Reactions to story from The New York Times

• 

  The Rise & Inevitable Fall of Tech Giants

  http://blog.pff.org/archives/2008/05/the_rise_inevit.html
  198 days ago in The Progress & Freedom Foundation Blog · Authority: 62

  Randall Stross, a Silicon Valley-based technology author, has penned an excellent essay for the New York Times making an argument that many of us here have made in the past: "The Computer Industry Comes With Built-In Term Limits." That is,
• 

  Sunday Morning Reading

  http://wickedstageact2.typepad.com/life_on_the_wicked_stage_...
  198 days ago in Life On the Wicked Stage: Act 2 · Authority: 88

  In the wake of the Microsoft-Yahoo no go, (at least at the moment) The NY Times says the computer industry comes with built-in term limits and it is tough for companies to survive the Single-Era Conjecture. The article says Microsoft is fighting among
• 

  Links last week - 080518

  http://www.joiningdots.net/blog/2008/05/links-last-week-0805...
  198 days ago in Joining Dots: Blog · Authority: 40

  The following links were collected from 12 to 18 May, shared via Google Reader, added to FriendFeed or highlighted on Twitter. They have been organised by Library category: Systems and the elements - People, Information and Technology (including Office,
• 

  The Rise & Inevitable Fall of Tech Giants

  http://techliberation.com/2008/05/18/the-rise-inevitable-fal...
  198 days ago in Technology Liberation Front · Authority: 354

  Randall Stross, a Silicon Valley-based technology author, has penned an excellent essay for the New York Times making an argument that many of us here have made in the past: The Computer Industry Comes With Built-In Term Limits. That is, tech giants can
• 

  The Computer Industry Comes With Built-In Term Limits - New York Times

  http://pbokelly.blogspot.com/2008/05/computer-industry-comes...
  198 days ago in Peter O'Kelly's Reality Check · Authority: 57

  A NYT reality check -- without much to support the assertions below Similarly, two successive Microsoft chief executives have long tried, and failed, to refute what we might call the Single-Era Conjecture, the invisible law that makes it impossible for
• 

  Microsoft Still Risks Becoming "Road Kill on the Information Highway"

  http://www.artdiamondblog.com/archives/2008/11/_for_the_full...
  6 days ago in artdiamondblog.com · Authority: 16

  "Steve Ballmer is the second Microsoft chief executive to butt his head against the view that a new era in technology brings a new market leader." Source of caption and photo: online version of the NYT article quoted and cited below. (p. 4) The Yahoo affair obscures the larger story: Microsoft's long, long struggle -- since 1993 -- to maintain its leadership position while the Internet grew ubiquitous. Mr. Ballmer, who joined Microsoft in 1980 as its 15th employee, and Bill Gates, his mentor who will retire next month as a full-time Microsoft employee, have certainly tried their best to avert the inevitable decline of the company's influence. In 2000, Mr. Ballmer credited Mr. Gates for noting that no company in the computer business had ever stayed on top through what Mr. Gates called "a major paradigm shift." The two men wanted Microsoft to be the first company to achieve that goal. An interesting challenge, but some problems are of a size that dwarf the abilities of multibillionaire mortals. In a 1995 internal memo, "The Internet Tidal Wave," Mr. Gates alerted company employees to the Internet's potential to be a disruptive force. This was two years before Clayton M. Christensen, the Harvard Business School professor, published "The Innovator's Dilemma: When New Technologies Cause Great Firms to Fail" (1997). The professor presented what would become a widely noted framework to explain how seemingly well-managed companies could do most everything to prepare for the arrival of disruptive new technology but still lose market leadership. It's Google, of course, that has developed the musculature to step forward and lay claim to being Microsoft's successor as industry leader in the Internet era. If there had been any way Microsoft could have prepared for this day, it had ample time to do so. In 1993, fully five years before Google's founding and two years before Mr. Gates's memo, Nathan P. Myhrvold, then Microsoft's chief technology officer, wrote his own memo, "Road Kill on the Information Highway." It spelled out in prescient detail how each of many industries would be flattened by the build-out of digital networks, and it said that the PC software business would be no exception. For the full commentary, see: RANDALL STROSS. "Digital Domain; The Computer Industry Comes With Built-In Term Limits." The New York Times, SundayBusiness Section (Sun., May 18, 2008): 4.
• 

  Planet Google: How One Company is Transforming Our Lives: Sold!

  http://www.freewebcounterstats.com/news/2008/06/17/planet-go...
  169 days ago in Webmaster News · Authority: 1

  The most talked-about book in the search engine industry was just bought by Atlantic Books’ editor-in-chief Ravi Mirchandani. He bought the investigation into internet superpower Google by New York Times columnist Randall Stross. Planet Google: How One Company is Transforming Our Lives looks at the companys story so far and its impact on business and culture. Rights in the UK and Commonwealth, excluding Canada, were acquired from Free Press / Simon & Schuster. Atlantic will publish in October. News comes courtesy of Tom Holman over at Bookseller.com, which just awarded the annual “oddest title” to “Want Closure in Your Relationship, Start With Your Legs” was crowned the winner of the Diagram Prize for Oddest Title of the Year, after a record-breaking 8,500 votes online. The runner-up is “I Was Tortured By the Pygmy Love Queen” (20%) and in 3rd place is “Cheese Problems Solved” (19%). Read More… [Source: Search Engine Watch Blog]
• 

  Google and the Paradigm Computing Shift

  http://www.dailybits.com/google-and-the-paradigm-computing-s...
  186 days ago in Daily Bits · Authority: 85

  It’s an ironic situation, and yet prophetic at the same time. Google is set to take over Microsoft as the largest monopoly sometime next year, or so analysts say. Microsoft still has the very profitable Office software suite which is worth around $13 billion a year. Google made about $6 billion last year, so it still has some way to go. However it’s certainly a sign. In fact “two successive Microsoft chief executives have long tried, and failed, to refute what we might call the Single-Era Conjecture, the invisible law that makes it impossible for a company in the computer business to enjoy pre-eminence that spans two technological eras.” I’m quoting directly from Randall Stross’ article from the Sunday New York Times entitled “The Computing Industry with Built-In Term Limits”. It’s a very interesting piece and it got me thinking. What will Google be facing in 2018? Can Google do what previous companies have successively failed to achieve; staying pre-eminent during “a major paradigm shift” in computing? What this will be in 10 years time is anyone’s guess. Just as the Internet caught Microsoft unprepared, some new technological advance may have the same ‘disruptive’ effect upon the existing market leaders of the future. Many will be quick to say that mobile Internet is already the next development in productivity and connectivity (beyond what it already is). But can Google recreate the presence on our phones that is has on our computers? Or more to the point, a profitable presence? It’s certainly recognized as such by Google who have been investing heavily into the industry over the last couple years. The least of which is the introduction of Adsense for mobile which was introduced recently. It’s a well publicised failing of Microsoft that they have so far failed to make any significant impact upon Internet through search, services or online advertising. In fact as noted in Stross’ report Microsoft has been making losses on MSN since 2005. The vast majority of Microsoft’s revenue is still made up from sales of of its Windows operating system and Office software suite. Attempts to branch out from this have so far been that, attempts. Windows Live is non-profitable and is designed to compliment existing Windows software and services such as Office. Yet before we criticise Microsoft’s inability to innovate or develop something to bring the company back to it’s former strength, is Google any different? Google makes, and has always made, almost the entirety of it’s income from targeted in-text advertising. Yet it has not made an impact that even approaches this dominance across any other form of advertising both online and offline regardless of acquisitions and investments. Preceding the acquisition of DoubleClick last year Michuel Helft wrote for the New York Times: Investors also believe that one or more of Google’s many new initiatives will soon begin to contribute more significantly to the company’s growth. And they expect that Google’s proposed $3.1 billion acquisition of DoubleClick, if it is approved by regulators, will help it gain share in the market for online display advertising. A year later and the acquisition that was intended to increase Google’s share of display advertising has so far failed to be realised. As of April the 2nd 2008, 300 jobs where made redundant throughout the company and the Performics unit of the company is being sold off. Another example is the $1.6 billion acquisition of YouTube in 2006 which has since failed to be monetized at the levels predicted by Google. In fact YouTube has returned barely $100 million in revenue through advertising despite dominating the online video market. These are just a couple of examples, Google is of course still in a stage of healthy growth and profitability. However it interesting to consider what the future will hold for this company. It has so many products that are extremely popular, yet do not provide the company with any additional streams of revenue. The constant project development of its many, many engineers has still failed to yield that next big market for Google to sell it’s advertising too. Sound like a familiar story? Sponsor: Monetize your traffic! Join Neverblue Ads and access 1000's of high quality, high converting offers.
• 

  The Big Company Doesn't Always Win

  http://thegies.typepad.com/runtosurvive/2008/05/the-big-comp...
  190 days ago in thegies · Authority: 4

  Techdirt.com by Michael Masnick from the a-reminder dept Our debates over the patent system, one message is repeated over and over again by those defending the patent system: that it's needed to prevent big companies from coming in and stomping out smaller companies. Unfortunately, the evidence just doesn't support this. Yes, it does happen sometimes, but there are so many examples of smaller companies outrunning bigger companies that the idea that a big company can easily beat a smaller company is just rubbish. In fact, the NY Times now is running an article noting how no large tech company has ever really been able to thrive through multiple generations of technologies. A smaller, more nimble "game changer" comes along and out-innovates the larger company -- in many cases because that larger company isn't just slow to react, but also because they have legacy lines of business that prevent them from fully embracing the cannibalizing nature of disruptive businesses. Once again, this highlights the the importance of the process of innovation, rather than just the idea. The big company with lots of money may get "the idea," but if it can't full embrace it, it won't do a very good job implementing it. So, while big companies do have some advantages, it's a clear myth that any big company can step in, take a smaller company's idea, and succeed with it. Microsoft outran IBM. Google outran Microsoft. Netflix outran Blockbuster. YouTube outran Google (and then got bought by it). The list goes on. Being smaller doesn't mean you can't win against a larger player if you do a better job providing what customers really want.
• 

  Send in the Latrines

  http://www.memestreams.net/users/pnw/blogid10327698/
  196 days ago in MemeStreams | Post Haste · Authority: 10

  Link - Reply The Computer Industry Comes With Built-In Term Limits Topic: Business 7:02 am EDT, May 21, 2008 MATHEMATICIANS have long tried, and failed, to solve the Riemann Hypothesis, a stubbornly unyielding math problem. Good luck to whoever tries to figure it out. For the first correct proof, a $1 million prize will be awarded by the Clay Mathematics Institute. Similarly, two successive Microsoft chief executives have long tried, and failed, to refute what we might call the Single-Era Conjecture, the invisible law that makes it impossible for a company in the computer business to enjoy pre-eminence that spans two technological eras. Good luck to Steven A. Ballmer, the company’s chief executive since 2000, as he tries to sustain in the Internet era what his company had attained in the personal computing era. The Computer Industry Comes With Built-In Term Limits Thread [1]

Advertise on Technorati