Microsoft VP Says Google OS Is Defensive Only

Abu-Hadba clearly understands the a Google OS is a defensive move. And he should know. For years Microsoft has used the very same tactics to put competitors out of business.

It is very simple. Do something that confuses your competiors into using resources and taking actions that defend their existing products line instead of using these resources to develop new products and markets that may compete with yours. Microsoft did it to Netscape and others.

In the alternate reality where he tells the truth:

“Most of what Microsoft does are ill-conceived knee-jerk reactions” Abu-Hadba said.

“You may be wondering how Bing can be playing defense when it’s entering a market for the first time, but Abu-Hadba said it’s not about truth in numbers; instead, Microsoft is trying to distract competitors from attacking its cash cow, Windows.

He argued that whenever Microsoft enters an existing market, like releasing web services, it’s trying to force competitors to focus on existing products, rather than challenging them with brilliant new ideas.”
——–END

Silverblight is poorly conceived, it’s also a bad idea to actually try and use it on Linux because it’s very patent encumbered, it’s a bad idea on Windows because it’s a massive set of security risks, and it’s a bad idea for everyone because it’s a front for Web 2.0 Digital Handcuffs.

Oh, forgot to mention that since every music store has ditched WMA for actual purchased music, Silverblight is the end of the line for WMA as well.

I honestly don’t know why any real people would want to use Windows Media. I mean sure it gives music and movie cartels a major boner because it supports DRM, but MPEG codecs are clearly the industry leaders for quality.

I have to admit that it would have been much more interesting if he said “It’s pretty decent…. I tried it out last week. I prefer Ubuntu linux.”

What do we expect from MS? You could have written the statement yourself.

[...] A Microsoft VP says that the Google OS is defensive only. [...]

[...] A Microsoft VP says that the Google OS is defensive only. [...]

[...] A Microsoft VP says that the Google OS is defensive only. [...]

That’s very interesting…

[...] Microsoft VP says that the Google OS is defensive [...]

Never looked at it that way before, but either way I think it’s a good move…

I really think that Mr. Abu-Hadba has it wrong. Google has made such a name for itself that I think that it has been institutionalized as the word for “search,” every bit as much as Kleenex is used for facial tissue. No one “does a search” on a subject; they “Google it.”

While Google can’t afford to just sit on it’s laurels (which it’s not; neither is any web-based company who wants to improve or at least maintain it’s position), I don’t think it’s in much danger of losing it’s position as the pre-eminent search engine. We see advertisements all the time on TV for Yahoo, Ask, and others, with none (that I’ve seen) from Google, and yet Google still holds it’s position.

My take on the situation is that Google Chrome OS is yet another Linux-based OS. Any good Linux distro will do the same (and some, more!) that is offered pre-installed on a computer or Netbook. It’s just that the name “Linux” still carries the connotation “hacker’s OS” among the general “unwashed masses” computer users. Perhaps Linux with the name of Google tacked on would convince the average computer user to give Linux a try (even if they don’t know they’re doing it).

I see little problem with Google putting out a Linux-based distro, as long as they maintain the proper security procedures inherent in Linux and stress it’s use. If they produce a Linux version of XP (automatically logged in as root…”No need for that pesky and inconvenient password!”), that will invite the hackers and “script-kiddies” to develop malware for Linux, inconveniencing us all and providing a negative experience for the Netbook users.

On a side note:

<Ryan Farmer: “…MPEG codecs are clearly the industry leaders for quality.”

I’m not sure whether you said that because they are the (current) industry leaders or because you think they are superior, but in my opinion, Ogg-Vorbis is a MUCH higher quality set of codecs than the MPEG standards.

I have done a few experiments, recording the same music using both codecs. For similar sounding (to me, of course) quality of recording, Ogg Vorbis converts to a significantly smaller file size than MPG. For a similar file size, the Ogg Vorbis file has a noticeably better quality of sound. I ripped off a good quality CD for my tests.

If you meant it was the Industry Standard, it is. I just wanted to stress that there are, IMO, codecs that compress to much better quality.