Monday, May 19, 2003|
Google vs. Microsoft: A mini-analysis Provoked by a Forbes story, Doc Searls opines that Google won't be rolled over like Netscape. Dave Winer disagrees, saying Microsoft's position right in front of the customer gives them a built-in advantage. Since I've put in my time on both text search and platform wars, I'll jump in: First, I agree with Doc that the Netscape analogy is rather pointless. It was another time, another set of products, another business model(?). What matters is the competitive and strategic correlation now. First Microsoft: Dave nails the potentially essential advantages. A position right in front of the overwhelming majority of Google users. A proclaimed intent to put text database capabilities into Longhorn, and a public disdain for Google complete the capability and intent picture. But I wonder. Microsoft is in a situation where it has to continue to grow its market footprint, given the growth assumptions that are still baked into its stock price, and its own ambitions. But it's exposed on a lot of fronts: arguably evenly matched in the combat with Linux on the server, pouring lots of capital into tablets, mobile software, settops, game machines, and more, without any immediate return. The strategic leverage that Dave cites is real, but it can't be used everywhere at once, and using it takes a toll in architecture, market coordination, and management commitment. The Eye of Bill cannot be everywhere. Is net search one of the strategic spots that matters enough to pay the price? Or is Allchin blustering? Second point. Doc points out that the Longhorn release that Dave sees bringing doom is three years away. I have it on decent authority that key .NET components that might enable part of the vision are on one year release cycles. My point is that Microsoft is afflicted with a systematically long OODA loop, and it gets even longer when has to engage its full platform leverage. Re Google, here's Doc's money graf: What [Google]'s doing with advertising is brilliant and without equal or precedent - not because its business methods or technologies are cool, but because it plumbs the possibility that there just may be forms of advertising that users actually like, or even demand. That's because Google genuinely wants to do right by users. That's what I've gathered from Day One, and I've seen nothing yet to change my mind about it.Just so. Google has gotten very good at learning from its users. From all descriptions of the internal process at Google, fast turnaround experimentation is encouraged. Eric Schmidt is an old platform warrior, and Microsoft is not going to sneak up on him with that slow a decision cycle. Google may not have had a clear model in mind when it bought Pyra, but it's already integrated blogging into their internal processes, which exposes the possibilities to lots of smart people. Gates and Ballmer are running a heavy strategic bomber, Schmidt still commands a fighter plane.
Finally, Google still largely has its users' trust. Google has put their welfare ahead of the desires of advertisers who have polluted other search engines and content sources with intrusive and irrelevant ads. That's a reservoir of good-will that can be drawn on when entering new markets and trying out partially-baked ideas. Can Microsoft say the same? |
