More reasons on why Microsoft will lose to Google

Excellent article in the Inquirer, Microsoft will lose to Google, mostly about Microsoft's not having any friends to help it out.

I believe though, that WHY it will lose, is rather because as a corporation, it has no understanding of the new world centered around web applications and content. After decades of making operating systems, platforms, etc. and failing to make it work easily, the old technophobes, who always envied computer-wielding technophiles but never could hold a candle to them, have embraced a version of computer tech so insulated from the hardcore tech - it's called the Internet New Media. With the Internet New Media, the old technophobes have become the new net-savvy generation, along with some of the technophiles too.

The irony is that the Internet Media has little to do with Tech from the perspective of the user. It's all about content and the presentation and collation and distribution of the same. The ever overflowing babbling of all the inhabitants of cyberspace, the dribble from the forummers, the rapid fire posts of the demagogues ... coming to us all in emails, forum posts, XML/RSS feeds, mailing lists, blogsites, newsfeeds, Google search results, customized home pages, you name it.

And Microsoft has spent the last few decades making us tools to make this content. Nothing to do with the actual content - the closest its Office Suite has come to content presentation and manipulation is probably the Excel pivot-table - the irrelevance of which to the internet is beyond the scope of discussion here.

So Microsoft is in a different business, a dying business. The new webapps are easy to use, meaningful to use and, as in the case of my sudden blogging, INSPIRING TO USE. Does Microsoft know? Sure, some rocket scientists inside surely KNOW THIS, even better than me. But what of the thousands of employees it has, in the USA, in Singapore, in any of its offices in the world, who spend their days pushing papers, making presentations, forwarding emails, watching their stocks perform on http://finance.google.com and basically, doing all that is banal and less of what humans do best - think. It's not that they can't, but in any corporation not geared to think, any corporation which doesn't put Creativity on a pedestal to pray to, the default setting ensures a prohibition on independent thought.

Can Microsoft start to put Creativity on the prayer altar? After decades of making and refining decades old concepts like word processors and spreadsheets, I'll wager NO as the answer.

Microsoft will lose. But not to Google, just to itself.

Since technophobes have WAY outnumbered technophiles

Singapore Politics and the Internet's New Media

Posted here is a thread very lightly touching on the Singapore elections 2006. http://forum.carma.com.sg/showthread.php?p=17539474#post17539474

I felt that since everybody is in the throes of election fever, it is fitting that a bit of research on the legality of Internet content in old and new media focussing on politics appear here.

In the early days of the internet, I remember that it was stated by government that it was permitted that one makes a website on anything, but it must not include illegal content and political content, unless one were a political party and licensed to do so. When I say forbidden in the beginning, it refers to individuals, not licensed political parties.

References to the paragraph above:
http://www.yawningbread.org/arch_2001/yax-244.htm

The SBA’s Class Licence Scheme defines a category called "Internet Content
Providers", and says, "Internet Content Providers (ICPs) do not need to register
with SBA unless their web pages are primarily set up to promote political or
religious causes. Registration does not mean the promotion of political and
religious causes is not allowed - it merely serves to emphasise the need for the
content providers to be responsible in what they say."

Interestingly, the paragraph continues,
"For non-political and
non-religious Content Providers, they are automatically licensed under the Class
Licence Scheme and need to abide by SBA's Internet Code of Practice…."

A short summary after clarifications:

The effect of all this is to divide our citizens into two categories: those
licensed to make political speeches and send political messages, and everybody
else who should only listen and not speak, lest they fall afoul of suitably
vague rules. Once again, politics is reserved for politicians (which of course
shall be of two kinds – those in the PAP and those who suffer the PAP).
The average citizen will get the message, loud clear, that he should not use
electronic means to tell his friends his party preference; he must never endorse
any candidate.

The case for licensed political parties is different:

In 2001, there were additional guidelines on internet use for political campaigning. Now in May 2006, with the anti-podcast BS by the elections department (which really does not include much justification) it has even become more `forbidden'.

Before the hoo-haa, here's a good link which foresees this issue of AV streaming:
Singapore: New Media, Politics & the Law http://singaporemedia.blogspot.com/2005_10_01_singaporemedia_archive.html

Note these parts about individuals:

An individual who receives a campaign message from a party and then forwards it
to a group list would be in violation of the PEA. In effect, these rules limit
the “viral” effect of the internet, slowing down the spread of campaign
messages.

All this being said, I must clearly state that all this is merely research I posted here. In no way is it stated here whether I agree or disagree (though my statement about the lack of objective justification holds as my personal opinion).

When I was young, I was part of a group which made a parliamentary representation for the Computer Misuse Act. It became law, I think, but that law was faulty. However much or little our group contributed to its passing being law, whether we were noticed or not, I regret not working harder to find the problems with CMA thing. Now on hindsight, it's a faulty law of no value.

Now that I'm no longer young, I know that unless I dedicate my life to politics, I should not make any rash judgments and regret the effect later. In a blog post or forum post, what I can do is to offer some rudimentary research, not a concrete proposal.