I'm not referring necessarily to full-on bring-in-the-DoJ monopoly here, but to a level of leadership in market consciousness, and the bottomless pockets, that allow for a form of monopolistic behavior. I remember reading articles in the late nineties about the death of innovation in desktop software, and one of the factors blamed was the "Microsoft effect" – investors stopped supporting innovative new desktop software out of fear of Microsoft. Microsoft would allow you as a third-party developer to have a neat little application, to write some shareware, but if you invented anything strategic of of potentially large market, Microsoft would make its own version, inferior at first, but would eventually crush you and take your market.And now we have Google, doing the same thing. It's been a while since Google brought out anything truly innovative, but they sure have shown themselves willing to copy the services of upstart companies and try to snatch their markets away. Sometimes they win (Google Docs) and sometimes they lose (Google Video, Orkut) but this kind of aggressive barging in will eventually dry up the investment ecosystem for web services.

5 comments:
Are you suggesting the days of
"Don't be evil"
are over for Google?
What is "evil"? Is providing a seamless user experience to people on the internet evil? It providing a seamless user experience to Windows users evil? They all just have our best interests at heart.
Hey - I'm a Googler.
What prompted this?
The Latitude Launch today?
@Sean, yes, the Latitude Launch, "spatial social networking", where have I heard of that before... oh, right.
I'm not going to go all "Google is evil" on you, this seems like a perfectly natural progression for companies that get large enough and successful enough that they don't have to concentrate on their core business any more. When you are dominant in your core business, you have the cash to dabble in others, in a way which looks, to the people in those other businesses, fairly predatory.
I'd go one further though, and say that, the longer the dabbling goes on, particularly in an innovation driven area like IT, the more likely that it will have a chilling effect on independent innovation.
I agree with with Paul that a company the size of Microsoft (or Google in the Internet Services) do more harm to the independent developers and medium-sized companies (the size of which even Google started-out with) more than the benefits it brings through a unified and all-in-house solutions for the end-user.
The ability for small and medium companies to innovate and integrate within larger bodies is probably more important than giving the user the integrated environment that he likes right now but needs more smart and diverse solutions tomorrow.
This brings us to idea that an extensible and open applications and platforms far more important than a ready-to-use yet closed-environment solution, I hope such an idea would be more spread in Google especially in the current financial situation, where you don't really know from where will the next great idea come from and work on which platform.
Post a Comment