<p><pre><code> For all Microsoft's CEO might have done wrong, he was
right about something dismissed by many (and I among
them): Google.
Ballmer started treating the search and information
company as a competitive threat about a decade ago.
Google as Microsoft competitor seemed simply nuts in
2003. How could search threaten Windows, particularly
when anyone could type a new web address to change
providers?
Ballmer was obsessed, chasing every Google maneuver,
often to a fault. Execution could have been better, but
his perception was right.
</code></pre>
Two main points that contradict this line of thinking:<p>1. The idea that Steve Ballmer's hostility could be recast as innovation is laughable. Microsoft was pathologically hostile to any competition, and it's obvious that this hostility was frequently tuned and recalibrated according to the success of the quarry. If anything, it only reinforces my belief, that if Ballmer were ever permitted to have is way, Ballmer's lifelong ambition is to destroy anything good, and replace it with himself.<p>2. Very early on, Google was a better search engine than most others, and it wasn't difficult to recognize. Using it, you found what you wanted, and you noticed it when you spent less time searching, and parsing irrelevant crap. Contrast this with the MSN home page (with the earliest form of Microsoft's version of a "web search"), which (like AOL) looks and feels like a supermarket tabloid. Ballmer's recognition can be readily categorized as jealousy, not genius. My hypothesis is that he tried out Google himself, he liked it, realized it was useful, then realized it was not under his control, and set out to either control it or destroy it. It's not inspiring. It's not mere competition. It's simply another expression of greed.