The confusing Google, the Halloween-ish Google

A couple of days or weeks ago the market informed that Google passed Microsoft in terms of market value and is now no. 2 behind Apple. No problem with that.

My problem or what constantly confuses me with Google is that they are nowhere and everywhere. And I don’t understand their strategy. Apple obviously has a lot of products and services to buy or subscribe to. Same goes for Microsoft and IBM as well. Facebook gathers people in a social media tool. Apple, Microsoft, IBM and Facebook attempt to rule some part of the IT and consumer world, and that’s ok with me.

But what part of the world is Google trying to rule? I would say every part. And that’s not ok with me. Especially since I don’t know what, how and who. Some might say I’m not well informed and so it might be. I’m not well informed about Apple or Microsoft either but I still know some basics about them based on my modest media coverage.

Google do great services and I use them many times every day: search, blogspot, analytics, translate, pictures, youtube, gmail, maps etc… and this is where it becomes scary.

A lot of buying...

There's really a lot of buying and fusions now and during the last year. Latest is Dell buying Quest and VMware buying DynamicOps. All the big ones; Microsoft, IBM, Citrix, VMware, Cisco, Google, Oracle, EMC and so on, buys A LOT. Is this good? Was the intention of the bought companies from the very beginning to be bought? Is it good for customers/consumers? Are the market/needs faster and broader than the big ones core and innovation? Will the bought company (or actually technique/service, maybe patent) implement and work well? Will it block other company's innovation because the bought technique/service isn't longer "available"? Is it just a buyer's race? A buyers race to prevent competitors to succeed more than actually improve their own service/offer - to more prevent others to get market shares than really get them their own. Really can't tell more than; competition is good and I don't know if these behaviors really encourage it and provide the best services to the market.


Just one of those in Max mind...

Classic interior design and high quality IT – a tribute to value, my value

“Compared to buying cheap you only cry once when buying quality!”

Can you compare classic interior design and IT? It might not be the most natural comparison ever done since classic interior design should last for decades and IT you normally don’t want to get old. But yes if you compare in quality, support and last but not least value and this is what this post is about.

No beat around the bush; I love good quality interior design – classics, vintage. I also love good reliable IT – high quality IT. Normally I’m not looking for and loving the latest. To me it’s more important to find the greatest, because I can rely on it and have a support or money back guarantee if it fails, doesn’t fit the purpose or maybe even if the flavor doesn’t "taste" well enough.

Is price, high or low, equal to good or bad quality? No, definitely not.