Why Google's monopoly is better than Microsoft's monopoly
At first, I did not want to publish my next opus on Habré, but one of the latest materials did not allow me to hold on.
“Moderate apologists of the golden mean” lead me to such thoughts, which single out a counterexample as arguments against Microsoft - supposedly a monopoly of Google, with the rhetorical question “why Google is possible, and Microsoft is not”? I may put forward, perhaps, the controversial thesis that Google is really possible, but Microsoft really isn’t.
To begin, perhaps, with the fact that Google, although it occupies a leading position in its market, but they are not far as indicative as Microsoft. It is enough to cite the numbers (http://www.3dnews.ru/news/rezultati_google_v_3_kvartale_dohodi_virosli_na_46-269977/). In 2007, its share in search engines accounted for 57% of all queries. Other services, such as Gmail, Google Reader, etc. occupy a much smaller percentage among competitors. If you compare with 98% of Windows shares on desktops, and 70% in the server market , not to mention the rest of the gap, where Microsoft sticks his nose (more on this below).
So we see very well that Google is competing quite honestly in the field of Internet services: it wins somewhere, loses somewhere, has competitors (Yahoo, the same Microsoft on a global scale, and a bunch of individual companies in particular) moreover, he conducts his activity in his field (Internet services), usually not getting out of it (GPhone is still a unique case, and it is aimed just at maintaining and developing Internet services, that is, not to compete with Nokia & Samsung & etc.) ). And, interestingly, Google here (in the market of Internet services) is really an innovator , and you can't argue with that. The first gave a massive impetus to the development of AJAX, first developed the idea of transferring off-line products to on-line (Google Docs, etc.), first developed the contextual advertising market (AdWords), first came up with the idea to show the world removed from the satellite via the Internet service, opened A unique statistics service (Analytics - not in terms of its technical stuffing, but in terms of marketing weight), finally realized, and began actions to ensure that the future belongs to mobile phones. If I am mistaken somewhere in the championship, then the laurels of popularization in any case belong to Google. And each of these examples subsequently shamefully copied Microsoft into a catch-up.
With Microsoft, the situation is drastically different. She is trying to get all the areas of the IT-market and is fighting on all fronts. The list goes on and on: OS - pure monopoly, direct competition with Google (MSN, MSN Virtual Earth, Gatineau), development tools and programming languages (Visual Basic, Visual Studio, ASP, .NET, etc.), office suites, games, phones (Zune), computer games, document management systems and business applications, DBMS and servers (IIS, MSSQL, Windows 2003), browsers (IE), media content (Microsoft DRM / Media Player vs Apple DRM / iTunes) ... Name any A serious niche in IT and look for (in MSN?) What is the name of the product from Microsoft in this niche. As soon as an interesting product comes out, they immediately release their “own” competitor, distorting ideas and niches from Apple, Google (here it’s just completely ridiculous). They stick their nose in all the cracks.
')
But these are lyrics that are too collapsible and very tight, where Google is beautiful, and Microsoft is ugly; There are things for which Microsoft can be respected, and Google is not to love. Well, their right - compete with everyone, and to hell with them. What is the problem? Obviously, they are too actively using their monopoly position in the market, by means of it, by means of it promoting their own products. Here, I think everything is simple - we get the OS market, which means we immediately rivet and sell development tools for it, and a bunch of other software; On the OS, we install the default browser, and in a blink of an eye - 95% of users (there were such numbers) OS become users of this browser, and here we have a field for creativity: we do not follow the standards (ergo, we are even more popular ) we include unique features that are not available to other browsers, and we write under them web interfaces, etc.
Thus, this leads to economic expansion, when the IT world, as in a vicious circle, cannot get anywhere: they do not switch to other operating systems, because there is no software for them, there is no software, because there are few users. Microsoft exercises in varying degrees both at the parent levels (OS, development tools) and at the child (browser, office packages, etc), building an ideal monopolistic paradigm that is conducive to maintaining a monopoly at all levels. The consequences are price controls, control of proprietary proprietary protocols. interfaces for which Microsoft sells licenses that cost money that we pay (refer to Leonid Kaganov's famous article ). In other words, the goal of Microsoft (like any other commercial organization) is to get the maximum profit. And she does this through the achievement of maximum isolation of the market. And judging by the latest facts, it makes it very dirty - http://habrahabr.ru/blog/linux/29823.html . And the above is written enough what is at stake in a fight between Microsoft & Mandriva. If the programming language is yours, if the databases are, then yours is all yours, Microsoft never uses other technologies in its development. If they lack some technology, they will take it and do it. And then on it will build what was required at the beginning.
Such activity hinders the development of science and technology, since Microsoft closes all its standards, patents them (remember only this fake noise about the fact that Linux allegedly violates Microsoft patents). Do not forget, the share of MS on desktops is 98%, so any standard is potentially as dominant as the OS itself. This leads to the fact that other developers have to develop a bicycle again, instead of moving on.
What is better than Google? Yes, Google has a high market share in [one] of its area, and it is gaining momentum and becoming more popular, but ... with an increase in turnover, the IT market is getting better, since Google does not force out other technologies, but syndicates them, takes them in itself, making better not only their products without an unnecessary increase in labor costs (and therefore, an unnecessary increase in cost), but also gives people their development. So it became with Google Maps - they simply distributed to everyone their API and allowed to create with their maps everything they wanted, absolutely free of charge. I’m not talking about the amount of OpenSource development that Google gives to people: Google Web Toolkit, Tesseract, Guice, Java Collections Framework, gflags, perftools, sparsehash, ctemplate, and much, much more ... As well as dozens of interesting services useful to users and developers, access to which is absolutely free.
It is at Google headquarters that the KDE4 presentation will take place, Google constantly stands up for OpenSource products in the fight against proprietary software in general and Microsoft in particular , Google promotes third-party free and OpenSource products , actively promotes (standards-compliant) Firefox browser, provides legal support to various OpenSource organizations.
Google does not have a single paid product; they take the money from users to the maximum for expanding opportunities; only Google partners who earn money with us pay for everything with us. There is a rumor in the potency that there will be a number of paid products for business from Google on the market, but that’s another story.
As was nicely said by comrade nForce nForce:
Google manages to gain weight for valid voices of users, as it achieves the market not by cutting off all channels-exits, not giving alternatives, but by a simple scheme: it helps people, people help Google, and therefore Google becomes more. And this, I think, is a real, deserved monopoly, for which the user has made a choice, and not even with his wallet, but with his respect. Google just makes its good products, and does not block oxygen to others. People use Google not because they have no opportunity (physical, psychological) to go somewhere, but because they like to do it. From the monopoly of Google, no one will feel bad: with such a model, fair competition will always live, because It is based on user trust . So - in their sympathies. If Google’s products are more popular, it’s just because users (I’m careful better) are more popular with users, and not because Google leaves no other option. In the end, the monopoly of Google will never force anyone to pay more, as it generally does not need the money of users.
On the other hand, it is clear why Google promotes open and free products: it is not in the software market as such, it is directly, it is in the services market. It does not matter what is on the users' computers: IE or Firefox, Windows or Linux, it is important for them that this is more accessible and more convenient for users. Those. this means . It is important for him that his services are used by people, how will they do it and from what? It does not matter, but we must make them as accessible as possible. And free - the most affordable. Therefore, promote.
I respect Microsoft for their outstanding marketing and political talent, for their achievements, but do I like it? Not. Respect and love - different things, and they do not always intersect. They are great in their achievements, but it is not necessary to block oxygen. However, there are opinions that they are already exhausted. But because they are no less dangerous.
PS I apologize for any errors and typos.
“Moderate apologists of the golden mean” lead me to such thoughts, which single out a counterexample as arguments against Microsoft - supposedly a monopoly of Google, with the rhetorical question “why Google is possible, and Microsoft is not”? I may put forward, perhaps, the controversial thesis that Google is really possible, but Microsoft really isn’t.
To begin, perhaps, with the fact that Google, although it occupies a leading position in its market, but they are not far as indicative as Microsoft. It is enough to cite the numbers (http://www.3dnews.ru/news/rezultati_google_v_3_kvartale_dohodi_virosli_na_46-269977/). In 2007, its share in search engines accounted for 57% of all queries. Other services, such as Gmail, Google Reader, etc. occupy a much smaller percentage among competitors. If you compare with 98% of Windows shares on desktops, and 70% in the server market , not to mention the rest of the gap, where Microsoft sticks his nose (more on this below).
So we see very well that Google is competing quite honestly in the field of Internet services: it wins somewhere, loses somewhere, has competitors (Yahoo, the same Microsoft on a global scale, and a bunch of individual companies in particular) moreover, he conducts his activity in his field (Internet services), usually not getting out of it (GPhone is still a unique case, and it is aimed just at maintaining and developing Internet services, that is, not to compete with Nokia & Samsung & etc.) ). And, interestingly, Google here (in the market of Internet services) is really an innovator , and you can't argue with that. The first gave a massive impetus to the development of AJAX, first developed the idea of transferring off-line products to on-line (Google Docs, etc.), first developed the contextual advertising market (AdWords), first came up with the idea to show the world removed from the satellite via the Internet service, opened A unique statistics service (Analytics - not in terms of its technical stuffing, but in terms of marketing weight), finally realized, and began actions to ensure that the future belongs to mobile phones. If I am mistaken somewhere in the championship, then the laurels of popularization in any case belong to Google. And each of these examples subsequently shamefully copied Microsoft into a catch-up.
With Microsoft, the situation is drastically different. She is trying to get all the areas of the IT-market and is fighting on all fronts. The list goes on and on: OS - pure monopoly, direct competition with Google (MSN, MSN Virtual Earth, Gatineau), development tools and programming languages (Visual Basic, Visual Studio, ASP, .NET, etc.), office suites, games, phones (Zune), computer games, document management systems and business applications, DBMS and servers (IIS, MSSQL, Windows 2003), browsers (IE), media content (Microsoft DRM / Media Player vs Apple DRM / iTunes) ... Name any A serious niche in IT and look for (in MSN?) What is the name of the product from Microsoft in this niche. As soon as an interesting product comes out, they immediately release their “own” competitor, distorting ideas and niches from Apple, Google (here it’s just completely ridiculous). They stick their nose in all the cracks.
')
But these are lyrics that are too collapsible and very tight, where Google is beautiful, and Microsoft is ugly; There are things for which Microsoft can be respected, and Google is not to love. Well, their right - compete with everyone, and to hell with them. What is the problem? Obviously, they are too actively using their monopoly position in the market, by means of it, by means of it promoting their own products. Here, I think everything is simple - we get the OS market, which means we immediately rivet and sell development tools for it, and a bunch of other software; On the OS, we install the default browser, and in a blink of an eye - 95% of users (there were such numbers) OS become users of this browser, and here we have a field for creativity: we do not follow the standards (ergo, we are even more popular ) we include unique features that are not available to other browsers, and we write under them web interfaces, etc.
Thus, this leads to economic expansion, when the IT world, as in a vicious circle, cannot get anywhere: they do not switch to other operating systems, because there is no software for them, there is no software, because there are few users. Microsoft exercises in varying degrees both at the parent levels (OS, development tools) and at the child (browser, office packages, etc), building an ideal monopolistic paradigm that is conducive to maintaining a monopoly at all levels. The consequences are price controls, control of proprietary proprietary protocols. interfaces for which Microsoft sells licenses that cost money that we pay (refer to Leonid Kaganov's famous article ). In other words, the goal of Microsoft (like any other commercial organization) is to get the maximum profit. And she does this through the achievement of maximum isolation of the market. And judging by the latest facts, it makes it very dirty - http://habrahabr.ru/blog/linux/29823.html . And the above is written enough what is at stake in a fight between Microsoft & Mandriva. If the programming language is yours, if the databases are, then yours is all yours, Microsoft never uses other technologies in its development. If they lack some technology, they will take it and do it. And then on it will build what was required at the beginning.
Such activity hinders the development of science and technology, since Microsoft closes all its standards, patents them (remember only this fake noise about the fact that Linux allegedly violates Microsoft patents). Do not forget, the share of MS on desktops is 98%, so any standard is potentially as dominant as the OS itself. This leads to the fact that other developers have to develop a bicycle again, instead of moving on.
What is better than Google? Yes, Google has a high market share in [one] of its area, and it is gaining momentum and becoming more popular, but ... with an increase in turnover, the IT market is getting better, since Google does not force out other technologies, but syndicates them, takes them in itself, making better not only their products without an unnecessary increase in labor costs (and therefore, an unnecessary increase in cost), but also gives people their development. So it became with Google Maps - they simply distributed to everyone their API and allowed to create with their maps everything they wanted, absolutely free of charge. I’m not talking about the amount of OpenSource development that Google gives to people: Google Web Toolkit, Tesseract, Guice, Java Collections Framework, gflags, perftools, sparsehash, ctemplate, and much, much more ... As well as dozens of interesting services useful to users and developers, access to which is absolutely free.
It is at Google headquarters that the KDE4 presentation will take place, Google constantly stands up for OpenSource products in the fight against proprietary software in general and Microsoft in particular , Google promotes third-party free and OpenSource products , actively promotes (standards-compliant) Firefox browser, provides legal support to various OpenSource organizations.
Google does not have a single paid product; they take the money from users to the maximum for expanding opportunities; only Google partners who earn money with us pay for everything with us. There is a rumor in the potency that there will be a number of paid products for business from Google on the market, but that’s another story.
As was nicely said by comrade nForce nForce:
“With all the drawbacks of a monopoly, Google obviously chooses more socially pleasing methods — I feel the same way when Amarok fails — and before me they apologize politely and ask to help them. Google is a monopoly with a human face.
There are the same reasons why * nix will become, IMHO, popular - you are treated like a person, and not as a client - with a refined smile and eyes hungry for money ... and personal attitude - in our man-made age - a luxury that costs much more than money and wealth ”
Google manages to gain weight for valid voices of users, as it achieves the market not by cutting off all channels-exits, not giving alternatives, but by a simple scheme: it helps people, people help Google, and therefore Google becomes more. And this, I think, is a real, deserved monopoly, for which the user has made a choice, and not even with his wallet, but with his respect. Google just makes its good products, and does not block oxygen to others. People use Google not because they have no opportunity (physical, psychological) to go somewhere, but because they like to do it. From the monopoly of Google, no one will feel bad: with such a model, fair competition will always live, because It is based on user trust . So - in their sympathies. If Google’s products are more popular, it’s just because users (I’m careful better) are more popular with users, and not because Google leaves no other option. In the end, the monopoly of Google will never force anyone to pay more, as it generally does not need the money of users.
On the other hand, it is clear why Google promotes open and free products: it is not in the software market as such, it is directly, it is in the services market. It does not matter what is on the users' computers: IE or Firefox, Windows or Linux, it is important for them that this is more accessible and more convenient for users. Those. this means . It is important for him that his services are used by people, how will they do it and from what? It does not matter, but we must make them as accessible as possible. And free - the most affordable. Therefore, promote.
I respect Microsoft for their outstanding marketing and political talent, for their achievements, but do I like it? Not. Respect and love - different things, and they do not always intersect. They are great in their achievements, but it is not necessary to block oxygen. However, there are opinions that they are already exhausted. But because they are no less dangerous.
PS I apologize for any errors and typos.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/16055/
All Articles