News - Google replaces Microsoft as second most valuable tech Co.

[HEXUS]

Can it stay ahead?

Read more.

[TheNiceGuy]

I don't really care about who is better betwenng microsoft and google, I just want them to beat Apple, which I really don't like.

[AlexKitch]

The bigger they are, the harder they fall.

[aidanjt]

Yeah, about that. If Apple vanished overnight... would the world come to a crashing halt? The market can be really brain-damaged stupid sometimes.

[TheAnimus]

Yeah, about that. If Apple vanished overnight... would the world come to a crashing halt? The market can be really brain-damaged stupid sometimes.

But would google? Very few businesses use google for anything important, many can not use gmail because of the advertising. Google search? So people end up having to try harder and take longer on Bing, no biggie.

Microsoft, well it wouldn't really matter, some 3rd party would patch the established software.

It's only really hardware firms which would cause that to happen.

[aidanjt]

But would google? Very few businesses use google for anything important, many can not use gmail because of the advertising.

Actually Google Apps for business does give you the choice of a fee-based service. And it's not exactly a rare thing for companies to be taking Google up on the offer either. But obviously they're nowhere near MSO/Exchange market share. But on top of business, there's also a very large number of consumers who depend on Google for communications. They'll probably get around to switching at some point, but again, not without disruption and loss of data in all likelihood. Kinda one of the reasons I'm opposed to 'cloud computing' (*gag*) in general to begin with.

Google search? So people end up having to try harder and take longer on Bing, no biggie.

There's a big productivity impact from everyone having to deal with a lesser search engine and doing more scrolling and keyword changes, and that'd be for the ones who know about them. Changing to Bing or DuckDuckGo or whatever would hardly happen overnight. For a very non-trivial number of people, 'Google = The Internet', even using it to finding websites they frequent because they get confused with all the .com, .net, .org, .co.uk, etc. DNS TLDs. For those people, they'd be well and truly screwed if they load up their browser and get 'google.com can not be found'. Eventually they'd adapt as their clued in friends and family changes their default browser home page, and show them the ropes, but it'd be very painfully disruptive.

Microsoft, well it wouldn't really matter, some 3rd party would patch the established software.

You can't seriously be suggesting that binary mangling is going to be a viable method of maintaining the code bases of Windows, Office, Exchange, IIS, SQL, etc.? And would you really trust 3rd party mangled binaries? And will end-users be using the same mangled libraries as you, etc.? Yeah eventually companies and consumers would move all their computing off the Microsoft platform, but it'd be far from pain free.

It's only really hardware firms which would cause that to happen.

Reintegrating components from other manufacturers isn't that big a deal in a lot of cases as even packages are completely standardised for important stuff. I mean I agree if a big player like Intel or Samsung vanished that'd be pretty shocking, and prices would obviously surge, but manufacturing would be ramped up by other companies in no time flat to snap up all that new market share and heightened prices and after a few months things would settle down again. There's very little in the way of vendor lock-in in the hardware world, even changing RAID cards would at worst require a little machine downtime to swap out the last backup HBA with one from another company, recreate the array, and restore from a backup. And if you're not running a mickymouse network, it'd be no disruption at all for end-users.

But all this gets away from the point, besides a lot of Apple cultists hurling themselves off bridges, which may raise the global IQ somewhat, and the rest of the Apple drones not being able to buy music from iTunes, Apple disappearing wouldn't really effect the world in any significant way. Losing either Google or Microsoft on the other hand would be hugely disruptive. Their real value to the world is much greater than the market has derived. Not because they made the 'wrong' choice from an investment standpoint, it's simply because the investors idea of value isn't based on practical utility for the world, but rather fiscal returns for themselves. Practical utility is just sometimes a nice side benefit.

[simonpreston]

I don't really care about who is better betwenng microsoft and google, I just want them to beat Apple, which I really don't like.

Funny that; some 15 years ago nobody really cared who was better between companies such as Apple and Nokia... as long as they beat Microsoft.

I wonder who The Big Evil will be in another 10-15 years from now?

[TheAnimus]

Actually Google Apps for business does give you the choice of a fee-based service. And it's not exactly a rare thing for companies to be taking Google up on the offer either. But obviously they're nowhere near MSO/Exchange market share. But on top of business, there's also a very large number of consumers who depend on Google for communications. They'll probably get around to switching at some point, but again, not without disruption and loss of data in all likelihood. Kinda one of the reasons I'm opposed to 'cloud computing' (*gag*) in general to begin with.

My point is very, very few are dependant on it. Would there be a transistion, would it be painful, yes. But it wouldn't be *that* expensive.

There's a big productivity impact from everyone having to deal with a lesser search engine and doing more scrolling and keyword changes, and that'd be for the ones who know about them. Changing to Bing or DuckDuckGo or whatever would hardly happen overnight. For a very non-trivial number of people, 'Google = The Internet', even using it to finding websites they frequent because they get confused with all the .com, .net, .org, .co.uk, etc. DNS TLDs. For those people, they'd be well and truly screwed if they load up their browser and get 'google.com can not be found'. Eventually they'd adapt as their clued in friends and family changes their default browser home page, and show them the ropes, but it'd be very painfully disruptive.

Very small cost on the grand scheme of things. A good example of this is Woolworths, there might have been many people who never knew where to get their PicknMix when they closed, but I'm sure it didn't take long at all. Unlike say Zavi who went under probably as a result of it (might have been the final straw).

You can't seriously be suggesting that binary mangling is going to be a viable method of maintaining the code bases of Windows, Office, Exchange, IIS, SQL, etc.? And would you really trust 3rd party mangled binaries? And will end-users be using the same mangled libraries as you, etc.? Yeah eventually companies and consumers would move all their computing off the Microsoft platform, but it'd be far from pain free.

This happens with vendor software which is no longer officially supported all the time. The cost of it, because of the size of the userbase, would be negligible.

Reintegrating components from other manufacturers isn't that big a deal in a lot of cases as even packages are completely standardised for important stuff. I mean I agree if a big player like Intel or Samsung vanished that'd be pretty shocking, and prices would obviously surge, but manufacturing would be ramped up by other companies in no time flat to snap up all that new market share and heightened prices and after a few months things would settle down again. There's very little in the way of vendor lock-in in the hardware world, even changing RAID cards would at worst require a little machine downtime to swap out the last backup HBA with one from another company, recreate the array, and restore from a backup. And if you're not running a mickymouse network, it'd be no disruption at all for end-users.

Actually thats not true, and its not what I ment. There are certain key electrical components which only one firm has the ability to mass produce well. The classic example would be when the japanese had their electrolytic capacitor formula stolen.....

But all this gets away from the point, besides a lot of Apple cultists hurling themselves off bridges, which may raise the global IQ somewhat, and the rest of the Apple drones not being able to buy music from iTunes, Apple disappearing wouldn't really effect the world in any significant way. Losing either Google or Microsoft on the other hand would be hugely disruptive. Their real value to the world is much greater than the market has derived. Not because they made the 'wrong' choice from an investment standpoint, it's simply because the investors idea of value isn't based on practical utility for the world, but rather fiscal returns for themselves. Practical utility is just sometimes a nice side benefit.

Oh absolutely indeed, but none of these software firms are anything near "too big to fail" levels, and I don't think they ever could due to their commidity.

[baius]

I don't really care about who is better betwenng microsoft and google, I just want them to beat Apple, which I really don't like.

Getting thanked on your first post - cool!

I agree with you though.

In fact, I saw the heavy-weight names of MicroSoft and Google - and that they were ONLY second and third - and needed to know who was above them.

I can't believe that Apple are SO big!

[Zeven]

Apple are so massive, and yet they can't secure a good number of blockbuster games like Windows can. Why aren't Apple throwing their weight around a little when it comes to Mac OS and their desktop line up?