Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Battling Google, Microsoft Changes How It Builds Software

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16


    Google builds an empire to rival Microsoft
    Published: September 21, 2005, 8:00 AM PDT
    By Elinor Mills
    Staff Writer, CNET News.com
    TrackBack Print E-mail TalkBack

    Google's one-of-a-kind computer network gives it a chance to surpass Microsoft to become the most dominant company in tech, according to the author of a recently published book on the search giant.

    Google already has plenty of influence. It handles nearly half of the world's Web searches. It's hiring some of the biggest names in the industry, from the controversial Kai-Fu Lee of Microsoft to the legendary Vint Cerf, an early Internet pioneer. And it has become such the topic du jour in Silicon Valley that its search for a new corporate chef warrants significant local news coverage.

    But what's next? Author Stephen Arnold has closely analyzed Google patents, engineering documents and technology and has concluded that Google has a grand ambition--to push the information age off the desktop and onto the Internet. Google, he argues, is aiming to be the network computer platform for delivering so-called "virtual" applications, or software that allows a user to perform a task on any device with an Internet connection.

    "Google is this era's transformational computing platform and could be about to unseat Microsoft from its throne," Arnold writes in a summary of his book, "The Google Legacy: How Google's Internet Search is Transforming Application Software," published this month.

    For all of its wild success, about 99 percent of Google's revenue still comes from advertising, mostly from Internet keyword searches. Certainly, it has built on the core business, adding everything from the Gmail free Web-based e-mail service to Google Earth, a satellite mapping service. And it has plenty of cash to spend on new technology--nearly $7 billion in cash, $4 billion alone from a secondary stock offering on Sept. 14.

    The big question, of course, is what exactly CEO Eric Schmidt & Co. plan to do with that war chest.

    In his book, which is available in electronic PDF form only, Arnold concludes that Google has created a supercomputer ready to deliver a host of applications to anyone with a Web browser.

    "Google is setting itself up to be an application delivery system for any type of device," said Arnold, who has been a technology and financial analyst for 30 years. He has helped build the technology management practice at Booz Allen & Hamilton, served as a technology strategy officer at Ziff Communications, and worked on US West's electronic yellow pages and personalization tools used by @Home. "That is a different type of paradigm from Microsoft's" desktop-centric world, he said.

    Arnold's research goes well beyond speculation that Google will buy Chinese portal Baidu.com, in which it already owns a small stake, or move further into the soon-to-explode voice over Internet Protocol market, beyond its voice chat-enabled Google Talk instant-messaging service.

    The notion of a network computer isn't new. Sun Microsystems CEO Scott McNealy has for years been saying "the network is the computer." Oracle CEO Larry Ellison formed a company around the idea. It was called the "New Internet Computer Company," and it sold Web surfing devices before shuttering two years ago.

    But unlike Sun and Oracle, Google's timing could be impeccable, Arnold argues. "Sun defined it. Ellison tried to build it. But Google owns it," he said.

    The secret sauce
    In short, from early on, Google founders Sergey Brin and Larry Page resourcefully figured out how to cluster lots of cheap servers and open-source software, configured to act like individual light bulbs on a Christmas tree that can be added or replaced without making the whole tree go dark, according to Arnold.

    Indeed, Google representatives proudly display the company's unique rack-mounted server system to visitors to the Mountain View, Calif., campus.

    "Google's architecture can scale. Using commodity hardware, Google can deploy more capacity at a lower cost and more quickly than a competitor relying on a system built with brand-name hardware," Arnold writes in his book.

    Google's move into Web services--its Desktop Search and Sidebar products, for example--has prompted Microsoft to reorganize and combine MSN with its platform products group to help the software giant fight off Google's encroachment on its turf, said Frank Gillett, an analyst at Forrester Research.

    Dark fiber, wireless
    The reports of Google's interest in unused fiber optic, also known as "dark fiber," seems to support Arnold's theory.

    "Dark fiber will enable greater dependency on what I call virtual applications," he said. "Once those high-speed connections link the dozen or so Google data centers, they will do stuff better, enable much more than telephony, media delivery."

    Joe Kraus, a founder of the Excite.com portal that merged with Internet service provider @Home before filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 2001, agreed that Google executives are likely thinking big, although he acknowledged he "doesn't have the slightest clue" what they are doing.

    "They've been buying dark fiber for a good five years. It allows them to have such cheap communications between all their data centers," said Kraus, chief executive of online start-up JotSpot.

    "A lot of people have talked about Google's core ability to host thousands of applications and being your desktop in the sky," he said. "They certainly never fail to take advantage of it when launching new products."

    Google also has invested in Current Communications Group, a provider of broadband-over-power-line technology. In addition, there are rumors that Google is eyeing satellite, technology that drives its 3D Google Earth application.

    "They said, back when they invested in the Internet-over-power-lines company, that part of their corporate mission is 'promoting universal access to the Internet for users,'" said Danny Sullivan, editor of Search Engine Watch. "They seem to think they need to make sure everybody can get online, and running your own network certainly makes that a lot easier."

    This week, Google quietly launched Google Secure Access, a beta version of a downloadable client application that allows users to establish a secure, encrypted network connection while using a Wi-Fi wireless network. The program can be downloaded at certain Google Wi-Fi locations in the San Francisco Bay Area, Google said, without stating exactly where those locations are.

    The company also has been working with San Francisco company Feeva on Wi-Fi access since earlier this year, Feeva spokesman Keith Kamisugi confirmed Tuesday. He declined to elaborate, except to say that Feeva and Google offer a free Wi-Fi hot spot at the trendy Union Square shopping area in downtown San Francisco. People who connect to the network see a Google Search splash page, Kamisugi said. Google spokesman Nate Tyler told Reuters that it was running a limited test of a free wireless Internet service, called Google Wi-Fi, with hot spots in a pizza parlor and a gym located near the company's headquarters.

    Google also recently purchased Android, a wireless software start-up, and was looking to hire a global infrastructure strategic negotiator to ink dark fiber contracts as part of a "global backbone network."

    Offering Internet access gets more potential Google users online and gives the company another way to target consumers with ads, particularly location-based advertisements for wireless users.

    Google, which tends to keep long-term plans under wraps, did not return an e-mail seeking comment for this story. (Google representatives have instituted a policy of not talking with CNET News.com reporters until July 2006 in response to privacy issues raised by a previous story.)

    Some people speculate the company will use the dark fiber to build a massive nationwide network that would rival those of some of the largest Internet backbone providers such as MCI and AT&T. As that theory goes, Google would use this network to shuttle traffic across the country between its data centers. Then it would use a wireless network to distribute the content locally to end users.

    Voice, video
    Voice over Internet communications is also a likely target, analysts said.

    "If the traffic is flowing across the Internet, you have no idea how many routers the traffic has gone through, which can impact the quality of the call," said Michael Howard, an analyst at Infonetics Research. "But if the traffic travels on your own network, you can control the quality. That could be reason enough to build a network."

    Video is another possibility. Google hosts people's downloaded video for free and indexes and searches it.

    "It's pretty evident that they will have some play in video distribution. How that's going to come out is still a mystery," said Vamsi Sistla, director of broadband and digital home/media at ABI Research.

    Like many other large companies with high bandwidth needs, Google could be building its own network simply to be saving money.
    Squeeze play for Borland
    Dual-core debut for Dell
    Microsoft's nightmare
    'Softphones' dial up mobile changes
    Previous Next

    "I would imagine that Google must be paying someone a lot of money to keep its data centers running and in sync," Howard said. "So it makes perfect sense for them to build a network themselves to connect their data centers."

    Gartner analyst Allen Weiner, who predicts Google will eventually develop a Google phone, said becoming an application delivery platform would be "part of (Google's) intellectual property DNA."

    "If they built out a hosting platform for people to upload all kinds of content that could be searched by Google and monetized by Google, like video and podcasts...it takes money to do, and with the search capabilities as their strong suit it could be something they could do," Weiner said. "Google could say, 'We'll host it for you; you point to us.' That could be huge."
    "The issue is there are still many people out there that use religion as a crutch for bigotry and hate. Like Ben."
    Ben Kenobi: "That means I'm doing something right. "

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Asher
      The 2.4 (or 2.6) kernel of Linux was way behind schedule,
      linux is a company?

      Then at the same time you go into an argument that seems to be based on the concept that there's no competition.
      there isnt ENOUGH competition

      a non-monopoly would have lost significant market share....
      Co-Founder, Apolyton Civilization Site
      Co-Owner/Webmaster, Top40-Charts.com | CTO, Apogee Information Systems
      giannopoulos.info: my non-mobile non-photo news & articles blog

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by MarkG
        linux is a company?
        Why would you artificially limit scope to just companies, just because it's convenient?

        there isnt ENOUGH competition

        a non-monopoly would have lost significant market share....
        Yeah, of course. You clearly have a deep understanding of the computer market. With MS delaying its product a couple years, all of the Windows applications in the world would suddenly work on other platforms and development would cease on Windows as well.

        Christ, Mark.
        "The issue is there are still many people out there that use religion as a crutch for bigotry and hate. Like Ben."
        Ben Kenobi: "That means I'm doing something right. "

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Asher
          Why would you artificially limit scope to just companies, just because it's convenient?
          why cant you come up with one more example?
          Co-Founder, Apolyton Civilization Site
          Co-Owner/Webmaster, Top40-Charts.com | CTO, Apogee Information Systems
          giannopoulos.info: my non-mobile non-photo news & articles blog

          Comment


          • #20
            Come on, MarkG. You should know by now it's futile to try and debate anything Microsoft with Asher.

            Although I have to agree with him that it was written by someone probably computer illiterate. Most computer trade press is, and that was just the WSJ, not even a specialist org.

            Still, I find it fairly amusing that Microsoft has been using essentially the same coding method they've long derided in the open source sphere.

            --"Not really. Writing an OS is not all that common."

            Including this time, I suspect. They're probably rewriting the worse-off core components, but I'd be highly surprised if they've managed to do a complete rewrite.

            --"There is not one magical development principal or one magical development method or one magical development technique that is better than the other. "

            Depends on what value of "better" you're using. There are known methods that will produce highly stable and secure code... they just take longer and a lot more up-front planning, meaning you can't slap features on at the last minute to appease marketing. Which, of course, runs against the grain of the current software (management) outllook, which is "slap a bunch of features on it and get it out the door before anyone else does".

            As far as competition goes, it's good to see Microsoft finally getting off their ass and trying to improve their software. Too bad it takes this much to get them to work on it instead of counting their petty cash.

            Oh, and Asher? Guess what kind of agreements MS has with OEMs. Their marketshare can't shift much at all with those in place. Even if we aren't selling their OS they get a cut. You be surprised how much those little Windows logo stickers cost.

            Wraith
            "Fafhrd cursed superstitiously. Sorcery working against him he could always accept, but magic operating in his favor he invariably found disturbing."
            -- Fritz Leiber, "When the Sea-King's Away"

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Wraith
              Still, I find it fairly amusing that Microsoft has been using essentially the same coding method they've long derided in the open source sphere.


              hey wraith, good to see you
              Co-Founder, Apolyton Civilization Site
              Co-Owner/Webmaster, Top40-Charts.com | CTO, Apogee Information Systems
              giannopoulos.info: my non-mobile non-photo news & articles blog

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by MarkG
                why cant you come up with one more example?
                Because there are very limited precedents, and it's a sign of a very weak case when all you do is look for something with little to no precedents then demand examples of it happening before...

                It's just my luck as this article came up that I'm doing both my software architecture reading and my operating systems design project.
                "The issue is there are still many people out there that use religion as a crutch for bigotry and hate. Like Ben."
                Ben Kenobi: "That means I'm doing something right. "

                Comment


                • #23
                  The thin-client hosting applications is the future

                  Sun and Oracle tried it before but it failed

                  Google WILL make it happen

                  This can only help Sun, who is trying again to get in on the business side of this thin client grid computing.

                  Sun actually grew a brain and is now offering the same commodity hardware, even taking it a step further, by selling their servers on (gasp) AMD processors, and those servers kick ass in performance.

                  Sun finally has done something good. They need to abandon the silly Solaris x86 crap and just go with Linux already, saving Solaris on SPARC for their big servers.

                  Microsoft being Microsoft, will respond in some manner.
                  We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution. - Abraham Lincoln

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Peer to peer thin clients are the future, and we are 2 years away from it becoming mainstream, maybe even sooner. It's right on the launching pad, just waiting for the trigger.
                    We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution. - Abraham Lincoln

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      I have always been amused by Asher's assertion that Windows is not monolithic.

                      Microsoft's Windows can't entirely replicate that approach, since the software is by its nature a massive program overseeing all of a computer's functions. But Microsoft is now racing to move in that direction: developing a solid core for Windows onto which new features can be added one by one over time.
                      Modular Windows? I will believe it when I see it.
                      (\__/) 07/07/1937 - Never forget
                      (='.'=) "Claims demand evidence; extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence." -- Carl Sagan
                      (")_(") "Starting the fire from within."

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Urban Ranger
                        Modular Windows? I will believe it when I see it.
                        It's all over the torrent sites, grasshoppah.

                        Remember, Linux is wholly a monolithic kernel so it can never be modular without a complete redesign.

                        I have always been amused by Asher's assertion that Windows is not monolithic.
                        What's even more amusing is you still don't understand what monolithic means. Monolithic is a type of kernel architecture, and Windows is not a kernel. Not only have I never asserted that "Windows" is not monolithic, but such a statement doesn't even make sense.

                        You can refer to the NT kernel as being a microkernel or monolithic -- of which it is neither, it is a hybrid. Linux, on the other hand, is unabashedly monolithic by design.

                        Welcome to first year university, Operating Systems 101, Urban Ranger. You may want to re-enroll in such courses if you're going to continue arguing about them...
                        "The issue is there are still many people out there that use religion as a crutch for bigotry and hate. Like Ben."
                        Ben Kenobi: "That means I'm doing something right. "

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Asher
                          The 2.4 (or 2.6) kernel of Linux was way behind schedule, 2 years sounds about right. And that's just a simple little kernel, not a full OS.
                          Tee hee.

                          Asher now compares Linux with Microsoft. Is he admitting that the Linux Community is comparable with Microsoft in terms of development prowess?

                          Not to mention that Windows 2000, originally supposed to be "Cairo," was 5 years behind schedule, with only a fraction of the original features and a bunch of bugs.

                          Not to mention that Linux is the kernel.
                          (\__/) 07/07/1937 - Never forget
                          (='.'=) "Claims demand evidence; extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence." -- Carl Sagan
                          (")_(") "Starting the fire from within."

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            As a side note, this re-organization does not affect the design of the kernel at all, so the whole microkernel/monolithic debate is an amusing side but not involved here.
                            "The issue is there are still many people out there that use religion as a crutch for bigotry and hate. Like Ben."
                            Ben Kenobi: "That means I'm doing something right. "

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Urban Ranger
                              Tee hee.

                              Asher now compares Linux with Microsoft. Is he admitting that the Linux Community is comparable with Microsoft in terms of development prowess?
                              He was showing an example for the simpleton who seemed to assert if an OS was delayed it means it'd lose marketshare unless it was a monopoly, which is ridiculous.

                              Not to mention that Windows 2000, originally supposed to be "Cairo," was 5 years behind schedule, with only a fraction of the original features and a bunch of bugs.
                              Now this makes a lot of sense. According to Urban Ranger, NT5 was due out a couple months after NT4.

                              And "Cairo" actually never shipped, and some parts of it are still not done (ObjectFileSystem, etc). It's a terrible comparison because Cairo was a set of technologies Microsoft wanted in a future release, not a release.
                              "The issue is there are still many people out there that use religion as a crutch for bigotry and hate. Like Ben."
                              Ben Kenobi: "That means I'm doing something right. "

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Asher
                                It's all over the torrent sites, grasshoppah.
                                Windows XP is quite a let down.

                                Originally posted by Asher
                                Remember, Linux is wholly a monolithic kernel so it can never be modular without a complete redesign.


                                Originally posted by Asher
                                What's even more amusing is you still don't understand what monolithic means. Monolithic is a type of kernel architecture, and Windows is not a kernel. Not only have I never asserted that "Windows" is not monolithic, but such a statement doesn't even make sense.
                                You are the one who doesn't understand what monolithic means. "Monolithic" originated in Computer Science to refer to a way of programming. Check it out.

                                Originally posted by Asher
                                You can refer to the NT kernel as being a microkernel or monolithic -- of which it is neither, it is a hybrid. Linux, on the other hand, is unabashedly monolithic by design.
                                There isn't a "hybrid" kernel. Either it is microkernel or it is not. A "hybrid kernel" is just a pseudo-intellectual cop-out.

                                Originally posted by Asher
                                Welcome to first year university, Operating Systems 101, Urban Ranger. You may want to re-enroll in such courses if you're going to continue arguing about them...
                                Even I know Linux is the kernel and you don't. What does it say about your lack of knowledge in this area?
                                (\__/) 07/07/1937 - Never forget
                                (='.'=) "Claims demand evidence; extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence." -- Carl Sagan
                                (")_(") "Starting the fire from within."

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X