Big corporation (and also their shareholder) cares about "long term" profit. That explains why they will not encourage opportunistic behaviour. CEOs of big corporation, on the other hands, are driven by power. They might mis-use the power of The big corporation. if it happens, big corporation hopelessly become related culprit of the plot.

So the best way is to make sure no Big Corporation monopolize the market they are in.

I have to say, MS and Google practically offers different key services for end users. MS is strong with MS office and Google is search-machine. They are competing in other potential market but not the core one.

To me, the key to win when you compete in new market (in addition to money, organized structure) is your ability to leverage on your existing customer base. to this end, MS obviously take the lead because you (as far as I remember) have around more than 2 billion PCs and just around 1 billion internet user.

Moreover, average size of Google team is 8 people and the average project life is six months. They are not used to develop gigantic projects with 1000++ engineer. Just look at other projects like G - spreadsheet and gmail, G desktop..., apart from speedy and stable delivery, also searchability, they are not as user-friendly as MS outlook and MS office (can send off-line msg, integrated editing tool)

lastly, apart from financial clout (obviously, more war chest than Google), MS has the ability to direct third party development effort. They can set the standard for industry to follow.

always there's a conflict between short term need and long term security.

i would say we should not use a long term solution to address our short term need. US should be more energy-efficient under this pressure and it will translate into national strength in the long run.

also, under unexpected circumstances, 3% of the world reserve could be vital to national security.

Vibrant media is the best example. People criticize it just because it has not become mainstream.

keira Knightly? she has the look and the acting !!

it is hard to argue if people cannot agree that "we should support the new great tech". Why everytime a great application/technology comes around and attract alot of users, people start to think it will bring harm to society, instead of trying to direct and manage it

Alot people love google and their spirit, including me. MS got a late start in the Internet and still catching up. However, if you look outside PCs, i think probably MS will win because: a) they are more aggressive and well-organized. I dont know any company can write "acceptable software" better than MS on a consistent basis b) they have more political power c) they are moving to control new important device (home theater, xbox, cell phone...) to diversify their revenues.

In a sense, MS represents "order" (IP rights...) and google represents freedom (open source, open social, Internet...); and that is why alot of people love Google. Yet, I still believe you need to be extremely competitive to win in this world. Just look at US as a nation for a good example....