Yes.

"Reports from big newspaper chains were even more dismal."

maybe this is why...

If restraining Microsoft created Google and restraining Google will create a new Google, then he has discovered have the secret of economic growth.

"If Microsoft could have crushed Google it would have, and the DoJ's antitrust suit didn't do a damn thing to stop it. Google simply out-innovated Microsoft, fair and square."

I couldn't agree more. The DoJ might had made a difference in how Microsoft acts if Judge Jackson's ruling was allowed to stand.

Washington is a company town, all good things are created by government regulations/rulings and all bad things are curbed by them.

He's just telling his readers what they want to hear, isn't that what newspapers do?

Microsoft could have crushed Google had they taken Google seriously. Like so many other things Microsoft, their arrogance got in the way. I saw this from the inside a number of times. Just like IBM in the early days of Apple and MS. I firmly believe that Google will be in the same boat in a few years, in a significantly shorter time frame than Microsoft accomplished this "IBM" status.

I got to see, from an unusual vantage, part of how Microsoft mobilized in search. By the time they got serious about it, Google was probably uncrushable, even if Microsoft's execution was a lot better than it was.

AMEN! What a completely moronic argument. I was asked recently to write on whether Google is getting too big for its britches and I still have a hard time finding a reason to hold them back (as much as I want to for some reason) - because they are good.

Right on. What reverse snobbery, like getting mad that someone else discovered your favorite indie band.

If Microsoft could have crushed Google it would have"

As #5 says, Microsoft *could* have crushed Google. Of course it could. But nobody realized (Microsft nor anyone else) how important search would become. By the time everyone woke up, it was too late. Just like Google Video would have had a very hard time trying to beat YouTube on its own game. What happened next, we all know it :-)

"Google simply out-innovated Microsoft, fair and square"

Google didn't out-innovate. They simply stayed focused on doing one thing and trying to be the best at it (remember the days, now long gone?), but building a search engine wasn't something that hadn't been done before. It's just, like I said before, they continued working on it while everyone else was busy doing something else.

BTW I use Google every day. Google search, that is. And I wouldn't use any other search engine.

I think there are two reasons people get spooked out by Google when it comes to privacy:

- Google is much better at targeting ads than credit card companies, phone companies and airlines. I wrote today about how horribly bad United Airlines is at targeting ads to me, even though they know where I live and every where I've traveled.

- Online, there tends to be a more immediate connection. e.g. I just chatted with a friend about feeling sick and all of a sudden I'm seeing ads for cold remedies.

That said, I think personalization can be used to deliver a much better experience to the user. Google + DoubleClick could equal fewer ads. Instead of the irrelevant crap that clutters our lives, we'll see ads that are so relevant that we won't even consider them advertising.

The exact same thing as this DOJ:MS->Google structure was said before about DOJ:IBM->MS. I didn't buy that one either.

IBM tried and, just like MS->Google, got out-innovated, out focussed, out technologized, outflanked, etc. Plus, the world changed and IBM wasn't built to live in the new one. Same thing with MS->Google.

Will it happen again with Google->??. Probably. But will the DOJ have anything to do with it... in appearance or actual fact?