The ghost of Netscape rises to haunt Microsoft

The U.S. Justice Department and 20 states filed their antitrust case against Microsoft on May 18, 1998. The filing followed failed settlement talks stemming from a 1997 trial. The government and Microsoft differently interpreted a 1995 antitrust settlement, regarding integration of additional features into Windows -- namely Internet Explorer. For Microsoft, feature integration was a crucial issue. The company enhanced Windows' appeal to businesses and consumers by adding on more stuff. More right away, Netscape was working on a strategy that would turn the browser into a rival platform. Developers would create applications for the browser instead of operating systems like Windows.

The documents are of sufficient completeness

Plaintiffs' overall assessment is that the documents are of sufficient completeness and quality such that the Communications Protocols, as defined in the Final Judgments, are available for use by third parties within the meaning of Section III.E. Consequently, Plaintiffs believe is it appropriate to allow the Final Judgments to expire on May 12, 2011.

The four extra years oversight proved hugely beneficial to Google. Previously today, my colleague Larry Seltzer called the Microsoft antitrust case a "farce." He asks: "Can anyone reasonably say that this case made any meaningful difference to the innovation business?" To which he deep down answers no. I heartedly disagree. Government oversight of a chastened Microsoft allowed Google do what Netscape couldn't: successfully develop and launch a browser-based platform to rival Windows. Whether or not Chrome OS can succeed is a matter of fierce debate among Betanews readers. Nevertheless it's coming out commercially then month, and the U.S. antitrust case cleared the way.

Google used Microsoft's oversight as a club. In June 2007, the search and information giant filed court papers requesting an extension. If not, government oversight would have ended in November of that year. This wasn't Google's first filing. For instance, weeks before Google complained about search in Windows Vista, which hadn't but shipped. Microsoft later changed Vista search in response to the complaint.

Google made good use of Microsoft's oversight extension. Afterwards just a few months in beta, Google officially released its first web browser, Chrome, in December 2008. Yesterday, Google revealed 160 million users, more than double the number a year ago. In early March, Google launched Chrome 10, and version 12 is already in beta. Internet Explorer 9 released in the near future after Chrome 10. At the end of April, Chrome 10 had more than double IE9 usage share on Windows 7, according to NetApplications. How times have changed.

Chrome OS reached its major development milestone in December 2010, with the Cr-48 laptop pilot program. Google received 1 million applications, and 50,000 businesses as well applied. Seven months later the first Chromebooks running Chrome OS will ship. However whether the browser or operating system, Google has created the rival platform Netscape product managers envisioned 15 years ago. If there is remedy for Microsoft's monopoly abuse, Chrome OS may be it.

In June 2007, I wrote "Why Google Succeeds" -- in parts one and two -- for Microsoft Watch; the content remains hugely relevant fours years later. "Unchecked, Google is on course to be the then hugely successful computing platform," I wrote. Netscape wasn't in effect Microsoft's competitive problem in the late 1990s however the web itself. Already, by the mid Noughties many developers had made the web priority over Windows. Where do you think cloud computing comes from? "Developer interest in the Web platform -- and the promise of information access anytime, anywhere and on anything -- shifts standards away from Microsoft's dominant platforms," I explained four years ago. Google rode the web platform's coattails, pushing adopted or open standards along the way.

Three decades later, Microsoft controls the dominant platform much the way IBM once did. Now it's Microsoft with huge infrastructure and clients. However the company has been doubly risk adverse competing with Google and other cloud/web applications developers: Fear of disrupting existing revenue streams/losing existing clients and the constraints placed by government oversight.

In the 1980s, Microsoft, along with OEM partners like Compaq, gained clients from IBM by making computing cheaper and available to more people. Microsoft ended the era when only large companies paying millions of dollars could afford computers. Google challenges Microsoft in a similar way, by reducing the costs -- at times to nothing -- against established PC software/services just as Office or Outlook/Exchange Server. In the meantime computing and informational benefits are available to more people and on more devices.

During the PC era, Microsoft maintained Windows' dominance through a number of means, including distribution, standards and contractual commitments. The company as well used integration -- the very thing that set off the U.S. antitrust case -- as means of preserving Windows utility/relevance and to beat back competitors. Microsoft would take a research a competitor spent millions to develop and integrate it into Windows, in essence giving it away for free. Google is doing something similar to Microsoft, by offering products/services for nominal fees or no cost that Microsoft charges heaps of money for.

Enter Chrome or Chrome OS as platform for web apps connected to Google cloud product/services like Apps, Calendar and Gmail. Yesterday, I explained from a software licensing perspective how cloud-connected Chromebook poses a serious enterprise threat to Microsoft cash cows Office and Windows -- the aforementioned duopoly. It's not about how much Google earns nevertheless how much Microsoft loses.

Paul DeGroot, Pica Communications principal consultant, sees Microsoft easily losing $1 billion in licensing revenue; Chromebook "could accelerate movement to Google apps." He adds: "The arena on which a lot of this is fought is Wall Street, where single percentages can as a matter of fact add up come quarterly report time...they would notice $1 billion a year missing from Microsoft's numbers."

Future Google-Microsoft competition will determine whether or not Chrome or Chrome OS will have such impact. Regardless, Microsoft antitrust oversight cleared way for Google to do what Netscape couldn't: Build a browser-based platform independent of Windows.

In other words, we would have had the Netscape web platform 15 years ago, however Microsoft used its monopoly to delay it for 15 years.While that 15 years, to put it more exactly than embrace open standards, Microsoft instead released an Internet Explorer browser that ignored W3C standards.Microsoft is now getting what it deserves.

The prerequisite for cloud computing is the existence of the cloud. As a person living in rural America, even high speed access is more hypothetical than fact. A lot of the time access to the cloud is not available by any reasonable means. So our mindset tends more toward "keeping all my information on my computer."I see major problems with the all cloud concept.1. Security. Microsoft has had huge problems with people blowing security holes in their software. What is so magical about the cloud, and more exactly Google, that the same thing will not happen when Google's market penetration in the cloud causes hackers to switch their attention there. I think it is unreasonable to expect that hackers won't break through to financial records, pictures, or whatever by means unanticipated. 2. If data is in the cloud, at the time you don't have it on your local machine. If the Net goes down for any reason, straightway you are out of business. Solar flares have wiped out satellites and it could happen again, bringing everything to a halt. Complex systems fail in unexpected ways. It will happen. If you are all in with the cloud, at that time you don't have any Plan B at all.3. If you are using cloud based application software, well you may not be able to fully use an app without continuous wireless or cellular access. Any residents of the Top 50 cities might be surprised to find that outside those cities, public wireless hot points are hard to find and that there are very significant areas where there is no cellular coverage at all. The problem is worse in rural areas with hills or low population density, that is almost anywhere in the US except large cities.4. And there is the potential issue of being force fed ad bearing apps by the vendor of the computer or Google. This is how I view my Android phone and the whole raft of apps that I cannot remove from my phone without what is for me a major jaunt into geekdom by having to "root" my phone whatever in other words and may void my phone warranty.I'm no Microsoft fan at all, however considering all of the above, hanging black crepe is premature as is locking up all the ropes to prevent self destruction. Their goofiness will live on.

And but none of in other words mentioned in this blog post? So if we read only this blog post we would think that Google has leap frogged Microsoft because Microsoft was being held back by the goverment. All the during Google has had a free run with the future looking very bright for Google since its path to Microsoft destruction is clear and free?The truth is nevertheless far from what you write. Google is now dead on in the focus of the US and other goverments for many area's of intrest. Every month there is some news story about how Google is in trouble again for privacy violations, or unfair business practices, or straight up theft.Chrome OS is a HUGE gamble for them. I have no doubt it will have some sucess amongst the Microsoft haters and people that own a computer to use facebook. Still I think corporations are going lauch at it and that explains it, MANY of them to tell the truth LIKE Microsoft products and dont want to use something in other words not even as close to as good as to what Microsoft give them. When it fails they will be laughed at as just another pie in the sky Linux on the desktop bs.Afterwards PSN, Amazon, and last pass, all it would take is just one hack of something big at Google and they would come tumbling down few steps.This blog post is your sensational BS to get clicks. I often wonder who in their right mind ranks this stuff based on clicks....I dont even see ads on this site. Even if I did I would never click on them.

The obvious

Besides the obvious, something else has changed. If you want to *steal* something, Windows is the place to be.Stealing is potentially a very dangerous business in a fully connected OS.

This would be all so then and good otherwise for one missing, crucial component: the killer app. Back in the '80's, that killer app was Lotus 123. If you wanted to run it, you bought a PC-compatible that ran MS-DOS. Realizing this was a big draw for business customer, other ported applications like WordPerfect and dBase to the 8086/MS-DOS platform. This effectively killed CP-M, TRS-DOS and a host of other competitors. It as well helped that Microsoft provided a plethora of development tools like C, Basic Compiler, Fortran and Cobol. Microsoft, in its early days, was managed then.Google has but to offer that Killer app to convince people of Chrome's value. Google as well needs to offer a range of development tools to give developers the power and flexibility to write any application any way they want. Web apps in Javascript are too clunky, compared to a compiled, native app. You might think Eclipse is nice for development, however Visual Studio beats it hands down for usability. Google's management might be smart, yet they need to focus on bringing people value. Apple, with its 30-second iPhone TV ads a couple of years ago, flashed 3-dozen consumer-related corporate logos to instantly educate prospective clients. Google debuted a robot arm and featured an actor morphing into a "droid." What specifically was Google trying to say? Microsoft for all that has some great products and does know how to provide a very good user experience. What Microsoft lacks is good management. It's current top management is lazy, shortsighted, and dumb. Microsoft has the tools, however lacks the brainpower to use them. Google is smart, yet needs to learn to communicate to consumers, end users AND developers.

I wouldn't discount Microsoft too much. The signs are that they will learn to play the cloud game and integrate their exiting office offerings with some kind of distributed arrangement. They probably wont end up with the best technical solution, they never do, however they are masters at a the business side of things. I think we are likely to see a whole new era of anti trust action as MS tries to reduce competition by locking their Office suite to their cloud system. www.review-pc.com

I don't see Microsoft being haunted or see this being a threat.There are plenty of alternatives today to Microsoft - why aren't they more mainstream? Simple - the majority of the corporate world uses MS windows and MS Office. Its a fact. And there's no reason for the corporate world to make a drastic change. Microsoft as a matter of fact benefits businesses and their workers. If there were a large number of choices and every business used something different, just imagine the added training needed for hiring new employees? Pretty much these days if you know Windows and Office you know the majority of the software a potential company might use.I think companies will as well be far more wary of moving everything to the cloud. Some services maybe, however everything? Not smart for a mid size to enterprise business. The very small business, like as not. We hear about the big issues - PSN, Amazon's cloud..etc yet there's tons of smaller issues affecting a company here and there that aren't news worthy, however no less of an impact to the company it affects. Just as a company I deal with who had all their outlook public folders disappear one day only to have their hosted exchange company take then over a week to put them back.

The threat Linux put up

This feels very much like the "threat" Linux put up. I think we had 3 years that were named "the year of Linux". That died away. This is a different proposition - cloud based OS. However the one thing that actually differs between Google and MS is that MS ensure the spit and polish is there. And I suspect Windows 8 will be like Windows phone - massive cloud based integration. I personally would prefer a thick OS with cloud integration over a full cloud solution. Perhaps that's my age. Perhaps the new genergations are more compfortable with the cloud.The one thing that Netbooks showed me is that I am not willing to sacrifice functionality, features or perfromance. Hence why the first Tablet I would ever consider would have to run Windows, and be snappy. Enter Windows 8 once again.Either way, a fun time in the industry!!!

Profit isn't the only driving force in business. If you've studied business, you should know there is more to it than that.

Peopl and the media nad bloggers all of us like to decide x i flop or y is hit so quickly... I think Google Microsoft and Apple along with the new kid on block facebook can co exist peacefully.... they all have positive points and negative points.Problem with microsoft has been its vast organisation cause technology problems quite intrinsically.... however it after all and will own the office and Os markets.Apple would own the Ipad and iphone market and high fashion consumer gadgets market.google is the king of web period.. Android and Chrome its supporting arm.Microsft is no more the only thing in IT its good for consumers

Chromebook's debut couldn't have been more timely, for its irony -- one day previously today's expiration of Microsoft antitrust oversight that allowed Google to do what Netscape wanted: To build a browser-based platform rivaling Windows.

The name implies

As the name implies, CleanMyPC includes a suite of cleaning tools for Windows computers. The main cleaning component promises to remove gigabytes of files from your personal computer.