Can Microsoft Be the Wrench in Google Gears?

Joe Wilcox Dare Obasanjo, a program manager for Microsoft, in a recent blog post raises concerns over Google Gears' synchronization capabilities. Microsoft should be very concerned that Google might do synch right.

Gears is Google's attempt to provide software developers with a means of offering offline access to just about any online content. Synchronization is essential to the whole concept, where content would automatically synch in either direction.

Obasanjo blogged last night that something is missing:

"It seems that without providing data synchronization out of the box, Google Gears leaves the most difficult and cumbersome aspect of building a disconnected Web app up to application developers. This may be OK for Google developers using Google Gears since the average Google coder is a Ph.D but the platform isn't terribly useful to Web application developers who want to use it for anything besides a super-sized HTTP cookie."

Gears is still at the beta stage and Google may yet improve its synch capabilities. Regardless, Microsoft should consider itself lucky, if Google soley focuses on Web content. Quite possibly, synchronization is the killer app that will determine whether desktop software maintains its relevance or the Web becomes the more popular platform.

Synchronization Hub
The natural place for synchronization services is as part of the operating system. Apple and Microsoft moved in the right direction but neither reached the destination.

Long ago, Apple made iSync part of Mac OS X and then failed to extend it—or .Mac synchronization—in any meaningful way. Apple had an early lead on Microsoft that wasn't exploited: synchronization as part of the operating system. The Mac maker should have made iSync a more pervasive service leveraged by its iLife software and extended to third-party applications and hardware. Instead, iTunes is the synchronization hub for Apple software and services. The approach lets the company bring products like iPod and Apple TV to Windows but blocks a natural place to really extend and differentiate Mac OS X.

Microsoft has done no better; in fact, it's done much worse. There was so much promise! During its 2003 developer conference, Microsoft promised synchronization as a core service of what was then called Windows "Longhorn." Windows Vista does ship with a feature called Synch Center, but it's not a unified, universal synchronization service. Windows Mobile devices need separate software to synch with Outlook, for example, and there is no real support for Web services.

Microsoft should worry lots more about universal synchronization than it does. Microsoft offers too many synchronization mechanisms that simply don't play well together, if at all. Take the so-called RSS platform introduced with Internet Explorer 7 and extended with Windows Vista. The service is its own silo, yet Microsoft promised tons of extensible functionality. But where is it and how does it work with other content?

Microsoft's MTP (Media Transport Protocol) has the makings of a universal synchronization process, but where has it truly been extended? Windows Media Player? It's odd enough to synch photos, movies, music and contacts with iTunes.

Next to security, synchronization should be Microsoft's top development priority. The company that solves synch—and so far Apple is way out in front—will rightly connect together the Web, the desktop, the server, consumer- and commercial-generated content, and data stores ranging from cell phones to the display on the refrigerator.

Risky Business
If Google gets synchronization right before Microsoft, it's game over. Google would be able to extend the relevancy of the Web platform back to the desktop on its terms; think invading army. If Microsoft gets synch right, it can drive desktop relevancy the other way, invading Google turf. Microsoft missed a huge opportunity by failing to deliver synchronization as a core Windows Vista service. Google could exploit this failure.

Google Gears is a much greater problem for Microsoft than all the fuss bloggers and news organizations make about Google apps' competition with Microsoft Office. Google may not have got synch right today, but there's always tomorrow. There are enough Web startups and established Web 2.0 players to make synchronization the possible killer application for the Internet. Everyone would want it.

The Web platform's promise is access to content anytime, anywhere and on anything—as long as the user has Internet access. Google Gears could bring some of that information offline, further extending that promise. Universal synchronization would be game-changing, however; it would be a paradigm shift for digital devices, desktop software and the Web.

Today's situation reminds me of the state of the PC 15 years ago, when competing formats and applications didn't work well together. Eventually, the market consolidated around products and file formats rather than universal synchronization mechanisms that would have allowed peaceful coexistence. Microsoft emerged the major victor from the bloodbath.

Today's situation is like a good game of "Risk," where rival camps gain territory. Microsoft obviously is one player, while Apple and Google are others. Apple is a player because the company got synchronization right with iTunes and the iPod. I contend that synch is perhaps the major foundation for the iPod's success. Apple got this fundamental process right and then extended it to other content types and Web services. Synchronization likely will be an iPhone hallmark, given Apple's record with the iPod and integration with AT&T services like voice mail.

Google has so much to lose but even more to gain if it could extend universal synchronization from the Web to the desktop and to devices. Content synch also could include advertising.

To be clear, Microsoft takes synchronization seriously. The concept is built into products as disparate as Vista, Windows Live and Xbox. But missing is universal synchronization—usable by software and hardware developers—across all platforms. In "Risk," there is one winner. Microsoft, play smart or you could be the game's biggest loser.

Related:

• The Google Problem, Microsoft Watch, May 31, 2007
• Google Gears Reflects Demand for Offline Data Access, eWEEK, May 31, 2007
• Google Gears Up for Offline Apps, Emerging Tech, May 31, 2007
• The Google Crapplet, eWEEK, May 25, 2007
• The Google Quandary, Microsoft Watch, April 24, 2007
• DoubleClick and Microsoft's Thrift Culture, Microsoft Watch, April 16, 2007
• Google Catfight About 30 Years in the Making, Microsoft Watch, March 6, 2007
• Why Google Matters to Microsoft, Microsoft Watch, Feb. 22, 2007
• Google and Long Tail Computing, Microsoft Watch, Feb. 22, 2007