Microsoft Commercial with Jerry Sienfeld

Very interesting use of symbols. Two famous icons.



If the association with humor does not work they can always fall back to this.


Image by Getty Images via Daylife











Make MS product sexy. They will have to fight Apple to win this image.

Compared to this here is what Nicholas Carr has to say about Google, the Microsoft competitor on its 10th anniversary.

But while Google has an odd business model, it's not an unprecedented one. The company it most resembles is, ironically, its archrival, Microsoft. Just as Google controls the central money-making engine of the Internet economy (the search engine), Microsoft controlled the central money-making engine of the personal computer economy (the PC operating system). In the PC world, Microsoft had nearly as many complements as Google now has in the Internet world, and Microsoft, too, expanded into a vast number of software and other PC-related businesses - not necessarily to make money directly but to expand PC usage. Microsoft didn't take a cut of every dollar spent in the PC economy, but it took a cut of a lot of them. In the same way, Google takes a cut of many of the dollars that flow through the Net economy. The goal, then, is to keep expanding the economy.

and finally the contrast between the two

Google differs from Microsoft in at least one very important way. The ends that Microsoft has pursued are commercial ends. It's been in it for the money. Google, by contrast, has a strong messianic bent. The Omnigoogle is not just out to make oodles of money; it's on a crusade - to liberate information for the masses - and is convinced of its righteousness in pursuing its cause. Depending on your point of view as you look forward to the next ten years, you'll find that either comforting or not.

It is a interesting contrast in mission between the two big companies and that allows Google to do this to help build the Internet ecosystem and profit from it.

It routinely introduces half-finished products and services as online “betas” because it knows that, even if the offerings fail to win a big share of the market, they will still tend to produce attractive returns by generating advertising revenue and producing valuable data on customer behavior. For most companies, a failed launch of a new product is very costly. For Google, in general, it’s not. Failure is cheap.

That would explain how they can release an open source browser Google Chrome in an over crowded browser market and do not worry about the financial losses they will suffer in supporting this activity.