other hand. Microsoft _is_ all about _killing its enemies_. It sees the
world in those terms. So sad.

------
theschwa
"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.

------
wicknicks
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.

~~~
fnid
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.

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

That's the definition of innovation.

~~~
fnid
Not according to MW:

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

------
snprbob86
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.

~~~
stcredzero
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.

------
scscsc
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.

~~~
enomar
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.

------
jsz0
"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.

~~~
fnid
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.

~~~
ippisl
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.

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

