is revenue. They're not only ubiquitous, they have the money tree called search to fund the development to continue to stay relevant. Once MS got serious about internet and search, they merely devoted enough resources to match and then exceed Netscape. Likewise Google has the resources to match and exceed anything MS throws at search (Bing), and at the same time challenge them in the OS space. As it stands I don't think chromeOS is obviously a Windows killer-- the two sets still seem somewhat disjoint. You have to start somewhere, though. Making it sort of open source seems like a good idea.

Netscape couldn't afford to fail once. Google (and MS) can fail over and over.. which is what will make the fight interesting.

What Google shareholders have seen is that Google isn't capable of generating profits outside its main business, Internet search advertising.

They surely haven't made money on the businesses they've tried to make money on (Radio advertising, Newspaper advertising) and they have certainly lost copious amounts of money on businesses that they had no earthly intention of making any money at (Google Earth, some energy business venture, Google Mail).

No, Google is one of those companies that thinks the laws of gravity don't apply to them. They think that they can go out and willfully spend money on silly ventures just because they well, they are Google (unfortunately, profits, and growth do matter especially when you are public).

Now they go after Microsoft, and maybe they'll win, but most likely they will lose in a most humiliating way. But I imagine that this is all a tactic to distract Microsoft from encroaching on their one, profitable business, search.

Regardless, the consumer will win, which is nice!

Am I mistaken in remembering that the reason for anti-trust action against Microsoft's giveaway of IE was that it was included by default as the only initial webbrowsing choice in Windows? That is a case of leveraging one's monopoly in one market ( OSes ) to overtake another market ( web browsers ). That led to Microsoft trying to argue that IE was not a separate program, but rather, an inherent part of the OS, an attempt to deny the presence of two separate markets in effect.

This is vastly different from simply sponsoring a free software package that has no direct tie-in. Now, if they come up with a way of doing that in Chrome ( preferring/advantaging those who use gmail over hotmail, for instance, in some way ), then I think you'll see the anti-trust flag being waved in earnest.

They think that they can go out and willfully spend money on silly ventures just because they well, they are Google ...

And how is that different from Microsoft? Microsoft has spent tons of the money made by their cash cows on stuff that hasn't made a profit yet, and that might not make any profit ever.

Am I mistaken in remembering that the reason for anti-trust action against Microsoft's giveaway of IE was that it was included by default as the only initial webbrowsing choice in Windows?

It's a little more complicated than that.

IE started out as just another program. Microsoft was giving it away for free, but Netscape was still winning even though it cost money. Then Microsoft forbade system builders (such as Compaq and Dell) to pre-install Netscape on their systems. That got Microsoft into anti-trust trouble, but they settled and entered into a consent agreement to stop doing that.

The next step was to "weld" IE into Windows so thoroughly that it was almost impossible to remove. They also rigged Windows to always invoke IE under some circumstances even if a different browser had been installed and configured as the default. I can't understand how they escaped a contempt-of-court action for such a flagrant violation of their earlier agreement, but they did. After they did that, IE's market share grew until it was the dominant browser on the web.

Anybody who thinks Google is going head to head with Microsoft doesn't understand software. These are separate markets altogether.

Oh, wow, yet another Linux distro to take over the world. It will probably garner 1, mabe 2% market share. Windows will win, because it delivers value, and people are gullible but not actually stupid.

The Google assertion that security is not an issue with their new OS, to be delivered in a year? Impossible, as people who actually understand security agree. The only security advantage a Google OS might enjoy is obscurity, i.e. the same advantage that Apple enjoys.

The idea that a thin browser-based client might fill all consumers' needs, and business needs? no f'ing way. people need responsivenss and a rich user interface to bring value, and Microsoft delivers the platforms under the best that is available (aside from the self-enclosed, very expensive and choice-poor world of Apple). In a year or two, that will still be true.

Google will ship a BETA of it's OS in a year, and it will probably remain labelled "beta" for another year after that. In two years, Windows 7+ will run on every small device that's really useful, e.g. your watch, and Microsoft has worked with the inevitable security issues, and done it better than anybody else, for years.

The idea that Google could be any more successful than Apple, which has milked its small market share for more than it's worth at this point, is improbable.

Google is good for the consumer in competing for market share in search and advertising. In any other way, so far, it will be in a distant 2nd place to Microsoft.

Microsoft isn't a monopoly; doesn't look or behave like one. be grateful that it's always delivering greater consumer value, for lower prices.

I would love to see valid, consumer-usable competition to Microsoft's large OS market share; but, this isn't it.

They surely haven't made money on the businesses they've tried to make money on (Radio advertising, Newspaper advertising) and they have certainly lost copious amounts of money on businesses that they had no earthly intention of making any money at (Google Earth, some energy business venture, Google Mail).

When you make as much money as Google does, there's minimal growth opportunity for your core business. You are left with two options: huge dividends or new ventures. For an innovation company like Google, new ventures are going to be risky, different, and many will fail. But going the huge dividend route makes it likely that down the road, you will lose your leading position, and that's not good business either.

Nonetheless, gmail, which you mention as a loser venture, is a good example of a successful venture. Gmail itself doesn't make money, but, by keeping users on Google websites looking at Google ads longer, it does boost revenue in the ad business.