In the few short years of its existence, Google has come a long way, simultaneously striking fear in the hearts of major players in the computer industry and also arousing their curiosity. While the company is keeping all competitors on their toes, it poses a special threat to one particular company — Microsoft. Why? Because Google’s existing and potential products — as well as those of other firms — raise the specter that Microsoft may witness an erosion of its control over the platform for the next generation of software application development, according to Wharton faculty members who follow the technology sector. Just how serious is this threat and what is Microsoft doing to combat it?
Why Is Microsoft Afraid of Google?
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
ms is afraid of google because of linux.
google should be synonymous with the word linux within the next 2 years.
i hope google makes their own GooglIX…id use it. It would be like an OpenBSD, but Googleized and really user-friendly.
linux = secure
bsd = secure by default
windows = forget about it…forever.
No. They are not afraid of google. Google will not create their own distro of Linux because they don’t care that much about Linux. Things like Google desktop search are Windows only and there blogger plugin for word is for word and not openoffice. They are not afraid of google because they arn’t in competition except in the search (google search and msn search) and blogging services (msnspaces and blogger) and a few other thing but the things they are in competition for are not the big cash cows for MS.
Huh.
I like linux and all but where did that statement come from.
I would think MS is more fearful of google’s methodology in which they take all the information and organize it and present it VERY efficiently. Mabey in the next couple of years, online web services will allow users to create office apps, or perform other task that offline applications perform. With google’s popularity, this may very well break the grip that MS has when it comes to application, OS coupling.
That would be nice, however are going towards the trend where we are too dependent with the internet….. Oh well it doesnt seem like that much of an issue with electricity.
“That would be nice, however are going towards the trend where we are too dependent with the internet….. Oh well it doesnt seem like that much of an issue with electricity.”
I find people’s attitudes considering the Internet amusing. How many times do we hear, “well that ‘buggy-whip’ industry should adopt this ‘new and improved’ business model, which just happens to be based upon…the Internet”* And yet when it comes to a core app, suddenly the Internet is unreliable (see the Newsforge story on web apps). Maybe we should simply admit that the Internet isn’t a panacea for every “ill of the week”, and that sometimes the old “buggy-whip” ways work just fine.
*Often heard when people are complaining about everyones “love to hate” RIAA/MPAA but other “enemies” will do in a pinch.
The article was just more random speculation. But the media always needs someone to be a “threat” to Microsoft, so it might as well google.
But the article goes on about how Google could challenge Microsoft as “a platform” for app development. Uhmm, Google doesn’t have a platform of its own. It’s at the whim of whoever is developing the browsers.
So the web still suffers from poor usability for general app development unless you leverage specific browser or plugin capabilities.
So what exactly is the relationship between Google and the Mozilla people? That seems to be “a platform” they can have some influence on.
AJAX – which uses standard JavaScript, CSS, HTML, XML, and a server side scripting language of ones choice. Look at Google Maps to get a taste of AJAX’s capabilities. It is a comingling of existing technologies to produce much more rich (desktop-like) client side applications.
I know all about AJAX. There are interesting possibilities, but DHTML plus XMLHttpRequest isn’t going to challenge the Microsoft platform.
No, but as the previous poster mentioned, “AJAX” is only a taste of what is to come. The fact that Google is exploiting AJAX accelerates the adoption of next generation web technology. This technology, combined with Google’s creativity and the (it’s about time) increase in the bandwidth available to the common user, could present an possible threat to the common desktop application.
“could”
It’s obvious that both business and home users are using Microsoft products in overwhelming numbers. My question is, for what? Are those applications the “common applications” that could be replaced by sophisticated web applications? Is so, I would wager than many people would be willing to ditch the unneccessary maintenance involved in owning a windows (or even apple) computer.
I wonder if the heralded age of the internet appliance (sitting next to the media center appliance, the gaming appliance, and the maketoast appliance) is here, ten years later than it was expected.
No, but as the previous poster mentioned, “AJAX” is only a taste of what is to come. The fact that Google is exploiting AJAX accelerates the adoption of next generation web technology.
Definitely, but that was pretty much what I was saying in my original post. What stake does Google have in emerging web technologies? And what is their relationship with Mozilla?
I see some interesting opportunities with AJAX, but I’m really interested in things like XAML/XUL..as well as some real interest in getting more language bindings for the Mozilla platform – especially Ruby.
Here http://www.itconversations.com/series/web2.0-2004.html is some interesting audio on “web 2.0” Brandon Eich talks about an IE plugin that Mozilla could develop to make some of their stuff compatible with IE. That sounds interesting.
It’s obvious that both business and home users are using Microsoft products in overwhelming numbers. My question is, for what? Are those applications the “common applications” that could be replaced by sophisticated web applications? Is so, I would wager than many people would be willing to ditch the unneccessary maintenance involved in owning a windows (or even apple) computer.
I agree, it seems that Mozilla should be the open source desktop platform of importance. But web 2.0 (AJAX) isn’t the technology to bring that about. It’ll take more than that.
I wonder if the heralded age of the internet appliance (sitting next to the media center appliance, the gaming appliance, and the maketoast appliance) is here, ten years later than it was expected.
Hehe, I think my toaster can do without an internet connection, but I’ve heard of refrigerators that can keep track of the food that is in it, and can actually send an order to the grocery store for what needs to be restocked.
I see some interesting opportunities with AJAX, but I’m really interested in things like XAML/XUL..as well as some real interest in getting more language bindings for the Mozilla platform – especially Ruby.
I understand your interest. What will make these different “technologies” useful and commonplace (such that everybody/anybody can use them), will be a some sort of unifying “thing”. That “thing” could be the convergence of various XML dialects and stronger network glue that is currently used to provide “AJAX”.
The IE plugin approach is most certainly a good path… it’s funny how fast we’ve returned to Netscape’s original vision.
I found this speech by Kurt Cagle to be very though provoking:
http://www.understandingxml.com/archives/2005/08/the_future_of_s.ht…
Besides WPF (Windows Presentation Foundation aka Avalon), microsoft is using AJAX to create Gaget Applications (See http://www.start.com for details).
Could someone explain in one or two sentences exactly why Google is a threat to Microsoft?
Google’s main products are search, mapping, and email. Microsoft’s main products are operating systems, an office suite, a webserver, a database server, and other stuff. Where’s the conflict?
The conflict is branding.
People say “Google for it”, when they mean they want to search the internet for something.
They do not say “MSN for it” when they mean search.
Google are taking money away from Microsoft, purely by their existance. Everytime someone visits Google to do a search, it is one less set of eyes to look at the adverts on the MSN search page.
If Microsoft can “kill Google”, to quote Mr Ballmer, then they think they will have more users for MSN search.
Point is though, if they do destroy Google, there is Hotbot, Yahoo, Alta Vista, Ask Jeeves etc etc etc that they will also have to remove.
dont talk crap
it is nothing to do with the search engines.
besides msn will prevail, there is no links to advertisers sites on there
besides msn will prevail, there is no links to advertisers sites on there
I can’t remember the last time I used MSN Search. Partly because Google has served me so well that I don’t have any additional requirements that Google does not already perform.
As for advertisers’ links, what does this have to do with anything. If MSN Search was an independent service from Microsoft, how then would they survive? In other words, is MSN Search just another cost that Windows and Office sales cover?
Back to your quote, why again will MSN prevail?
why will MSN prevail ?
are you joking ?
Microsoft has 40billion in the bank, and Google cannot afford to go one-to-one against them
same as linux, Microsoft will take you all to the cleaners,
it did before and it will again
Where are these things? Oh they don’t exist! So how are they in competition again?
Where are these things? Oh they don’t exist! So how are they in competition again?
Ummm, if you would take a minute to RTFA, the article very clearly tells you that Google is trying to make the platform, and those products, irrelevant.
I don’t think this is the case, however. I think a web based Office suite is a bad idea.
“Shit!!! I need to type that letter to my Boss but I can’t cause the Internet is down!!!”
“Ummm, if you would take a minute to RTFA, the article very clearly tells you that Google is trying to make the platform, and those products, irrelevant. ”
I read the article. So tell me how is Google going to make a high quality office suit and development eviroment irrelevent?
“I don’t think this is the case, however. I think a web based Office suite is a bad idea.”
So you agree then, they arn’t a threat and they won’t make those products irrelevent nor the platform.
“I read the article. So tell me how is Google going to make a high quality office suit and development eviroment irrelevent? ”
By using the Internet and Internet technologies as the platform, that’s how. Take a look at what ThinkFree is doing with their online office suite and you’ll get an idea of what’s happening.
“I don’t think this is the case, however. I think a web based Office suite is a bad idea.”
Have you tried ThinkFree Online. It’s pretty cool.
Well, one area of competition is file search. One of Windows Vista original goals was to graft a database onto the winNT file system to make file searching faster. Google desktop beat them to it, and WinFS is nowhere near what MS originally intended.
Google desktop search tool is not the platform and pretty much meaningless in the context of this article.
I think a lot of people just don’t have enough insight. Google writes applications that use a platform, the platform being the internet. Microsoft write software for their platform, the platform being windows. The internet is maturing as an application platform and is becoming capable of achieving tasks once only viable on the dektop. Now the internet will eventually take the concept of desktop software such as email clients, word processors, spreadsheets etc under its wing. The more of these applications move onto the internet, the less of a monoploy MS has. Pure and simple.
It becomes the whole “the network is the computer” thing that Sun has been pushing all these years, if the internet is an open platform then MS has a problem.
cheers.
che
EXACTLY.
microsoft is flush with cash because it is insulated from most competition by virtue of owning the platform.
new platform, new market.
The internet is not *the* platform. It’s the transport. But the internet as a platform also needs the servers and the clients. Obviously they have the servers and the expertise to spit out a bunch of HTML and Javascript, but they are still reliant on client technologies that they don’t control – with Microsoft owning the most important one.
Does the future (post 2.0) mean that Google will detect the browser and either send XAML or XUL depending?
But in any case, you can’t just leave out the client and say “the internet” is the platform.
What you seem to be forgetting is that “the internet” isn’t limited to desktops. There are many many devices capable of being on the internet namely cellphones, psp, etc. etc.
By limiting your thinking to desktops, you’re limiting the possibilities of what google can offer. And microsoft wants more of the other markets that it doesn’t control. Notice if you will that they are constantly trying to gain a foothold into the mobile market and of course the “other devices on the internet” market.
Google owns the search engine market and slowly the online maps market and webmail market. A few of the thing Microsoft is trying to do with MSN. Eventually with Vista MS wants to merge the online and desktop experience. The only thing standing in thier way is google because people choose google over MSN and do so everyday.
So Google using AJAX is a threat to Microsoft?
You guys do realize that one core part of AJAX (the A (asynchronous) and X (XML) ) are because of Microsoft’s INNOVATION of creating XMLHttpRequest in IE, right?
They leveredged AJAX long before Google did, and they can use it just as well as Google.
I don’t believe that Google using AJAX is the reason they are being viewed as competition to Microsoft. It is how they are able to utilize technologies like AJAX that aren’t platform specific to create applications that run on a wide variety of platforms, not just Windows. It is this internet platform that they believe will create less of a reliance on Windows, which is currently a cash cow for Microsoft.
As for the innovation bit, I am happy that Microsoft developed the XMLHttpRequest. I have used it on some internal sites, and it really allows me to create more desktop-like features in my web applications. That doesn’t mean that it cannot be used against them.
I can do the same with an old applet tecnology & js<->bridge. Is the same concept that the XmlHttpRequest ActiveX, only more powerful.
“They leveredged AJAX long before Google did, and they can use it just as well as Google.”
So what? We all know that Apple produced the first commercially successful GUI.
What the hell does that have to do with this?
Oops, posted before I was done.
I think people THINK Microsoft is afraid of Google because of the reports of Steve Ballmer saying “I’m going to bury Google!” or whatever. But what people forget is that was a response to what happened with one of Microsofts employees getting a job at Google and that whole court case.
Kill Microsoft, thank you.
The World.
Author your nuts! Im guessing your same guy who said microsoft was afraid when ibm/oracle/sun/linux/doj/apple etc etc etc etc etc.
If anything, Apple is more of a threat than Google is especially in the eyes of the public.
I’ve noticed that (in the media and through many friends+family):
Macs = Good computing experience
-while-
Windows = Bad computing experience
—-
What I want to know is how Google is a threat to Microsoft. Am I missing something?
[PowerMac]
Erm, I don’t think Ballmer is losing _any_ sleep about Apple ! Though I’d agree that the Google “threat” is mostly hype – at the moment …
Its not that google is going to actualy creat an os that they can switch ms users over to, but what they will do is make it so the ms platform(aka windows) is not needed anymore. If google does make an office suit(or buys one) they can just have it run on servers for clients on any operating system to use. Not everyone in the world is such fat losers such as yourself, just because you need everything that ms makes to run your daily lives doesnt mean everyone else needs those. Most people only need a few things such as email, word prossesor, movies player etc.. They just need to make the estentials to make ms windows illrelevent, and thats what they have been doing.
“People are bone headed.”
Ditto that.
I find it quite entertaining to read some of the posts by so-called “geeks”. It’s almost hard to believe that they could have their heads so far up their a**es that they can’t see why on earth MS would be sweating bullets.
A slick online office suite based on open Internet standards and technologies could be the beginning of the end of Microcrap’s stranglehold on the desktop.
ThinkFree Online looks and works great on my iMac G5. If this is a sign of things to come, the future looks quite promising.
They are working on a project IIRC that will end up blanketing the States and Canada (eventually the world?) with free WiFi. Sounds like they’re working on building their own network. Maybe that fact ties in with this speculation?
Have better hackers,management and most important haven’t run out off visionairies.
Though I’d agree that the Google “threat” is mostly hype – at the moment …
It’s a hype to agree with everything to soon.
Google provided a real search engine.A superb service that no other search engine could possibly offer.That has evidently attracted millions of info hunting people.That’s not a hype but a fact.Where a lot of people come, inevitably the ad-people have interest too.
Gmail is another initiativ that in itself is based on something we actually didn’t need,yet another e-mail host.Nevertheless Google has managed to implement it in such way that it’s again one of it’s kind.
What i already posted:”Google has the better talented people employed”.
… it is the INTRANETs of all the big business that are the “pot of gold”.
Mononsoft have stated in the past, that the “control” via Exchange (and other leveraging technology) of “business communications” is their goal. Once they “own” the -channel- then their profit is a matter of the license fees.
Google (and FOSS) breaks that business model – because once Google (or whomever) create a ‘real’ network-available service, who would pay Moronsoft?
Why pay for a word-processor thats network available?
Why pay for an OS that’s free?
Why pay for a spreadsheet thats network available?
Why pay for a browser that’s free?
Why pay for a database engine thats network available AND free?
King Bill and MonkeyBoy are rich today ….
Why pay for a word-processor thats network available?
Because I like a high-quality, offline word-processor that isn’t susceptible to network hiccups, that can easily integrate with my other, offline apps (custom or packaged app that no Google or other is going to recreate), and has connection abilities like Applescript for even more automation and more.
Why pay for an OS that’s free?
Because I like having an OS that’s of high quality, easy to use, just “works”, and has a full staff of -paid- people who are interested in keeping it at the leading edge (yes, I use OS X). That’s not to say the free alternatives of Linux and BSD aren’t of high-quality, but their goals are definitely not the goals I’m heading towards. Goals like media integration, smooth user interaction and other niceties.
Why pay for a spreadsheet thats network available?
See answer number 1. Also. Speed.
Why pay for a browser that’s free?
I don’t buy my browser anymore (Safari), but if there was a browser out there for cost that was substantially better then the free alternatives, then yes, I would pay for that too.
Why pay for a database engine thats network available AND free?
Because I like a high-quality, offline version of my database. I don’t want my databases all available on line.
I think you’re starting to a trend in my answers. The component you’re missing is that people are willing to pay for quality, service and convenience. Network-based applications may be great in 20-40 years when it’s ubiquitous, however at the moment, and for the foreseeable future, network access is not guaranteed by a long shot. Go 30-50 miles outside of a major city. See how there’s no Wi-Fi, see how there’s no decent Cell signal, see how even a Cable modem can be hard to get. You want me to try and use Online Free Office (or whatever) in those situations? In addition, regardless of the hype of Web 2.0 and AJAX, those interfaces are still not to the level of a desktop “thick” application. No amount of networkable convenience will replace the quality of a well executed and well designed offline applicaiton.
and, just to follow up on my last post, I give you this fine example:
Yesterday, I’m heading to my folks house. They wanted to see some pictures from a recent wedding I was at. I thought it would be kind of neat to burn a DVD slideshow for them, that way they could show their friends too.
So, running late as usual, I select the photos I want, start to create the slide show, grab the laptop, hop in the car and start driving with the laptop on the side seat happily churning away. Finally finished, iDVD automatically opens up, I throw the disc in, pull over for 2 minutes to create the DVD interface, start the burn and keep driving. 45 minutes later, the disc is created, I close the laptop that was open in the passenger seat and get home 20 minutes later with a nicely burned picture show DVD. Care to tell me how I could have done that on the network, especially while I’m on the road driving home?
“Why pay for a word-processor thats network available?
Why pay for an OS that’s free?
Why pay for a spreadsheet thats network available?
Why pay for a browser that’s free?
Why pay for a database engine thats network available AND free?”
Simple answer;
I need to do business in the same format my customers and vendors use, I need to provide documents in the format they use, and I need to get WORK done.
It doesn’t matter if the format is free or commercial, but it has to be in a language they can use.
Many of the early corporate adopters of ODF are going to learn a lesson. Their own customers and vendors are going to reject the format of their documents and spreadsheets.
The bigger issue for Microsoft is that it’s not only Google they have to compete with.
They face Sony with their xbox.
They face Openoffice.org with their cash-cow MS Office.
They face GNU/Linux with their cash-cow-to-be Vista.
They face Mozilla Firefox…etc
cheers,
pol
In the case of the Xbox, MS is still the underdog though so that comparison doesn’t really apply.
Yes,it seems more competitors are getting confident in their abillities to make a difference.
Folks, it comes down to simplicity.
I own a personal computer. I use the internet but as a research tool and a transport medium. I will not buy or rent applications that are only available from the ‘net. Not an office suite, not a database, not a spreadsheet program, not a graphics program, not games, not development tools, and certainly not an OS. This concept didn’t fly with the infamous ‘Net computers that were supposed to kill MS about 5 years ago – Sun and Oracle got themselves all in a lather about “the network is the computer” only to learn that a) not everyone is connected, b) broadband is still somewhat unreliable in the hinterlands, c) people like to own things, and d) malware, hackers, virii, worms etc. Hell it didn’t even catch on with business all that well even though that was its primary target.
We tech types tend to see our own world as reality. To non-techies, most of this is moot. I know that when I mention using networked versions of apps instead of locally installed versions to co-workers, family, and friends they are extrememly adverse. Many are ignorant of EULAs and the actual software licensing model already, but they know they bought a box and it had a disc and it installed on their hard drive.
” I use the internet but as a research tool and a transport medium. I will not buy or rent applications that are only available from the ‘net. Not an office suite, not a database, not a spreadsheet program, not a graphics program, not games, not development tools, and certainly not an OS.
Well, thankfully some of us have a more open mind about these things.
“This concept didn’t fly with the infamous ‘Net computers that were supposed to kill MS about 5 years ago”
Maybe they were ahead of their times. Things change, bucko!
is that Google will emerge as a soup-to-nuts dot-net shop within 24 months. Looks to me that most of their stuff runs on Win-2kSP3 and XP. Until Google offers branded non-MS based hardware to the consumer masses, they pose no threat to MS. Netscape was created to boot the web uptake for the non-tech user, and the company insiders did get rich(er), as did MS. I don’t doubt that a similar effect could happen with Google, and I would start looking for reasons why they might be more of a threat to the FOSS movement than to MS, the same with Apple.
for the love of god… ajax is not new, it is not next generation. It has been around for a while. People are just now finding new ways to use old technology. AJAX still has a ton of usability and compatability issues. I wouldn’t put any stock in the technology other then a cheap thrill.
Right now the average user doesn’t have the bandwidth needed to support a real web based application so take that idea and throw it out the window.
Furthermore as google collects more information it is going to be harder and harder for them to keep that information safe. As soon as someone figures out how, or more importantly why they should attack google we have one of the largest privacy nightmares waiting to happen.
Contrast this to microsoft who has been under the magnifying glass for so long and is still doing OK. No they arn’t perfect, and there is a lot that needs to change. But! Google is not going to be the comapny to do that. Apple might be MS’s biggest competition right now.
This argument gets rehashed every time a google vs. MS post comes up. Google will not compete with MS by producing an OS, their mission is to essentially make the OS irrelevant, so why waste resources? Google will not compete with MS by developing a killer web-bsaed Office application. At least, not yet.
Google’s threat is their ability to erode Microsoft’s conventional business model, that’s all. MS’ dominance comes from their control of the platform. People use Windows because you need to if you want Office, if you want VB studio, if you want any of the hundreds of other applications that people whine about absolutely “needing” instead of exploring alternatives. Google has succeeded in providing a globally commodotized and branded service that is purely OS agnostic for the most part. Google is easily one of the most well branded technology companies. Just as almosy anyone who uses a PC is familiar with Microsoft “Windows”, it’s safe to say that the majority of people who use the internet are familiar with “Google”. That’s powerful stuff.
Google doesn’t have to replace Office et al., it just has to augment them. Imagine opening API’s to things like dictionary searches, online statistics/resources, mapping etc. (some of which has been done) and being able to embed those features into your word processor of choice. Imagine being able to securely store your documents in a web-accessible repository, and being able to open your personal documents from any internet connected computer (even worse for MS, imagine if those documents are OpenDocument and you can not only open them from any internet connected PC, but you can modify and edit them from any OD-compatible office program on that PC). Think about storing and cataloguing media files online, being able to share and distribute them with any internet connected PC. Think about things that haven’t even been thought of yet, and the impact that google can have as a service- (not necessarily application-) delivery platform. Ideas like this reduce people’s dependency on the OS and specific applications. MS can build as much additional functionality as they want into Windows and Office, but if Google provides similar or different additional functionality (or perhaps even better) then MS is somewhat less compelling. You can use MS, Office, Linux, OpenOffice, IE, Firefox, OS X, BSD, appliances, whatever the hell you want. You won’t necessarily be locked in anymore, or at least won’t necessarily face the same detriments if you choose an alternative platform or application.
Desktop applications and operating systems will never “go away”, certainly not in any near- or mid-term future. But they are slowly becoming less relevant to someone’s overall computing experience. And anything that erodes the relevance of the OS is a threat to Microsoft. Pure and simple.
It’s similar to the linux threat. Peel away the fanboy boasting on either side, and the fact of the matter is that linux poses a credible threat in that it offers an alternative, and that alone weakens Microsoft’s dominance, however slightly at the moment. Being a threat doesn’t necessarily mean putting MS out of business, that certainly won’t happen in any distant future, but it forces a change in business strategies or development resources, and that represents reduced control. Microsoft is all about control, and that’s where the threat is.
And yes, Google is considered a threat by Microsoft, that has been alluded to both by Gates and Ballmer. There was also a leaked memo or two to that effect. Anyone familiar with the MS marketing machine knows well enough that when MS even acknowledges a competitor (if only to dismiss or FUD them), then they are worried.
One question that does remain, though, is how Google intends to find renvenue from ever increasing service delivery. Ad revenue is fine for web searches or online email, but will people tolerate putting up with them in other aspects of computing? Will people be willing to start paying when the perception of Google is and has been “free”?
Let’s have a little vision here, tempered with a little realism. Nobody is in any position to make bold statements about what the state of technology and computing will be five years from now. We’ve seen so much innovation and change in the last five years it’s ridiculous to do more than speculate on where we’ll be five years from now. Or ten. MS isn’t worried about today, they’re worried about tomorrow. As they should be, and as any dominant technology company should be.
If you care what a convicted monopoly thinks or feels then you are a fool.
Don’t support convicted monopolies
Maybe they were ahead of their times. Things change, bucko!
Or maybe it was a stupid idea then that hasn’t improved much with age, bub! Maybe they are the same bunch that’s been saying this is the year that Linux whips MS, except that every year it doesn’t happen.
Again – rented applications, increased Internet exposure, fatter browsers (via AJAX) just to emulate desktop applications – this is not progress, despite how open your mind may feel using the new shiny toys. If Google plans to bet the farm that Joe Sixpack is gonna subscribe to GoogleOffice or GooglePhotos or GoogleGames then it’ll likely wind up on the scrap heap of history like any number of other tech companies.
If someday the Internet is a totally secure environment…
If bandwidth reaches the point where remote apps load and run as fast as local apps…
If there appears a compelling reason to give up my personal computer…
…then maybe I’ll take a serious look at this.
Gee… I wonder how people felt about email before the web based email revolution.
All your points apply to email as well but look at hotmail, gmail, yahoo mail and the thousands of online email services. People sure had similar ideas about email at one time.