3 ms·

> In less than five years, Google did what seemed impossible: Launch and succeed with three new platforms, in categories Microsoft dominated: Browser, mobile OS

by r0h1n 13y ago

> In less than five years, Google did what seemed impossible: Launch and succeed with three new platforms, in categories Microsoft dominated: Browser, mobile OS and PC OS. It's disingenuous to say Google has "launched and succeeded" against Microsoft in the PC OS space.

felipeerias 13y ago
When it comes to operating systems, sure. But that's not Google's real target. However, many everyday tasks that we carry out in our PC are done on the Web browser. Google has a very strong position in search, email and other services. Even the leading Web browser is theirs. When your PC becomes just another way to run a Google browser to use Google services, I'd call that success. Not in a small part because it lowers the barrier to doing a larger and larger share of your computing outside of a Windows PC, on mobile. Where Google leads as well.
wodenokoto 13y ago
No, because just before the quoted sentence he qualifies the success criteria to be largest share of the only growing PC segment. Even the incumbent is the largest, as long as it is declining, and the challenger, albeit small, but is growing, the challenger is usually considered a success in the market place.
gutnor 13y ago
It is disingenuous period. Google was not a competitor 10 years ago. As the article points out, Google only started competing about 5 years ago after Microsoft had started failing in those categories. Firefox had been eroding at IE and changing people perception of internet and web browsers for more than a decade. Failure by MS to compete with Firefox is what allowed Google to put the last nail in IE coffin. Mobile OS war really started 6 years ago after the iPhone basically reset the expectations. Google and Microsoft started at the same stage to compete against Apple. Ballmer could not have had the foresight that Google would compete in a category that did not exist yet. Or if he could predict the smartphone/tablet resolution they would just have bought Android before Google. About the PC OS. So what about the netbooks that had MS sweating years before Google took interest in the category. And again, Google took interest only because it was/is basically abandoned by all the player. (it is fair to say that MS does not give a sh!t about Chrome type laptop) MS made several failures. (when you are on top ...) It is just chance no prophetic vision that set Google as its arch-enemy today. Had MS competed in the browser and mobile area better, Google would have most likely chosen another road. Google after all is making money selling ads, OS/Browser are just the tools that made sense to invest in, considering MS failing.
jfb 13y ago
Yeah. What Google has done is succeeded at funding their platform of choice without having to charge humans for it, fundamentally altering people's relationships with computer technology. That it happens to (from some angles) look like they're competing with Microsoft in the PC space is purely coincidental; what Google's done is add a layer of indirection that allows them to push the profits in the platform business to 0. If you think of Microsoft as making their zillions of dollars not by selling software but rather by imposing a tax on every single computer purchase, then you understand why Ballmer was 100% right on the money about Google being by far their most dangerous competitor (and, incidentally, why some people believe that Apple and Google are not fundamentally in competition; and further why some believe that Android is no longer necessary to Google.)

by r0h1n 13y ago

felipeerias 13y ago

When it comes to operating systems, sure. But that's not Google's real target. However, many everyday tasks that we carry out in our PC are done on the Web browser. Google has a very strong position in search, email and other services. Even the leading Web browser is theirs. When your PC becomes just another way to run a Google browser to use Google services, I'd call that success. Not in a small part because it lowers the barrier to doing a larger and larger share of your computing outside of a Windows PC, on mobile. Where Google leads as well.

wodenokoto 13y ago

No, because just before the quoted sentence he qualifies the success criteria to be largest share of the only growing PC segment. Even the incumbent is the largest, as long as it is declining, and the challenger, albeit small, but is growing, the challenger is usually considered a success in the market place.

gutnor 13y ago

It is disingenuous period. Google was not a competitor 10 years ago. As the article points out, Google only started competing about 5 years ago after Microsoft had started failing in those categories. Firefox had been eroding at IE and changing people perception of internet and web browsers for more than a decade. Failure by MS to compete with Firefox is what allowed Google to put the last nail in IE coffin. Mobile OS war really started 6 years ago after the iPhone basically reset the expectations. Google and Microsoft started at the same stage to compete against Apple. Ballmer could not have had the foresight that Google would compete in a category that did not exist yet. Or if he could predict the smartphone/tablet resolution they would just have bought Android before Google. About the PC OS. So what about the netbooks that had MS sweating years before Google took interest in the category. And again, Google took interest only because it was/is basically abandoned by all the player. (it is fair to say that MS does not give a sh!t about Chrome type laptop) MS made several failures. (when you are on top ...) It is just chance no prophetic vision that set Google as its arch-enemy today. Had MS competed in the browser and mobile area better, Google would have most likely chosen another road. Google after all is making money selling ads, OS/Browser are just the tools that made sense to invest in, considering MS failing.

jfb 13y ago

Yeah. What Google has done is succeeded at funding their platform of choice without having to charge humans for it, fundamentally altering people's relationships with computer technology. That it happens to (from some angles) look like they're competing with Microsoft in the PC space is purely coincidental; what Google's done is add a layer of indirection that allows them to push the profits in the platform business to 0. If you think of Microsoft as making their zillions of dollars not by selling software but rather by imposing a tax on every single computer purchase, then you understand why Ballmer was 100% right on the money about Google being by far their most dangerous competitor (and, incidentally, why some people believe that Apple and Google are not fundamentally in competition; and further why some believe that Android is no longer necessary to Google.)