• E-mail this page
• |  Print this page
• | 
• | 
• | 

Why Google Shouldn't Attack Microsoft

It makes no sense for Google to try to compete with Microsoft on the desktop, and any sign that Google is getting into that business would be evidence that Google has jumped the shark. As all good couch potatoes know, "jumping the shark" is what happens when a good television show goes bad. The name comes from an episode of the 1970s sitcom "Happy Days," where teen idol Fonzie does a waterski jump over a tank full of sharks, to demonstrate how courageous and cool he was. As if that wasn't ridiculous enough, he did it wearing swim trunks and his trademark leather jacket and T-shirt (because nothing says "cool" like a guy wearing swim trunks with a leather jacket). Like TV shows, software companies can jump the shark. It starts happening when the upstart company attracts cheerleaders that say the upstart is the company that's going to take Microsoft down. Microsoft starts believing the hype, and begins to target its massive resources on destroying the upstart. Eventually, the upstart itself believes the hype--and that's the beginning of the end. The software company loses focus on its customers, and instead starts focusing on beating Microsoft. Eventually, the company gets fat and bloated, hemorrhage money, loses market share and customers and--in the final stage--top management bails out, often accompanied by the company being acquired. It happened to Borland, Novell, and, most famously, Netscape. So now Google is acquiring its "Kill Bill" cheerleaders. As reported in this week's InformationWeek, Google cut a deal with Sun to offer Java combined with the Google Toolbar. Prior to the announcement, there was widespread speculation in the blogosphere that Google might be offering Sun's OpenOffice.org, and the two companies fueled that speculation by saying their deal included joint marketing and development of technologies including that office package. One question for those who think Google will offer an office package to compete with Microsoft: Why?

Oh, sure, I know why you want it. You hate Microsoft, or at least you want to see some competition for the big ol' monopolist. But why would Google want to get involved in peddling office suites? It's a tough business, requiring companies to maintain and update large amounts of complex code. Moreoever, that code resides on users' desktops, outside of the vendor's control. And getting aggressively into the desktop software business violates one of the secrets to Google's success: the code for its strategic products resides on servers owned and operated by Google, where the company can more easily update and maintain it.

Yes, I know that Google offers Google Desktop, a search tool that resides on the user's desktop. But that's the exception; the company's strategic products reside safe and sound on its own servers.

If Google gets into the desktop software business in a big way, it'll be competing with Microsoft at Microsoft's own game. Microsoft has nearly a 15-year head start on Google in offering office suites, and Office is the worldwide standard. Yet, even Microsoft is finding the office business to be a tough one. Microsoft's Information Worker business unit, which includes Office, grew revenue only 2% in fiscal 2005, compared with 17% the year before.

Nonetheless, the rumors about Google becoming a desktop vendor persist. An article I wrote about the subject in April, 2004 still holds up. In it, I quote blogger Jason Kottke, who says: "Google is building a huge computer with a custom operating system that everyone on earth can have an account on." Kottke said more than 2-1/2 years ago: "Google's money won't be made with search. That's small peanuts compared to selling access to the world's biggest, best, and most cleverly-utilized map of the web."

Kottke's prediction then jumps the shark when he speculates about Google selling cheap PCs running Gnome and Linux, tailored to take advantage of the Google service, running their own office suite with built-in Internet collaboration, and priced cheap, cheap, cheap.

Why on Earth would Google want to do that, given that Microsoft, Apple, and various desktop Linux vendors, are already supplying desktops for Google users, and assuming all the R&D and support costs without costing Google a penny?

If Google is smart--and they do appear to be very smart indeeed--Google will stick to the server-based software model that it's built its success on. If Google is smart, they'll let Microsoft continue in the increasingly-difficult business model of licensing software that users install and run on their own machines. Microsoft is having problems on its 30th birthday; the best thing you can do when your enemy is having problems is just stand back and watch.

For an example of Google doing what it does best, see Google Reader, Google's Web-based feed reader for RSS and Atom feeds. I thought I was addicted to feeds before, but since the product was introduced Friday, I've been spending more time than I care to think about just sitting at my desk, tapping the J on my keyboard (which moves the Reader's focus from one item to the next), and browsing my collection of 237 feeds. Behavioral psychologists teach us that the best way to re-enforce repetitive behavior is to offer rewards at random intervals, and that's how Google Reader works. You sit there tapping that J key, and you see interesting articles (the reward) mixed in with boring ones, to create that random re-enforcement.

Google needs to stick with innovative, server-based technology like Google Reader. If it decides to get aggressively in the desktop software market ... well, can I suggest that Google's own Froogle service would be a good place to shop for waterskis, swim trunks, and a leather jacket?

By the way, for a photo of the Fonz making his death-defying leap, see here. The Jump the Shark site that started the catchphrase is here, and makes for hours of time-wasting browsing fun. Wikipedia has an interesting article on the subject here. Wikipedia writes that the phrase "is used to describe the moment when a television show or similar episodic medium is in retrospect judged to have passed its 'peak' and shows a noticeable decline in quality, or when it has undergone too many changes that take away the original charm and interest of the show" (emphasis added).

« Dummies Get A Compliance Guide | Main | Tiffany & Co.'s Dilemma, RFID vs. Bar Codes »