GOOGL - Google

[Guest valueInv]

Except the web was never a threat to Windows, Microsoft never disrupted the web - ask Google, Facebook, Paypal,etc

 

The web was the ultimate threat to Windows and still is.  The web is the primary reason why Apple was able to recover any amount of market share from the Wintel duopoly.  80% of what people do on their PCs today is through a browser window.  That shift in behaviour caused the issue of "no software on the Mac" to become secondary to "poor PC experience".

 

I think Arrington sums it up best:

 

http://techcrunch.com/2013/03/03/there-was-that-whole-internet-thing-too/

 

If you want to understand what really happened, read first hand from people who were actually there, not click bait bloggers:

 

http://www.mondaynote.com/2013/06/09/android-vs-apple-market-share-vs-profit-share-part-255/

[VAL9000]

On the desktop, Windows still dominates about two decades after the Internet was created - so how big a threat has it been?

 

Mobile has been a bigger threat to Windows than the Internet has. The web hasn't made a dent on Windows yet.

 

Some threats take time to evolve.  It took two decades to develop rich web applications.  Web apps in 2003 are easily bested by those from 2013.  Now applications delivered over the web are rich enough that they compete with desktop applications.  Hence the shift to Mac in that time frame.  It didn't hurt to give up your Outlook Express application because Gmail was already so much better.

 

Mobile doesn't explain the Mac's rise in market share, so it's not relevant to my original point: the web was and continues to be a threat to Windows.

 

You can say what you want about Arrington, but I think he makes a valid point.

 

I agree that mobile is a huge threat to Windows, too.  However, I believe that most of that threat is just a repackaging of web capabilities.  There is no special threat that I would attribute to the unique characteristics of mobile devices (hardware or software), except maybe cost.

[Guest wellmont]

 

Then it is not undervalued, so why would you own it?

 

I think there are enough apple fanbois in the blogosphere to create a tradeable bounce. But they need to get at it. :)

[Guest wellmont]

If you want to understand what really happened, read first hand from people who were actually there, not click bait bloggers:

 

http://www.mondaynote.com/2013/06/09/android-vs-apple-market-share-vs-profit-share-part-255/

 

So we should listen to the product guy who gave the world the indespensible BE computer? lol

[LC]

Just going to throw in my two cents from a shareholder's perspective: Microsoft just needs to keep doing whatever it takes to keep windows and office relevant. Those are their cash cows. Everything else they do is just fluff to keep Microsoft in the news so everyone renews windows/office.

[Guest valueInv]

If you want to understand what really happened, read first hand from people who were actually there, not click bait bloggers:

 

http://www.mondaynote.com/2013/06/09/android-vs-apple-market-share-vs-profit-share-part-255/

 

So we should listen to the product guy who gave the world the indespensible BE computer? lol

 

Why, you think a lawyer turned  blogger who has never released a product in his life is more credible than someone who was in the room at the time when Apple management was making decisions?

[no_free_lunch]

Why not, I am going to throw my 2 cents in as well.  One of the reason tablets and mobile are so successful is because of the internet.  Most of what people do on computers (outside of work) is browser based so it doesn't really matter what OS / device type you are using.  That was always the argument for web apps, or at least I remember hearing it a decade ago.  It wasn't that the web apps were going to kill microsoft directly, it was that they would kill the monopoly as they weren't running on microsoft's proprietary OS.  You could run them anywhere.

[Guest valueInv]

 

Then it is not undervalued, so why would you own it?

 

I think there are enough apple fanbois in the blogosphere to create a tradeable bounce. But they need to get at it. :)

 

Yeah right, Apple fanbois are able to move stocks? 

 

When you say one thing a do another, you lose credibility. Remember that.

[Guest valueInv]

On the desktop, Windows still dominates about two decades after the Internet was created - so how big a threat has it been?

 

Mobile has been a bigger threat to Windows than the Internet has. The web hasn't made a dent on Windows yet.

 

Some threats take time to evolve.  It took two decades to develop rich web applications.  Web apps in 2003 are easily bested by those from 2013.  Now applications delivered over the web are rich enough that they compete with desktop applications.  Hence the shift to Mac in that time frame.  It didn't hurt to give up your Outlook Express application because Gmail was already so much better.

 

Mobile doesn't explain the Mac's rise in market share, so it's not relevant to my original point: the web was and continues to be a threat to Windows.

 

You can say what you want about Arrington, but I think he makes a valid point.

 

I agree that mobile is a huge threat to Windows, too.  However, I believe that most of that threat is just a repackaging of web capabilities.  There is no special threat that I would attribute to the unique characteristics of mobile devices (hardware or software), except maybe cost.

 

Now, you've gone so far away from my original point that it doesn't even mane sense any more

 

So how has IE helped Windows then? It did get them into an antitrust suit ;)

 

There has been no shift to the Mac yet. Windows, Office and Outlook still dominate and generate lots of money.

 

IE, however, is less relevant everyday. We were talking about IE, remember?

[Guest valueInv]

Why not, I am going to throw my 2 cents in as well.  One of the reason tablets and mobile are so successful is because of the internet.  Most of what people do on computers (outside of work) is browser based so it doesn't really matter what OS / device type you are using.  That was always the argument for web apps, or at least I remember hearing it a decade ago.  It wasn't that the web apps were going to kill microsoft directly, it was that they would kill the monopoly as they weren't running on microsoft's proprietary OS.  You could run them anywhere.

 

The web is different from the Internet, do not confuse the two. On mobile, the web plays an even lesser role than on the desktop. However, the Internet plays a bigger role.

[no_free_lunch]

The web is different from the Internet, do not confuse the two. On mobile, the web plays an even lesser role than on the desktop. However, the Internet plays a bigger role.

 

I think you are being both pedantic and agreeing with me. :)

[Guest valueInv]

The web is different from the Internet, do not confuse the two. On mobile, the web plays an even lesser role than on the desktop. However, the Internet plays a bigger role.

 

I think you are being both pedantic and agreeing with me. :)

 

Yes and no. The web plays a smaller role and so does the web browser. The momentum has shifted towards mobile apps and away from web-based applications. This makes a big difference to the power players, the business models, etc.

[no_free_lunch]

The reason I say pedantic is you're tying me down to the web.  The point is without the internet, what would a tablet be?  What would you do with it?  When people tell me about their new tablet, it is usually followed by "and I can get to facebook, I can check my email, I can surf the internet...".  It is these pre-existing sites which draws people in and yes apps will build on that.  The killer app though is the web, most specifically facebook.

[Guest valueInv]

The reason I say pedantic is you're tying me down to the web.  The point is without the internet, what would a tablet be?  What would you do with it?  When people tell me about their new tablet, it is usually followed by "and I can get to facebook, I can check my email, I can surf the internet...".  It is these pre-existing sites which draws people in and yes apps will build on that.  The killer app though is the web, most specifically facebook.

 

http://www.apple.com/itunes/50-billion-app-countdown/

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/markrogowsky/2013/05/03/apple-as-the-app-store-nears-50-billion-downloads-the-birds-remain-angry-and-popular/

[Guest valueInv]

The reason I say pedantic is you're tying me down to the web.

 

yes, because that is what we are talking about.

[RichardGibbons]

So how has IE helped Windows then? It did get them into an antitrust suit ;)

 

There has been no shift to the Mac yet. Windows, Office and Outlook still dominate and generate lots of money.

 

IE, however, is less relevant everyday. We were talking about IE, remember?

 

Ok, IE is becoming less irrelevant every day.  Therefore it always was irrelevant. 

 

Kodak is nothing now, therefore its business for decades was worthless.

 

Sears is in the process of being made irrelevant.  Therefore, it never had any significant competitive advantage ever.

 

The Hudson's Bay Company is suffering, therefore it had no impact on anything throughout history.

 

Lipitor had no value ever to Pfizer, because its patent eventually expired and generics started to compete.

 

Yep.

 

IE helped extend Windows' advantage for years and slowed down the development of the web to Microsoft's advantage.  The key argument behind Chrome initially, which maybe was before your time, was that a new browser was required to force browser evolution and achieve the performance levels required for the next evolution of web applications.

 

It worked.  (But from your perspective, it didn't, because market share is irrelevant, it didn't make money directly, and just enabled Google to throw more stuff at walls.)

 

 

[Guest valueInv]

So how has IE helped Windows then? It did get them into an antitrust suit ;)

 

There has been no shift to the Mac yet. Windows, Office and Outlook still dominate and generate lots of money.

 

IE, however, is less relevant everyday. We were talking about IE, remember?

 

Ok, IE is becoming less irrelevant every day.  Therefore it always was irrelevant. 

 

Kodak is nothing now, therefore its business for decades was worthless.

 

Sears is in the process of being made irrelevant.  Therefore, it never had any significant competitive advantage ever.

 

The Hudson's Bay Company is suffering, therefore it had no impact on anything throughout history.

 

Lipitor had no value ever to Pfizer, because its patent eventually expired and generics started to compete.

 

Yep.

 

IE helped extend Windows' advantage for years and slowed down the development of the web to Microsoft's advantage.  The key argument behind Chrome initially, which maybe was before your time, was that a new browser was required to force browser evolution and achieve the performance levels required for the next evolution of web applications.

 

It worked.  (But from your perspective, it didn't, because market share is irrelevant, it didn't make money directly, and just enabled Google to throw more stuff at walls.)

 

You keep claiming that IE slowed down the web . How do you know that?

 

How do you know that Windows gained from a stunted web?

[txlaw]

Google buying Waze:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-09/google-is-said-to-be-acquiring-waze-for-1-1-billion.html

 

Sundar Pichai at AllThingsD:

http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2013/05/30/new-android-chief-promises-thoughtful-software-oversight/

 

Hardware makers have taken advantage of Android’s openness, to create heavily customized designs and to promote their services. Pichai said the company is also trying to ensure some sense of commonality for users across Android’s devices, without unduly restricting device companies’ freedom.

 

Pichai said it is proceeding carefully, in a “thoughtful manner,” in collaboration with its partners. He promised that the company would not be too “opinionated.”

 

While Pichai said he wished some Android-device makers such as Amazon decided to partner officially with Google rather than heavily customize the software as it does now, he said the company was focused on the long term goal: creating an, open compelling product that is ubiquitous (especially as software and sensors become part of more and more devices).

 

Pichai also said that Samsung's success/dominance isn't mutually exclusive with Google's success.

 

See full May 30 session at D11: http://allthingsd.com/video/

 

It's worth watching.

[Guest valueInv]

Google buying Waze:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-09/google-is-said-to-be-acquiring-waze-for-1-1-billion.html

 

Sundar Pichai at AllThingsD:

http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2013/05/30/new-android-chief-promises-thoughtful-software-oversight/

 

Hardware makers have taken advantage of Android’s openness, to create heavily customized designs and to promote their services. Pichai said the company is also trying to ensure some sense of commonality for users across Android’s devices, without unduly restricting device companies’ freedom.

 

Pichai said it is proceeding carefully, in a “thoughtful manner,” in collaboration with its partners. He promised that the company would not be too “opinionated.”

 

While Pichai said he wished some Android-device makers such as Amazon decided to partner officially with Google rather than heavily customize the software as it does now, he said the company was focused on the long term goal: creating an, open compelling product that is ubiquitous (especially as software and sensors become part of more and more devices).

 

Pichai also said that Samsung's success/dominance isn't mutually exclusive with Google's success.

 

See full May 30 session at D11: http://allthingsd.com/video/

 

It's worth watching.

 

Google's PR dept was in overdrive that event. Here is Larry Page's speech while during ther event where they launched  copies of other people's products:

 

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57584759-93/at-google-i-o-larry-page-preaches-a-tech-fantasia/

[txlaw]

Google buying Waze:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-09/google-is-said-to-be-acquiring-waze-for-1-1-billion.html

 

Sundar Pichai at AllThingsD:

http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2013/05/30/new-android-chief-promises-thoughtful-software-oversight/

 

Hardware makers have taken advantage of Android’s openness, to create heavily customized designs and to promote their services. Pichai said the company is also trying to ensure some sense of commonality for users across Android’s devices, without unduly restricting device companies’ freedom.

 

Pichai said it is proceeding carefully, in a “thoughtful manner,” in collaboration with its partners. He promised that the company would not be too “opinionated.”

 

While Pichai said he wished some Android-device makers such as Amazon decided to partner officially with Google rather than heavily customize the software as it does now, he said the company was focused on the long term goal: creating an, open compelling product that is ubiquitous (especially as software and sensors become part of more and more devices).

 

Pichai also said that Samsung's success/dominance isn't mutually exclusive with Google's success.

 

See full May 30 session at D11: http://allthingsd.com/video/

 

It's worth watching.

 

Google's PR dept was in overdrive that event. Here is Larry Page's speech while during ther event where they launched  copies of other people's products:

 

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57584759-93/at-google-i-o-larry-page-preaches-a-tech-fantasia/

 

Isn't Sundar Pichai one of those product guys on the ground that you love?

 

Speaking of PR, WWDC is starting today!  Should be interesting.

[Guest valueInv]

Don't know much about him. But looking at his speech, it is pretty clear the messaging is from the PR dept.

[txlaw]

Sundar Pichai is a badass:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sundar_Pichai

 

Supposedly a nice guy too.  Unusual for Silicon Valley.

 

[RichardGibbons]

You keep claiming that IE slowed down the web . How do you know that?

 

How do you know that Windows gained from a stunted web?

 

I was there.  They created a browser that was incompatible with the standards and made it very difficult to do certain things.  They basically destroyed Java as a hardware-independent platform (thought that wasn't the browser directly).  It's pretty obvious that doing so was a core part of Microsoft's strategy.

 

I know Windows gained from a stunted web because the web and Windows are both competing platforms.  If all your applications run on the web, are much less locked into any particular hardware and OS.  When most applications are running on Windows, an easy migration path away from Windows is a bad thing for Windows, so making that migration path harder was a good thing from Windows.

[Guest valueInv]

You keep claiming that IE slowed down the web . How do you know that?

 

How do you know that Windows gained from a stunted web?

 

I was there.  They created a browser that was incompatible with the standards and made it very difficult to do certain things.  They basically destroyed Java as a hardware-independent platform (thought that wasn't the browser directly).  It's pretty obvious that doing so was a core part of Microsoft's strategy.

 

I know Windows gained from a stunted web because the web and Windows are both competing platforms.  If all your applications run on the web, are much less locked into any particular hardware and OS.  When most applications are running on Windows, an easy migration path away from Windows is a bad thing for Windows, so making that migration path harder was a good thing from Windows.

 

So companies like Amazon, Google, Facebook, Ebay, PayPal, Etrade and hundreds of others have been stunted and did not experience exponential growth?  Since the web was stunted, it did not disrupt newspapers, retail, stock trading and many other verticals?

 

On the other hand, since Microsoft succeeded in stunting the web, it was the one that experienced tremendous growth after it succeeded in the aforementioned stunting, right?

 

And fter Microsoft took control of the web, they launched highly successful web products and businesses that generated tons of free cashflow that enriched their shareholders, right?

BTW, I was there too.;)

[Palantir]

Really exciting discussion guys.  ::)