sez financial pundit-slash-blogger Henry Blodget of Sillicon Alley Insider.

"Why is Microsoft so concerned about Google? Lots of reasons, one of which is this: By this time next year, Google's search business will be larger and more profitable than the most profitable and legendary monopoly in history--Microsoft Windows. (Just Google's search business--that doesn't even include AdSense).
http://static.10gen.com/www.alleyinsider.com/~~/f?id=48299fca14b9b926007f8eb1&maxX=440&maxY=289
Before we go to the numbers, a few important observations.
Both products are natural monopolies. Google's share of the search market should continue to approach Microsoft's share of the operating system market (90%+)
Both products are wildly, fantastically profitable. Microsoft's Windows business has operating margins of 75%-plus. So does Google's search business (once you factor out the billions Google is spending on products that produce zero revenue). Google natural monopoly is growing a lot faster than Microsoft's. [...]"
http://www.alleyinsider.com/2008/5/google_to_surpass_size_of_microsoft_windows_in_2009

Hmmm.... I wouldn't call either of monopolies "natural," but, of the two, Google's outcome more of a challenge to reach, than Microshaft's. Either way, both their profit margins are obscene... another proof for ongoing devolution of the Homo Sapiens. (Feel better now).

Didn't someone from MSFT just admit that free software was even more of a threat than Google?

I disagree with this headline. Google can't possibly be generating the same amount of value for society as Google; therefore, it's share price will eventually reflect it. Take a serious look at your family, friends, peers and think about how they communicate and what they do for a living. They just want to use a computer to get from A-Z. Think about your old relatives getting on the web for the first time and finally breaking away from AOL. Microsoft is the big hand holder. Microsoft understands the big picture of human interactation and what it means to actually be decentralized.
Google is a single point of failure and it's centrally managed regardless of how big or complex their cloud is. As far as Linux – it's too technical and the benefits aren't there for most to care about. Currently, I believe most people are drawn to Linux for the same reason a mechanical person likes to open up their car engine. However – eventually – they need a reliable car to drive to work the next day or take their children to school. (that's Microsoft and it's not perfect but it's been there for years)

So while Google and Open-Source are out their focusing on the technology and Apple's out their trying to be trendy, Microsoft is here trying to understand and build software and systems that make general day to day life easier. They support virtually 100% of small businesses via custom Visual Basic / .NET applications. All these countless applications doing unimaginable tasks keep the world going around and they are built by the people who use them so they are close to perfect for specific tasks AND if one of them goes down, all of them don't go down. Try achieving this environment with the Google API a la code cloud. And for Open-Source – this VB/.NET environment is pretty much open-source. It's up to the developers to decided the best way to keep their project sustainable and going on into the future it's been proven over time that people need money to live.

I've never heard of a family complain about the price for Windows that came pre-installed on their $400 computer which comes with a complimentary LCD- Flat Screen. And from experience in business and as a passionate technologist, I've never found a piece of MSFT software that doesn't pay for itself pretty much instantly.

From my perspective, Microsoft is way ahead of everyone when it comes to understanding, building up and supporting the technical canvas in which in my world revolves and at the end of the day – I own my Windows DVD installation. I don't own Google.
  

You "disagree with this headline. GOOGLE can't possibly be generating the same amount of value for society as GOOGLE; therefore, it's share price will eventually reflect it."

Which of the two GOOGLE's eventual share prices will reflect its true value to society then?

[As an aside, I must admit that, far as financial advice goes, yours was one of the least wishy-washy ambiguous I heard lately. ;-))]