The Office formats, for all their quirks, are open and documented. There's no one forcing you to use MS Office. You probably can't switch which OS you're using at work, but Windows is fairly permissive of portable apps that evade most of the security restrictions. We're locked into using IE8 at work for compatibility reasons, but I'm able to use Chrome on my work computer just fine.

If you don't think Google is heading down the old Microsoft route, I point you to the bundling of Google+ with all of their other apps. Yes, it delivers value. But that's what Microsoft said when it started bundling IE with Windows.

A better way to put that would be businesses can't opt out of consumers using Google. Obviously you can not be listed simply by using robots.txt or not having a website.

This makes 0 sense. You can absolutely opt out, but wouldn't every business want to be at the top. I imagine if someone comes up with a better page ranking algorithm they definitely have a shot at beating google.

>bundling

I think its referred to single sign on in the enterprise world. Its much better than having to remember different logons and profiles for every google service (which youtube did)

Not a chance... about the same as Linux has at beating Windows on the desktop, in my opinion. It's too entrenched, too far ahead, barrier to entry to even get to a level playing field is too high...

I'd love to see it, to be honest. I hope beyond hope it will happen. But I think it's more likely to see something remove the need to search entirely than have a new search engine take out Google's dominance.

The technology sphere is a lot bigger than the desktop now. This year there will be almost twice as many Android devices shipped than Windows + iOS/OSX devices combined. The future of technology is going to decrease the importance of the desktop even further, and Google has 90s-Microsoft level market share of every other type of consumer networked device. This is what scares people about Google.

http://redmondmag.com/articles/2014/01/07/android-growth-ecl...

The "decreased importance" you cite is only relative; I for one don't see the desktop becoming unimportant any time soon.

For one thing, my aging parents need 24 inch or bigger screens to adequately see what they're doing. As a programmer and watcher of digital video I need a minimum of 24 inches of 1080p screen.

Then there's the enterprise, where biggish screens are needed for basic IT.

And I agree there will always be a need for large screen devices, but this doesn't necessarily mean desktops. Smart TVs or set-top boxes like Apple TV or streaming devices like Chromecast or consoles like the Xbox are where the growth is happening in the large format market. The Playstation 3 is the most popular Netflix streaming device.

I'm one of the dinosaurs that uses my laptop for everything these new consumer devices provide, but it doesn't mean I ignore that most people are moving away from this use case.

I think it's very interesting to see an internal MS manager with a background in Bing and Azure to become CEO, interesting times are sure ahead.

I personally strongly prefer modern "desktop" computing (that is, working with a computer with large displays while at a desk; I don't care what form factor the actual box takes) to computing on small devices.

Separately, I tend to like Microsoft's products more than Apple's and Google's even though I'm not a .NET developer. I'm weird, I suppose.

But all that said, Apple and Google are right that desktop is not hot—even a fan of desktop computing like myself must admit it's fallen out of favor. I've had my share of rants about why that is and what could be done to address it if firms are interested. But putting that tangent aside, I find those who bemoan Microsoft's dominance on desktop are using the wrong angle. If you like desktop computing like I do, but you don't like Microsoft, don't attack Microsoft. Instead, ask your favored firm (Apple, Google, whatever) why they don't offer you something you'd like in the desktop space.

I for one never agreed with past depictions of Microsoft as a monopolist on the desktop even through my experiments with oddball alternatives like OS/2. Their tricky business being what it is, they were not a monopoly. There were other options, but I eventually realized that I didn't like the alternatives.

Finally, I'm not sure I precisely agree with the implied shift from "desktop" and "the Internet." I figure I understand what you mean, but I can't help but envision the popular Homer Simpson quote: "Wait, they have the Internet on computers now?" Being a desktop aficionado, my desktop computing environment is all about network-enabled consumption and creation.

I see the chief battlefronts as:

* Small-screen versus large-screen (where I favor large screen and want small screen devices to be subservient views on applications running on my application server).

* Federated or self-control with sharing via documented protocols versus the plain cloud (where I favor federated or self-control because I feel the plain cloud we have today has brought us tremendous lock-in and multi-device/multi-cloud chaos).

All of these involve "the Internet," being the common communication medium.

IMHO, it's not an issue of "desktop" vs. small device, but integrated applications and presence that works smoothly across platforms vs. monolithic and siloed apps that keep you on one device.

Nobody does this well yet, but the holy grail of computing is to be able to move from desktop to tablet to laptop to phone and have your apps, data, and presence seamlessly follow you around.

Mobile has lept ahead in perceived value because it provides an illusion of that integration. Since you have the device with you always, you get a taste of what having everything everywhere would be like. However, that is fleeting and the providers have jumped at the chance to make it a walled garden that feels open (since the device is always with you), but doesn't share or play with others.

Eventually, people will become aware that mobile only is closed and bad, and integrated open multiplatform will rise, whether that is based on multi cloud or personal cloud or whatever technology best supports that seamless transition between devices.

It's at least partially on Microsoft to come up with good reasons for normal people to use their platform over all other options, and they've fallen very flat on that note in the past 15 or so years - particularly in the consumer space. It'd be interesting to see a revitalized Microsoft really attacking this space, but the promotion of Nadella makes me think that this isn't really what the MS board has in mind.