Sabot said:exoteric said:*snip*
I hear the message, I get the significance, I'm still saying, 'so what?'
Google dances around the edge of useful.
They just make a whole bunch of tools, how many are unique? how many of them are the best? how many would you actually use if you had to pay for them?
... we let Google off allot because stuff is 'free' ... when search advertising is really paying for it. Google leverage their finances they make by this method to make 'good enough' products place them in markets to weaken other organisations revenue streams because they know 'free' is a great price.
But I don't want to see innovation like this!
I want to see Google work more with other organisation (like Oracle, IBM and Microsoft) and build ontop of existing products enchancing them.
Our lifes are made up of data, much of it is duplicated and out of date because we make copies of it at points in time.
Google is uniquely placed to link the definitive sources of data to everyone who needs to use it, Google could help us find what we are looking for and deliver it in a uniformed way, which we pay them for.
Google could be the kick-arse search UDDI of the web, but no, they want to play 'we can make stuff better than you' games.
Can you see my frustration?
The Internet is big and companies like Google continue to think small ... and they have the assets at their fingers tips to really make a difference.
My message to Google is simple .... THINK BIGGER, THINK BEYOND I.T.
Don't think this is some major investment for Google. Even in Microsoft you see a lot of different groups making crap that has really very little hope of ever generating revenue. Big companies like to take a lot of positions in the market even some that don't seem to make any business sense. They won't bet the farm on any of them, but they'll invest a couple mill on it (which is petty cash for big companies).
Mostly I think this is designed to be a big FU to Microsoft. Microsoft wants to kill Google. This is not an empty threat. Microsoft is very good at killing companies. So Google has to act.
I only see one way Google can fight back: Google needs to kill Microsoft first.
So Google has to hit back where it hurts Microsoft. They won't hit the Xbox, that won't hurt Microsoft. They most certainly won't hit the Zune, that is a product that probably is a nice money sink. Not even Sharepoint or Exchange. No, you got to hit Microsoft were it hurts.
Almost all of Microsoft's riches comes from just two products, Windows and Office. If you weaken them, even by a little, you greatly weaken Microsoft as whole, everything becomes dysfunctional, including their completely unrelated attempts to kill Google.
This Chrome OS might not even be a successful product, but it doesn't have to be. It can act as a bargining chip for OEMs which could cause Microsoft to lower their OEM prices. That is exactly what happened on netbooks. Every $1 concession Microsoft makes to an OEM ultimately amounts to hundreds of millions in lost profit. That's less money Microsoft has on hand to attack Google with.
Google may be in a way, trying to cut off Microsoft's air supply. How ironic.