adam digital, March 8th, 2007 at 12:36 pm ET:

“Surely the most insightful analysis comes from Danny Sullivan.”
Full of admiration for this posting which I link to various others in the course of advocating Google change direction
exacteditions.blogspot.com/2007/03/google-vs-microsoft-ii.html

---

JG, March 8th, 2007 at 8:24 pm ET:

Re: Google as innovator. Danny, you criticize Microsoft’s contention that Google is not an innovator, by citing MS’s “Live Search Academic, launched April 2006 (versus Google Scholar, launched back in November 2004″

You’re making the wrong comparison. What you need to be comparing is Google Scholar, launched November 2004, versus Citeseer, launched.. oh.. ‘98? ‘99? Some time around there, right?

An analogy: If “Live Search Academic” is MS Windows, and “Google Scholar” is MacOS, then “Citeseer” is the Xerox PARC Alto. Microsoft might not be an innovator here, but Microsoft is also correct when they say that Google is also not an innovator. Just because Google’s version came before Microsoft’s version does not make Google an innovator.

Beyond that, let’s look at the other projects that you list above:

* Gmail

Nice use of AJAX, but how innovative is that, ultimately? What about MS’s ActiveX web controls? Those predate Google. And web mail has been around forever. Same with rich GUI email. Eudora was fantastic.

* Google Calendar

Um, MS Outlook Calendar?

* Google Desktop

Copernic Desktop Search? Didn’t that beat Google by a significant time frame?

* Google Docs & Spreadsheets

Did Google develop these? Or were they purchases of existing companies? Purchasing != innovation

* Google Earth

Also an aquisition. Keyhole.

* Google Talk

You are serious? This chat client is an innovation? Why, because it implements open protocols? While I like that fact, that is hardly innovative.

* Google Toolbar

Ok, I’m willing to grant a little bit of innovation here. But when was Toolbar released? How many years ago?

* Picasa

Also a purchase/aquisition. If you want to talk innovation, where is the face search, integrated into Picasa, for organizing the photos of your family and friends? Did Google develop that, in house? Or did it also have to buy Neven Vision? MSR, on the other hand, has developed face recognition in-house.

Look, I am not saying MS is completely innovative, either. But just because MS is not innovative, does not automatically mean that Google is innovative. Look at the track record. What has Google developed, in house, that really opens up some new area, some new, fantastic innovation, that no one has ever seen before? Google Talk? You’re serious?

Oh, and if you’re going to say Google is innovative and MS is not, because it launched book search three years before MS, then I think you have to mention Project Gutenberg, too. I think that project started right around the time that Larry and Sergey were born. If Google beating MS by three years means that MS is not innovative, what does Project Gutenberg beating Google by 22 years mean?

---

Danny Sullivan, March 9th, 2007 at 9:59 am ET:

I’m well familiar with Citeseer and in fact debated whether to get into that, the idea that Google picked up a scholar search itself. The same can be said for other Google services (including web search).

But it was already a long article, and it wasn’t that I was trying to prove if Google was or wasn’t innovative. I was pointing out that Microsoft was making a poor point of suggesting Google wasn’t innovative when it was behind and copying some Google services. What’s worse? A copy or a copy of a copy?

Gmail is very innovative in that it completely changed the way some people deal with email. They don’t have to delete as much, plus conversation views can be helpful. But the huge storage is key — that caused Yahoo and Microsoft to shift.

The other products — you’re listing them as if I’m saying Google is innovative in doing them. That’s not why I listed them.

I listed them to show that Google has “content” if “content=software” as Microsoft was arguing. Microsoft suggested that Google somehow has nothing of its own. I don’t care if they acquired a product or copied a product for that point — I care that they have products that are definitely NOT simply using other content to exist.

In the end, the main point wasn’t to say Google is more innovative than Microsoft or Microsoft was more innovative than Google. My point was Microsoft is trying to position Google as some content leech that only exists by riding off the back of content owned by others. That’s the main Microsoft argument — and that’s just not true with many Google products. Flip it around from a revenue perspective, that’s a stronger argument — though then you have to open up another debate on whether putting ads on sites is a leeching behavior or just a smart business.

---

Emichan, March 9th, 2007 at 3:26 pm ET:

I’m not sure why you think Google deserves slams for YouTube. Firstly, I’m pretty sure YouTube has a strictly enforced takedown policy. Secondly, I think any kind of site with user-generated content inherently risks hosting infringing material. Thirdly, from a legal standpoint, Google/YouTube is not responsible for what is posted by its users, i.e. YouTube is not the infringer - that is whomever posted the infringing material.

---

JG, March 9th, 2007 at 9:21 pm ET:

Danny: thank you for your thoughtful response. But I think we both might be talking past each other a little bit here. I beg your online patience.

You write “it wasn’t that I was trying to prove if Google was or wasn’t innovative. I was pointing out that Microsoft was making a poor point of suggesting Google wasn’t innovative when it was behind and copying some Google services.”

My return point was that Microsoft was actually making a fine point of suggesting that Google wasn’t innovative, DESPITE the fact that it was behind on one or two services. Let’s look for broad patterns here, not just one or two services. And if I look at the broad pattern of Google, I really do not see a lot to be excited about. Most of its “products” seem derivative or else trivial. E.g. being able type “doctor appt tomorrow” into Google Calender is a nice little feature, but it is hardly an earth-moving innovation. It is hardly justification for the creation of a whole new calendering application, y’know?

You write: “The other products — you’re listing them as if I’m saying Google is innovative in doing them. That’s not why I listed them.”

I know that is not why you listed them. But that is my point. You list these as the products that Google has created.. that are NOT some of the products that make use of others’ content in order for Google to profit. Right? And so my point is that these products really have not gone anywhere, when compared against those Google products that do make use of others’ content. How many users does Gmail have compared to YouTube? Google Earth vs. Google Image Search? Google Talk vs. Google Web Search?

You write: “What’s worse? A copy or a copy of a copy?” Naturally, the latter. But what is Google Talk? A copy of a copy (MSN Messenger) of a copy (Yahoo IM) of a copy (AIM) of a copy (ICQ) of a copy (IRC). I suppose that would be ok, if GTalk were “all that”. After all, as you correctly point out, Google Search was a great leap forward even though it was also introduced into a crowded marketspace.

But what products has Google created, that don’t make use of others’ content, that really have any sort of lasting impact? Yes, 2GB gmail is nice. But that is a technical blip in the larger scheme of things.

Frankly, I think the place where Google really excels, really shines, is a place that Google will never really be able to sell. Google’s biggest lasting contribution to the progress of technology, I think, is on their backend. The big huge filesystem and accompanying operating system that make all these other product possible. That is true genius computer science and computer engineering at its finest, and Google deserves a hearty slap on the back.

But the problem is, Google cannot monetize that back end, in any direct sort of manner. Its biggest strength is also its biggest weakness. So what it has to do, instead, is create all these little applications, to run on top of its gigantic backend OS. And so far, when we are not talking about the applications that make use of others’ content, what do we really see? Chat. Calenders. Simple photo organizers. Lightweight word processors made explicitly for soccer moms, or whatever it is they are claiming these days.

Toys.

I am not arguing that some of these toys are both very useful and very fun for a small segment of the population. I’m just saying that these Microsoft arguments about Google creating nothing, being a copyright leech, and not being innovative are not as hypocritical as you believe. Because I can totally see that, when you take away Google’s “others’ content” products, you’re left with a suite of lightweight apps that anyone could get for free in a basic linux distro. The only place where Google has made any sort of large dent has has been in those applications that do, to a certain extent, leech off the content of others.

That said, here’s to hoping that Google finds the next killer app, and does so in a way that respects both copyright and privacy. Because I like their search, and want something with equal wow factor. And I just don’t think it really has innovated (rather than purchased) anything with that sort of wow factor, ever since their initial search offering, lo a mere 9 years ago.

---