Feeds

back to article Google and Microsoft in trading places shocker

Microsoft and Google seem to be trading wardrobes of late. Microsoft used to be easy to pick out: black-hat-wearing-bad-guy constantly in hot water with global antitrust authorities and married to proprietary software and not-so-open standards. Google donned a white hat, talked a lot about openness, and was loved everyone ( …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
Anonymous Coward

This isn't new.

Micros~1 have, time and time again, missed the boat and then fought hard to catch up by embracing, extending, and extinguishing. Do I need to mention "IE6" or the timespan between that and the next version here? Well, do I? Even HTML5 openness is mostly a lie, as you can see in various "oh yes we're open" followed by "oh we're not really open", or "we're only open with a special tag for us alone" or I forgot what other silliness. That's not what "open" means.

It's even infected nokia, who put it very clearly: "Open" only means "open for business" to this bunch. Any time you think it means anything else, you're being screwed. Sucker.

Had we cared enough we'd browbeaten nokia into publicly apologising for misleading their few leftover fans. But that didn't happen. The word-twisters still have free reign.

What we're seeing here is masterful spin by a monopolist and marketing specialist as a self-declared "not evil" advertising monopolist slides off deeper into the murky morass of, well, evil. It doesn't mean the other guys are suddenly less evil. They haven't moved and still have it in their blood and that's not going to change.

The more I read insightful commentary like this the more I wonder just where companies get their executives from. It's not mere stupidity or callousness. It's probably the reality distorting shades only sold in very secret shops. Actual cursed items that you can't ever take off once donned, too.

5
3
Coat

"masterful spin by a...marketing specialist"

I'd hardly call Microsoft's marking division a "specialist" group...

0
0

Skype

I doubt adverts will be the way they monetise Skype.

We get a lot of contact with our customers through Skype, technical discussions, meetings, etc.

Skype-out failed as normal punters are reluctant to pay-up, and more inclined to get their contacts to use Skype, which undermines it as a challenger to full fledged landline/mobile use by reducing their customer base.

'Skype-productivity' or something, that bolts on VNC, shared whiteboards, etc, to enhance business use would be my bet for adding that special Microsoft sauce we then find we can't do without.

Why business has gone and created a dependency on monolithic Skype, instead of the alternative competitive market of SIP based services, is surely a lesson in both the power of marketing and the brains vulnerability to being scarred by freakish new nouns.

0
0
Thumb Down

Skype's monetisation is elsewhere, it needs no adverts

Having a voice framework that bypasses the operator gives Microsoft the leverage to negotiate with Mobile Cos on what exactly will happen with the VAS and revenue model in 4G/LTE.

If it did not have Skype it would have had to go IMS voice which in the endgame means ending up with IMS for everything. IMS puts the operator in control of the charging model and Microsoft can kiss goodbye to in-app revenue and most app revenue. If your app needs to pay for a permission to talk to the network you are not going to pay for it twice. You will pay for it to the operator and this is one of the weapon which IMS will give to the operators so they can turn the tables on the app crowd.

Having Skype it can now (same as Google with voice and Apple with Facetime) tell the operator "so what, we will not support it and just use our own voice with data instead". It can now negotiate for having a proper part of VAS pie. Even if it goes the IMS route the operators will have to make some significant concessions.

In any case, Skype has given it this option. This by itself probably costs more than 8 billion over the course of the next 5-7 years. Any revenue Skype provides on top is a welcome addition. It is however non-essential.

1
0
Thumb Up

Good summary.

Good summary of the M$/Google situation.

As usual and always, users have to be wary and protect their interests. Corporate profits and users' real interests are always mismatched.

1
0
Silver badge

Sponsorship message

Shouldn't there be a "sponsored by Facebook" on this bit of wit?

1
0
Anonymous Coward

Microsoft? Black Hats? They wish!

Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.

0
0
Gates Horns

"Steve Ballmer is unlikely to be sainted any time soon"

Certainly not while he's alive.

Hold on lads, I've got an idea!

1
0
Gates Halo

To be fair...

M$ give away quite a surprising range of software. The "express" products and M$ Robotics Developer Studio seem pretty good.

I know they're looking to push spotty yoof down the M$ path, not being either stupid or unaware of the appeal of quality software at zero cost, but these products are excellent for people who either can't afford or can't justify the purchase or maintenance of the "Pro" series and similar. This must be quite effective in keeping students and the like out of the clutches of the penguin.

1
1
WTF?

Android vs Office and Open Source

Has anyone ever heard of an open version of Office or Windows?!

1
0
Joke

Can't resist saying this...

"Has anyone ever heard of an open version of Office or Windows?!"

uummm... Open Office :)

and then something "open with Windows" ... Linux has windows and icons and buttons etc..

0
0
Silver badge

Pedantry Smackdown!

"Linux has windows and buttons"

BZZZT

Geek cred FAIL

Linux has no such things.

Gnome, KDE, XFCE etc? Well they are a different kettle of fish.

We really need a Saint Beardy icon for posts like these!

http://www.cyberlaw.se/gnugirl/wp-content/upload/thumb-saintignucius.jpg

0
0
This topic is closed for new posts.