It’s been just two months since Google rolled out its new Web property “Knol” to much confusion, ill will among advertisers and derision for the worst brand name of all time. Many have asked whether we really need another Wikipedia.
Last month, Google announced another seemingly-redundant product: it’s new Web browser, Chrome. And at the end of this month, Google will launch the much-anticipated Android-based G1 smart phone.
Why develop a new Web browser? (Especially when Google has been spending heavily to invest in the open-source Firefox browser.) Is this a sign that Google’s culture of a million innovations has gone off the deep end? Are there too many engineers with too much “20% time” on their hands? Or is there a far-reaching strategy behind this?
I’m leaning towards the latter.
The Future is Cloudy
We are in the midst of a huge shift towards “cloud computing” — where we store our files and software on the web rather than on our personal desktop machines. This shift began for consumers with services like Flickr, Facebook, and YouTube; it’s now moving to online applications like Google Docs and Zoho, which may make Microsoft Office a thing of the past. Utility-like Web services have also been designed for corporate consumers, first by pioneers like Salesforce.com (which offers a database you can access through the Web), and now by Amazon and IBM. As I’ve written previously, this shift raises the stakes in the browser wars.
But what’s the advantage of Google entering the browser market itself instead of just continuing to support the successful and well-designed Firefox?
An Operating System Built for Web Apps
Google argues that Chrome is not just another browser but rather an attempt to build the next-generation environment for the future of cloud computing. In other words, Chrome aims to be a operating system for the next wave of Web apps that Google is developing.
It will need to be if Google really wants to challenge licensed-software companies like Microsoft. Many of Google’s current Web apps offer the promise of thrilling functionality (incredibly easy collaborating on Google Docs, the ability to work offline with Google Gears). But most are still trapped in a “Beta” version with limited applicability.
With the Chrome browser, Google may be able to make its Web apps more robust, so that they can really compete with Microsoft for the future of the personal computer space.
Chrome Smells a Lot Like Android
We’ve seen this play before from Google, except now it’s in the mobile phone space. With much advance buzz over the last year, Google has been developing its next generation operating system for smart phones – called Android. Google’s competitor in the mobile phone space is not Microsoft but Apple, maker of the iPhone. And industry observers have been waiting to see if the Android operating system will allow phone makers like Samsung and Nokia to roll out an “iPhone killer.” The first phone running on Android is expected this fall from HTC.
Open vs. Closed
With both Chrome and Android, Google is betting on the open-source model for innovation, which built the Linux operating system and the Firefox browser. By contrast, Microsoft Office and Apple’s iPhone are both built on closed, proprietary systems.
Open vs. closed is a big debate these days. Techies love to extol the virtues of the open source movement. But Apple’s success shows the potential strength of closed innovation, which allows for a seamless user experience. Closed innovation is why iPod+iTunes were able to break the deadlock on digital music (winning the trust of record labels and creating an intuitive buying experience online). Closed innovation allowed Apple to create the first Web-enabled phone that actually works in the U.S. (too bad Apple couldn’t build its own phone network, too, rather than use AT&T’s).
But Apple has not always been able to hold on to the success of its innovations. Windows stole Apple’s thunder (and huge market share) by copying the best design elements from the Mac. What’s to keep Google from swooping in like Microsoft did and copying the iPhone design (which has solved the key problems for a smartphone in the U.S. market)? Can Google grab the best ideas for their Android phone platform, allowing Samsung, HTC and others to dominate the smartphone market? Will the diversity of an open ecosystem triumph over Apple in the end?
Betting on Google’s Strategy
What’s clear now is that Google is pursuing a two-pronged strategy aimed at a future of cloud computing. They will use Chrome as an operating system to challenge Microsoft in the world of PCs, laptops and netbooks. And they will use Android to establish an alternative Apple in the realm of mobile devices. With both prongs, they are using an open innovation approach with many partners to challenge established market leaders.
It’s an audacious strategy. And it’s probably too early to tell if will succeed.
Right now, I’m hedging my bets. When people ask what me, “Which operating system do you use?”, I answer, “All three.” My mobile platform is iPhone, my laptop platform is Windows and my cloud platform is Google. But I’m open to see who comes up with the next great idea.
Columbia Business School and the Center on Global Brand Leadership are hosting the BRITE Workshop on Online Communities on Oct. 16.
Photo credit: Google
Comments
I think you give to much credit to Google. Many people think that there is some "master strategy" behind all of Google's actions. As it's founders and senior management said not once - there isn't such a strategy. Google tries different things on different markets. And in many times it just fails miserably. What about orkut - a social network which is largely a drug dealing market for the Latin area? another example is Google talk, which was claimed to change the landscaped of communications and it's only a small insignificant program today. It is true that Google we'll love to see us all using cloud computing, but so far their Office alternatives are far away from what Microsoft or Zoho has to offer. It's really seems that it's engineers have too much free time, there is no master strategy behind this.
Cloud computing in the United States will never take off until the bandwidth raises and wifi becomes ubiquitous. The chances of a packet of sensitive information not being saved as it moves from dumb client to server is high under the infrastructure currently in place. One other concern, is whether Google is a reliable protector of sensitive information. I don't trust Google after their forays with China. I use them for goofy docs or small stuff, but I really don't trust them to NOT use that information competitively against me, my company or my associates. Information is power and power corrupts. Not that I trust Apple or M$ either. In fact, the only way that I would go for cloud computing is if I had my own encrypted cloud.
Excellent post, but I feel compelled to clarify that Google Docs, Zoho, Flickr, Facebook, and Youtube are not cloud computing. They are websites and they do store data "in the cloud" so to speak, but that alone is not enough to make them cloud computing. Cloud computing is something new and entirely different. Cloud computing solves a problem that each of those sites you mention solve independently and that is the problem of scale. When web applications, like the ones you mentioned, are first built, they are just built. There isn't a lot of thought put into scalability and performance optimizations at the beginning because coding for those things can really slow down the process of building something new and speed is the name of the game... Scalability fixes are put in place as a site grows. Sometimes this scaling is accommodated horizontally, meaning more servers are added to each layer of the stack. Sometimes this scaling is accommodated vertically, meaning more specialized servers are added, application code is modified to support caching, soa, message queuing, etc... As you can imagine, the last part there, the vertical scaling and even the horizontal scaling, really any scaling at all is really hard and it's especially hard when you have to support your customers, fix bugs, add features, and keep everything alive. So that last part there, the scaling, is really the problem cloud computing solves. If you build your application and then install it on a cloud computing service like Mosso for example, then the provider handles the horizontal scaling. The developer doesn't really have to think, "OMG, servers are crashing our site is down, is it the database, the app servers, ... ?? oh crap a DOS attack... ugh!" Cloud computing is really only relevant to developers of applications. End-users of applications probably won't be directly affected by the amazingness which is cloud computing, but they will feel a difference in the web. Sites will be more responsive, the digg effect will disappear, and there will be a general explosion of application development because the cloud makes the process of building, maintaining, and enhancing web based applications much much easier. If you are hosting content on the internet, like a blog or you are a company with a store for example, and you haven't yet graduated to cloud computing, then cloud computing is something to look into if your site traffic is erratic or it crashes under load or you are running a business that is growing and you don't want to be bothered with a lot of the technical issues that plague small businesses. For example, with all that is out there now, you can run an entire business online without ever purchasing a server or hiring an IT person. All you need is a laptop or even just an iPhone or blackberry. There's no huge up front cost. It's all subscription based and / or pay for what you use, so it's easy to keep costs in line and build costs into pricing. It's amazing, it really is and we haven't even gotten started. Imagine all those 90,000 ISVs on the Microsoft platform alone converting their Access and Desktop GUI apps to SaaS over the next 3 or 4 years. All those servers behind firewalls now, every SMB in the nation will have 1,000x that at their disposal. Cloud computing is going to do for the internet what the internet did to the stock market. It will all become liquid, rising and flowing as needed geographically dispersing itself on demand.
Add Your Comments