The area to watch are the companies that will leverage web-based hard drives and create ubiquitous computing across all devices. It's not about cross-platform or nomad computing, it's about all of your devices being able to interact and connect. It's about being able to pull up all 10,000 of your photos on your cellular phone, or watching your video collection on a friends TV without any sort of medium interaction. I guess I'm looking for a "medium-less" society in the next 5-10 years?

the thing is, in the valley, its all web because they lack the skills to do desktop developement; mainly b/c everyone went java/ajax...but microsoft is right, they can easily merge their technologies to give you the best of both worlds; while google has to start at ground zero with an idea which was shot down before...remember larry elison's net-computer?

My analogy was Microsoft plays chess while Google is playing Go. Very different methods of defense and attack... I wrote about this in the beginning of the year.

http://blogs.tech-recipes.com/davak/2006/01/11/microsoft-plays-chess-google-plays-go/

I also think google's broad spectrum of attack is partly designed to keep other smaller players from reaching superpower status.

Davak, your theory of "Microsoft plays chess while Google is playing Go". It's tempting to think that, but with Google they play their cards very close to their chest.... and the fact that everybody is speculating about a GoogleOS or their fields of server farms or Google Desktop, just shows how many options they have up their sleeve ;-)

Now whatever Microsoft does was always a success through a combination of user friendly , mature product and aggresive marketing strategy. However lately it seems it is begining to lose some ground. Let me list them so that we all know what is coming and you can say I told you first:
- MSN search hasnt been able to replace Google.
- Dell servers running Windows 2x havent been able to replace Sun systems.
- Staroffice have not died but has grown over the years.
- Oracle has committed itself to grow around Java ecosystem for the next 10 years.
- Web 2.0 is rapidly shifting the paradigm from using thick applications to browser based ajax applications.
- Opensource Movement is bigger than ever and is growing everyday.
- Mozilla is a very good browser and in some respects better than IE.
- Active Directory adoption has been slow and still there exists many NT shops.

These are signs of Microsoft not been successful everywhere , or microsoft's rate of growth in computing markets beyond the home and office desktop hasn't matched the starry growth rate it has experienced in the desktop market.

But the biggest sign of Microsoft failing, in my opinion, has come from IBM recently declaring intention to replace their internal windows desktops with linux based desktops and not to license Windows Vista. IBM has been actively involved with the opensource movement for quite some time and with this annoucement it seems that these organisations are reaching critical mometum within themselves that will enable themselves to move away from Microsoft's solutions to solutions produced by themselves and the opensource community. I am sure the next thing IBM will do, in its capacity of being a solutions provider and consulting company , is to try and convince its customer's to migrate from MS based solutions to something else. And when Big Blue decides to do that then based on its customer's base , I am sure the computer industry will witness another paradigm shift.

Sure, but what about the millions of regular users who don't need their document and spreadsheet editor to do all that and be extra secure? In the same way that Google made advertising easier for the long tail of businesses, they can do the same for individuals who don't need the bells and whistles of Excel and Word.

If I can shave hundreds of dollars off the price of my next computers by not including MS Office, I will, And I'll suggest it to my family and friends.

That's actually a problem for microsoft, not an advantage.
Since they got office, they must match what people expect, namely the exact same features and behaviors, which really can't be done.
Google on the other hand, has a identity of their own which is more webcentric to begin with, and people expect other things from them, things which can be delivered more realistically.

How seriously do people take their Google ads? Are they likely to maintain spending in an economic pinch? What happens to Google stock when the market starts to saturate? Can Google actually support all these products with their "faster cheaper" attitude? What happens if someone else comes along with a new deep search model that steals some of Google's coolness factor?

Eventually Google will no longer be the new kid on the block with fresh ideas. Who remembers Altavista and Excite? I mean despite all those loses listed above by beerandkebab Microsoft is still making cash hand over fist. If you can win even when you're not playing well, that's a good sign.

Google is a cool company, I wish them well, but I would just be careful.

I laughed when I read this because this is what I thought before a known MS exploit knocked out my entire financial system. My e-commerce system lives on the NET and my business requires it. Even MS machines that weren't on the NET were hit by proxy. In reality We've all been hit by a MS virus / exploit. As a business user I would rather trust an encrypted 3rd party vendor (who I've never had a security issue with to date) than an insecure Microsoft OS any day. The ultimate desire as a business user is to secure the network (web services, internet baking etc) not hide form it. Experience has shown me again and again that Microsoft can't do it.

I don't think that Google has any desire to host companies' financial documents. If their web based/hosted application model catches on, they will approach big business with enterprise solutions toting the "new" technology. They're already doing this with their search technology (http://www.google.com/enterprise/). Google has just started buying and creating the components of their office "solution." Once they've revamped it into a cohesive package (and given it a better name than "Docs and Spreadsheets"), and it picks up more interest in the consumer market, they'll be poised to slap it on a Google branded server and sell it to companies. The pitch - "It's a less expensive alternative to the MS Windows/Office/Exchange/Sharepoint solution you currently have in place and your employees have already made the switch from Microsoft, and are using it at home."

It could happen, but Dewey is probably right. Some unknown company will come out of nowhere and turn this whole Google Microsoft battle on its ear. If that happens, i wouldn't be surprised if the dark horse is the guy developing the web OS piece. That's if Google doesn't find them, and buy them, first.

Microsoft have the money to keep up with Google, they've just bought the front cover of some papers (Metro UK) asking whether we need another search engine pushing Live. So the aggressive marketing has begun.

But so far Microsoft have had "me-too" syndrome and judging by the success of the Ipod over the competition the original can become the classic.

What about Apple, I don't know about you but I want a Mac? Microsoft seem to be doing very well in the games console arena though.

they won't have to make a move too early because i don't suspect Vista's adoption will be as quick or wide sweeping as new versions of windows have been in the past. they'll have a little more time to make a move.

But the reason I am commenting is the security thing. In my opinion, the most dangerous security hazard is peoples' biased perception of security risks. Sorry, I can get really upset about this topic. As an example, I once was remotely involved in the following situation: Two companies want to share a spreadsheet for status tracking on a project (involving financial information). Company 1 has its entire server accessible via ftp using not too sophisticated passwords, they have Terminal Server running and network logins are sometimes just the names of the respective employee (for both username and password), their proprietary workflow system transmits passwords via unencrypted get requests... etc. However, the only time something got opposed for security reasons was when I suggested to share that spreadsheet via Google Spreadsheet rather than to have it on the server + email it around.
I have found that this mentality is frighteningly common in small businesses - they don't have a problem with having "admin"/"passwd" as network login, sending everything around via email, not applying Windows Security updates, having about 30 viruses and spyware on each machine - but using a web application even over SSL is obviously "far too much of a security risk". I think that misconception is really holding back Web 2.0 adoption and it's completely crazy when you think about it.

Which millions of regular users are using spreadsheets and word processor programs that don't need it to be secure (besides students)? any serious business owner would have to question the security of letting a third party sift through their data I would imagine. I don't like MS as much as the next person, but until Google starts creating secure, ad-free business services, I'm not biting. My use of Google will be for search (dumping my browser's Google cookies occassionaly too) and gmail for light personal use.

"...they'll be poised to slap it on a Google branded server and sell it to companies"

I completely agree with that. I think there would be far greater penetration if some of these "office 2.0" companies would license the code to enterprise customers. The enterprise consumers wouldn't need a "Google server" per se, but they could just as easily implement the package into their existing setup and still get all of the benefits.

I believe "Zoho" offers something similar with their "On-Premise" package. I could see the same type of offering with a WebOS or other web-based packages.

But again, I also agree with others that are saying "it's all about the data". The only way I could see a WebOS really taking hold is if it was offered like Zoho's "on-premise" package. Then you could leverage the WebOS and Zoho (or Google) application suite across your entire intranet (for productivity), massively cutting costs.

When I speak of a "WebOS", I'm talking about a 20MB Linux kernel bootable via a network boot that goes straight into the browser and the respective webOS - no Windows needed.

But then that brings up another question - why not just use that 20MB Linux kernel and run something like OpenOffice? The more I think about it, the more I think that a WebOS really has no purpose.

Also, strictly in terms of quality of the product, I bet Microsoft can enhance its Office Live better and quicker than Google could, thanks to its 20+ years of experience with productivity apps development.

Furthermore, Google web-based productivity apps will potentially attract only a relatively small portion of the total users population anyway. Users concerned with the cost of MS Office wouldn't have bought it in the first place and they have other options (e.g. OpenOffice.org, Corel, pirated copy of Office). Business users will not migrate to web-based apps. So, all in all, web-based app will have little impact on the MS Office business.

And oh, funny that people speculate about Google OS. It proves how little rational goes into most speculations. A Google OS would be Google's biggest mistake! First of all, they keep saying that the software dynamics are moving from the desktop OS to the web. So why the heck would they venture into the desktop OS arena?! Ridiculous. Second, developing an OS requires HUGE amount of resources and time that even Almighty Google would find it hard to manage. And they can't just make another Linux distro, release it into the Internet and expect it to make significant penetration in the market. They need customer support, packaging, a sales force and so many other infrastructural components to support such endeavor. This is all so "new" to Google, it is not easy feat, far from it. And even if the OS is a great piece of software in its own right, it does not mean instant success. OS adoption cycle is very long, very very long -- for a web company such as Google, it is almost an eternity. Can Google afford to make a huge investment in an OS venture and wait for 10 years before reaping any significant benefits (and that's assuming an OS of its own will give Google some worthy benefits)? Even if they could be that patient, its investors wouldn't wait that long. Finally, if the GoogleOS will be nothing more than a web-based desktop (more likely scenario), then what's the big deal? There are already at least half a dozen of such services on the Web now. A "Google Desktop" would be a laughable and futile competition to Vista.

I said about the future. I remember the long period of time when AutoCAD was available only for DOS, even though Windows was already a success. The reason? Windows was a lot slower than DOS at that time. How much time until someone brings 3D acceleration for the browser?

I can't see Y! going anywhere near an office suite, as they are fundamentally a consumer content and services company - aka media company. I see them making strategic alliances with Microsoft (like the custom IE7), but not so much with Google (as they compete more on search and advertising).

For lightweight wordprocessors - wordpad still exists by default on most pCs -

soho Small businesses may still find it to their advantages to use a server based software or just share one computer that has all the software they all need

with the exception of Webmail - web apps just dont appear to be taking off

Nowadays, your information basically run buy your IT department. Many large company hires third party to run their IT department. Here you go!

As a CEO of one medium sized company said that, he would trust much more about Google's backup ability than his own IT.