So, is Microsoft still a monopoly?

The $64,000 Question is whether Google's PC will be able to do anything other than communicate on the Internet.

Microsoft's great advantage has been, not Windows, but the huge number of high-quality applications written to run under Windows. The network effect edge this grants to Windows is incalculable.

So to get real penetration into Microsoft's market space, Google will have to either replicate the Win32 API -- the aspect of Windows on which applications depend -- or somehow chivvy third-party developers into providing a vast array of applications for its proprietary system.

We'll have to wait and see. This could be the start of something big, or Google Corp's first act of hubris.

What?!!?!? No Allah reference? Well then, let me be first.

I think that you begin by spelling "monetize" correctly.

But that's just me.

$600 a share?

If Google gets into the consumer hardware business, I'll eat my hat.

Google makes money because they can provide high level services with low numbers of employees. Google loses its sparkle once they have a piece of hardware that goes *pffffft* through no fault of their own.

"Google? Yeah, I bought a computer from them, it totally stunk."

They need to fix their search, not dabble in hardware.

Norton Anti-Virus screwed up my Outlook Express.
Microsoft tells me to contact Symantec.
Symantec says I need to ask Microsoft for help.

Rotten cocksuckers, both!

Now how do I monetarize that skill?

Volume.

This was tried once before and failed. Remember the Network PC? This might have a better shot now though, since the NetPC was more designed to run regular apps that were served up by a central server and written in Java. That proved cumbersome and, as someone else said, there's a huge installed base of Win32 apps that no one was particularly willing to convert wholesale over to Java.

This might do better now because much of what is done now is done strictly via the Web (browsing, Web email). A bunch of apps, like multimedia players, I'm not sure about. Much of that is probably already browser-based.

But, it all depends on the apps.

Actually, in a sense, M$ never did "beat" IBM, since IBM was a hardware company, primarily. They did "beat" IBM at the desktop OS (OS/2), but M$ did that not by any competitive means, but by (illegal) per-processor licensing, primarily.

Can someone explain to me how the hell this happened? Far as I can tell, IBM was beaten by Microsoft, which produced software instead of hardware; now Google eclipses Microsoft by producing etherware instead of software.

IBM was beaten by Microsoft in the software realm (OS/2 vs. Windows), which is hardly suprising given that Microsoft was the software company. Meanwhile, the "clones" (as we used to call them in the old ages) beat the hell out of IBM in the hardware arena, as they were able to assemble compatible machines for less. Basically they lost control of the software and the hardware and couldn't compete on price, so the one-two punch of MS and the clones put them down.

Google hasn't eclipsed Microsoft yet. Can they? I give them more of a shot than some others do. I think a lot of people would be shocked at home many people use the computer for browsing and email and literally nothing else. These people don't care what their OS is or anything else as long as they can browse and read email. If Google can sell them a cheap computer that works well, they might be able to get something going.

Google hasn't eclipsed Microsoft yet

Could happen. Google maps is the best. True Dat. Double Tree.

HOW THEY AT MICROSOFT MUST FEEL I GUESS EVEN THE HOTMAIL BUTERFLY IS DOING BETTER TO

Google has been hiring a number of quality people in fields which might be considered 'odd' for google.

It's believed they have people working on Firefox and Open Office, and they have also grabbed the domain GBrowser.com.

I would expect a Net PC with mail (gmail), browser (gbrowser based on firefox) and office applications (goffice?) based on OpenOffice, the open source MS Office alternative.

Let's face it, what has MSFT got right now? Windows? I haven't upgraded in 5 years, Office? Ditto? SQL Server? MySQL, Postgresql, Oracle, firebird spring to mind. .Net?, they are having problems forcing people to adopt it. With mono on the trail, seems they have seriously risked finding a way for people to easily write cross platform applications, thus killing the windows cash cow.

Personally, I think MSFT will be going through some interesting times soon.