[magicalist]

This article is pretty bad, based entirely on some analyst who says "Google doesn’t create immersive experiences that you get lost in", whatever that means, and some really tenuous comparisons to other companies.

The hilarious thing is that this was only written in February and this analyst's view of Microsoft's impending obsolescence is already trending in a radically opposite direction. Shows exactly why lines like

> Even Microsoft — the once unbeatable, declared monopolist of personal computing software — has struggled to stay relevant in the shift from desktop to mobile devices, even as it has continued to pump out billions in profits.

are so completely worthless as predictors of anything.

[frandroid]

I find the comparison compelling, but if you want to criticize it, it's because Microsoft _has_ managed to diversify more than it is given credit for, so that today it has something like 15 separate $1bn+ annual revenue businesses.

But one doesn't need to diversify to be successful. Apple is working well with few products.

The comparison with Microsoft works well at the research level. Microsoft's research led to a tablet as a early as 2001, but without the proper vision, was not able to turn it into a viable product until Apple ate its lunch. Both Microsoft and Google are lacking visionaries to work towards new possibilities, rather than just new technologies.

[magicalist]

> I find the comparison compelling, but if you want to criticize it, it's because Microsoft _has_ managed to diversify more than it is given credit for

Actually I would criticize it as anyone using a hugely successful company as a cautionary tale should have more to back themselves up than the gut instinct of two tech bloggers, because clearly it could turn around as quickly as they are claiming Google is going the other way.

If in fact instinctive feelings on which companies are hot right now are so fickle...maybe not write entire articles based entirely on them?

[elihu]

> "Google doesn’t create immersive experiences that you get lost in", whatever that means,

I read that as "Google doesn't create immersive experiences that you get lost in, like all of the 1999-era search engines with cluttered, spammy front pages that it completely dominated then and has no reason to emulate now."