Microsoft Silverlight vs Google Wave: Why Karma Matters

http://blogs.zoho.com/general/microsoft-silverlight-vs-google-wave-a-study-in-contrasts

46 30 17 years ago

blogs.zoho.com

sadiq2• 17 years ago

A fairly well written post, i'm in full agreement.

While Microsoft may have some great technology in their portfolio, I simply don't want to use much of it because of how little I can trust them.

In Google's case, they're not really asking me to trust them so much, by documenting and open sourcing many of the technologies they're trying to push, I can at least feel like I have some degree of protection.

If there was a 'Google Silverlight' (as hypothesised in the article) it would probably be under consideration as a platform for the next version of my product but Microsoft's Silverlight falls very much short.

vaksel• 17 years ago

Google is no Microsoft, but they aren't all that innocent either

boundlessdreamz2• 17 years ago

maybe, but name one instance where they have screwed over one of their partners.

noaharc• 17 years ago

How about their users?

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/23/magazine/23google.html

prakash3• 17 years ago

The only reason google looks good in this article is because it is compared with microsoft. google is the new microsoft, I would be cautious when it comes to partnering with them.

What do folks here think?

abossy• 17 years ago

Justifying a lack of trust in Microsoft because of 'karma' isn't a correct analysis, I feel. The author completely fails to discuss .NET -- a very powerful and complete software platform that many companies rely on and use effectively.

The crucial point is the one that he glosses over in the last sentence in the second-to-last paragraph; that Microsoft's incentives aren't aligned with Zoho, while Google's are. Google has every incentive in the world to get more people on the Web and make the Web a more powerful platform. In the end, Google has an incredibly powerful, benevolent brand, but they act in the way any rational corporation will.

sadiq2• 17 years ago

The article doesn't discuss the technical merits of each company's offerings, rather their approaches.

.NET might be a very powerful and complete software platform that lots of people rely on.. but it's still a proprietry piece of technology that requires (and maybe even demands) putting a great deal of trust in Microsoft's hands.

He makes this point clear in his discussion of Silverlight. He's not dismissing it on technical merit (where it may have plenty) but on the different approaches Microsoft and (in a hypothetical world) Google would take to it.

Microsoft was to other OS and software vendors in the past, what Google is to Microsoft now. They're just using more open policies for some of their products to gain an advantage for their core business.

Don't get me wrong, i'm not calling either company good or evil.

I'm also undecided whether a company can be good or evil. There's illegal and unethical, sure but good and evil just depend on how you view a company's motivation.

Microsoft's goal is to keep you in their ecosystem, Google's goal is to sell your eyeballs to the highest bidder.

zaidf• 17 years ago

May be because collaborations often turn into an acquisition.

skorgu2• 17 years ago

Here's where I see the fundamental difference between Microsoft and Google:

Google has a conference, well known to all and sundry. Google plans a big reveal. Microsoft plans a big reveal to steal some thunder. Normal PR all around.

But look at the scope of the two reveals. Google essentially plans to reboot the entire mechanism of interpersonal interaction on the internet. Whether it will ever work, catch on, or even be useful it's without question astonishingly ambitious. Arrogant even. "We're so smart we'll tell you how you should be talking to each other." Love, hate, angry blog posts are generated in abundance.

Microsoft launches a new search engine. Which, to be fair, seems like a quite nice new search engine. But where's the ambition? Where's the absolutely insane, balls-out wtf? Even if the Zune was better than the iPod it would be a clone. Even if Bing is better than Google it'll be a clone. Even if the Xbox is better than the Playstation it still won't be qualitatively different. Sure some of them may succeed and none will likely fail completely but it's hard to see the ambition in any of them.

vrandom• 17 years ago

I don't think it's fair to turn the Bing vs Wave previews into this kind of corporate comparison. Bing is being released to try and gain MS a good double digit market in a billion dollar industry. It is little more than a clone because that is all that a search engine can realistically be with current technology.

Sure innovation is great. That's why we're all at HN right?! But the big money (short of creating a whole new industry) is about getting market share in established markets. That is what MS are doing - from Bing to Silverlight to Xbox to most other things they do. Nothing more or less.

citrik• 17 years ago

I think it's driven more by their respective business models. Google is more focused on incubating fresh ideas and growing those ideas into the next established market where as Microsoft tends to reiterate on accepted ideas, Market the @%#* out of it, and our favorite (step 3) profit.

Why is it that the big money is there to eek out a Nth of a percent but not available for fresh big ideas? I'm not at all disagreeing with you, I just think that's an interesting point. I wish the world were the other way around it might be a better place (or maybe there'd just be less "big money" for having tried). Maybe if MS let smaller groups run wild more often they'd see more of these elusive "innovative ideas".

ashot• 17 years ago

I'm surprised you didn't make the larger point: this is true for every product Microsoft has ever made. Copy, improve, persist. Basic, DOS, Windows, Office, IE, etc.

They are not a creative company (or as Jobs would have it they have no taste - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=upzKj-1HaKw ).

Their business does not revolve around creating new things but about copying and improving things that already exist in the market. And to be fair, this strategy has worked out quite well for them so far, so why would they change course?

skorgu2• 17 years ago

Well said!

rjurney• 17 years ago

It worked for shrinkwrap software, where release cycles are large. It has not worked for web software, where releases can happen daily. They can never catch up.

nimrody2• 17 years ago

Making a good product is not always about revolution. Many times it is about improving and refining.

Remember the story of Microsoft and Lotus? Microsoft Excel won because it was a better product. Nothing revolutionary. Just better. Microsoft Word eventually replaced Wordperfect. Where are those companies today?

iamelgringo• 17 years ago

But where's the ambition? Where's the absolutely insane, balls-out wtf?

The WFT is in the scope of where Microsoft competes. Microsoft is competing with Google on search, Apple on OS and MP3 players, Sony and Nintendo on Game consoles, with open source on programming languages and Office Suites, Oracle and IBM in Databases, Logitech and Kensington on input devices, VMWare and Xen in virtualization... The list goes on and on and on.

MSFT actually has a foot in the door at least in almost _every_ software market and some hardware markets. That's seriously WTF as far as I'm concerned. That's ambition far beyond what any other company is trying to do as far as I'm concerned.

Maro• 17 years ago

While I agree that MSFT being present in all those markets is an overall WTF, I think a customer/user in one of those markets (eg. search) doesn't really care about the provider being present in others (eg. consoles).

prakash3• 17 years ago

Micrsoft's entire model is predicated on fast following & iterating, and pouring money into projects till the other company slips or gives up or runs out of money -- Xbox is a good example.

trezor2• 17 years ago

Xbox is a good example.

While I may or may not agree on your point at large, the complete Xbox package (the Xbox 360 software, Xbox live etc) is clearly superior to anything Sony can produce. I don't care about the PS3 having provenly more capable hardware, when everything I care about is better on the Xbox 360.

If you are going to flag an example, try an example which doesn't prove your point wrong next time.

Edit: To do my best to avoid a console war, let me make it clear that I own both an Xbox 360 and a PS3. I realize my opinion is clearly not 100% objective, but sales-figures alone should to some extent back my point.

Microsoft Silverlight vs Google Wave: Why Karma Matters

Related Stories