Why Google Succeeds, Part 2
|
Unchecked, Google is on course to be the next hugely successful computing platform. And, like Microsoft, it is positioned to be at the center of third-party development. How is Google shifting computing relevance to the Web from the desktop? |
As I explained in the previous post, Google is to Microsoft what Microsoft was to IBM in the early 1980s.
At the end of the IBM era, the DOS/Windows PC shifted computing relevance away from the mainframe. The Web's promise of anytime, anywhere informational access on anything—and at lower cost—is now shifting computing relevance away from desktop software.
Google is succeeding for many of the same reasons that Microsoft was able to displace IBM years ago. Some of the reasons are:
Platforms and Money
In 1981, the IBM PC ushered in a new era of computing. But it was the Mac that rapidly gained mind share and market share during the mid-1980s. However, the Mac business model wasn't sustainable because Apple failed to build a successful platform. While the Mac had more whizz-bbang appeal than DOS and Windows 3/3.1, the PC clone created huge revenue opportunities for third parties. Microsoft software was the centerpiece of the PC platform.
Around the DOS and Windows PC clones developed what Microsoft has long described as an ecosystem. Bottom line: The DOS/Windows PC platform allowed all kinds of third parties—dealers and retailers, OEMs, software developers, and system builders, among others—to make lots of money. The PC succeeded over the Mac because of the third-party revenue opportunities coming off of Microsoft's platform.
Now, contrast this with Google, which is riding the coattails of the Web platform (aka Web 2.0). The Web has threatened to snatch away developer attention from Microsoft for more than a decade. Google's success is game-changing, because the company has found a way to make money off the Web platform and let third parties cash in, just as Microsoft did with the PC.
Microsoft didn't create the PC, which would likely have been a platform with or without the company. But on that platform Microsoft built a more successful one. Similarly, Google didn't create the Web, but the company is quickly building on the platform and perhaps creating a more successful one.
Microsoft's operating system platform is less appealing to developers now than in the 1980s and 1990s because Microsoft competes so much with them. Microsoft's application business diminishes some of the partner revenue opportunities. Recent pushes into business intelligence, communications and security are examples of Microsoft's competition with its development partners.
Google, on the other hand, sweet-talks developers with the promise of big payoffs from its platform. Google's search success and its hugely profitable advertising platform provide some economic allure for increased Web development.
The shift is hugely important to Google and Microsoft, which are both platform companies. As computing and informational relevance shifts from the desktop to the Web, so does the center of platform development. As I explained in the previous post, Microsoft has controlled platform standards for about two decades. Increasingly, however, these standards are out of Microsoft's control.
If Google and its partners can bring to mobile devices what they have to the desktop, I predict it will be game over for Microsoft. Windows' relevance will diminish before the Web platform.
Better Branding
Monday's All Things Digital column by James Joaquin, a venture partner with Bridgescale Partners, is one of the best forensic analyses of Google and Microsoft branding. The punch line? Google gets it. Microsoft is clueless. Joaquin focuses on miserable Windows Live branding. Oh, but it gets worse!
About six months before Microsoft rolled out Windows Live, I told company execs that it was a bad idea. Microsoft's rationale for the rebranding was simple: Windows is a more recognizable brand than MSN, and the company wanted to position its Web products as adding unique value to Windows.
Joaquin has a sharply different take on Live's branding: "Microsoft is crossing a dangerous line, diluting the clarity of its Windows and Office sub-brands and spreading the 'Live' brand so thin it won't be able to establish a clear position in consumers' minds."
He uses two charts to contrast Microsoft's complex and confusing branding to Google's, which is simple and straightforward (e.g., Google Earth, Google Maps, Google Talk, which all emphasize the core brand).
Microsoft's branding problems are unfortunately bigger than Live. The company appears to be in a constant state of rebranding, with shifting product names.
Here are some examples, with current brand names in bold:
- MSN Hotmail, Windows Live Mail, Windows Live Hotmail
- Windows 2002 Server, Windows .Net Server, Windows .Net Server 2003, Windows Server 2003, Windows Server 2003 R2
- Internet Explorer 7+, Windows Internet Explorer 7 for Windows Vista
- SharePoint Portal Server, Office SharePoint Portal Server, Office SharePoint Server 2007
A recent branding mistake on Microsoft's part is the number of Vista versions. An operating system isn't toothpaste. My recommendation to Microsoft was simple: one version with all the features. OEMs would differentiate products based on what features they chose to support in the hardware. I reasoned that feature consistency would be better for customers and, since most people get Windows on new computers anyway, the real big bang should be in software features tied to specific hardware functions.
Instead, there are six confusing Vista versions (including Starter). Differences are too subtle, even for OEMs. Some of the versions make some, ah, unusual configuration decisions.
For example: Last week I looked over a cute, pink laptop at my local SonyStyle store, the perfect gift for that tween or teen. Strange, then, that the pretty Sony VAIO came with Windows Vista Business. As Wall Street Journal tech columnist Walt Mossberg noted yesterday, Vista Business offers no parental controls. Parents buying that laptop for a kid could be in for a surprise.
Simply put, Microsoft branding is a mess.
Apple branding is in some ways the antithesis of Microsoft branding. Compare Vista's Windows Shadow Copy feature to Mac Leopard's Time Machine. Which brand is more endearing? Apple tends to brand key features of its operating system in a way that draws the user's attention. Microsoft buries features in Windows and gives them—dare I say—IBM-like names.
Google branding is at least as good. Branding nirvana is when the brand is used as a verb, which is so often the case with Google. I don't imagine people are going to start saying, "Why don't you Windows Live Search it?"
Still, Microsoft is making small branding improvements. Silverlight, Surface and Zune are all pretty good product names and Microsoft has cool logos for them. But I agree with Joaquin that the sub-brands are a mess. Products with long names like Windows Small Business Server 2003 R2 are tough to market.
This two-part Google-related missive started by making IBM-Microsoft comparisons. There's a certain stodginess to IBM's brand that has carried over from its mainframe heritage. Microsoft's unwieldy product names and confusing brands are just too IBM-like—or at least like the Big Blue of the 1960s to 1990s. I'll save my ideas for how Microsoft could loosen up for another post.
Google is marching to Internet time, at the light speed of youth. As for Microsoft, the speed of sound just isn't fast enough.
Related Posts:
- Why Google Succeeds, Part 1, Microsoft Watch, June 15, 2007
- Google Complaint Targets Vista Search, Microsoft Watch, June 9, 2007
- Can Microsoft Be the Wrench in Google Gears?, Microsoft Watch, June 6, 2007
- The Google Problem, Microsoft Watch, May 31, 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
Comments (14)
Good analysis, but it's sort of one sided in the sense that you focus on one company's pros and the other company's cons. It's like a "Ten things I hate about Apple" post, which sounds biased without a corresponding "Ten things I love about Apple" post. There are two sides to a coin and you focus on one.
Posted by sk | June 15, 2007 8:55 PM
One sided story....
Joe , you are factually wrong, I live a comfortable living by selling Small Business Server to SMB
Posted by Wee | June 16, 2007 7:19 AM
"Who is the lead developer releasing APIs and providing development tools promoting the Web platform? Google. "...
The nuts and bolds of what constitutes the so called Web 2.0 stuff is provided by everybody else besides Google...(XML, SOAP, AJAX, W3C Web services specifications) and many others are bodies in which Microsoft and others (IBM, SUN, BEA, Oracle Etc) actively participates, invents and somewhat controls. Many of the technologies of the web 2.0 platform (SOAP, AJAX) to name a few have actually originated from Microsoft. Google is nowhere near there. They provide API's for their "advertisement services". They are not a software company in sense that Microsoft or others are...Even if Web 2.0 is the platform of the future - I do have some doubts there- Microsoft is in a better position to compete, even, if it starts doing web 2.0 stuff in 5 years from now..
Posted by evan | June 16, 2007 1:30 PM
Agree with sk. You raise a few decent points but do what most so-called journalist do these days - begin with a conclusion and then arrange the analysis to fit that. As a result, you've created a straw man that addresses obvious GOOG advantages/MSFT disadvantages while glossing over the reverse. Oh well, now that you've declared GOOG the winner and MSFT as approaching "game over", you'd better start looking for a new job.
Posted by Paul | June 16, 2007 1:45 PM
A few simple points here not really covered with the differences between MS and Google. Google has a better search engine. Its faster than MS, Google use open source (linux) software in it search engine. Google does write a lot of software, and adds patches and hacks to many others, including the wine project. Google is using its own highly hacked version of Ubuntu Linux for its needs,in house, this has been documented.
When you use Google, you really are using Linux.
MS on the other hand, seems to have a lot of problems getting their search engine to return meaningfull data, not that its always bad. Also, while both companies have a trust problem, MS may have the bigger problem with users.
Posted by chips b malroy | June 17, 2007 12:16 AM
"Silverlight, Surface and Zune are all pretty good product names..."
You've got to be kidding! These brand names are pathetic! "Surface" couldn't be more pedestrian. And "Zune" sounds too much like Mazda's "Zoom Zoom" marketing.
When I first heard the "Silverlight" brand name, the first image that popped into my mind were those ugly little insects that crawl around in your basement (silverfish). Blech!
Posted by Richard | June 18, 2007 10:11 AM
You do raise some very good points Joe esp. in the branding of MSFT which tends to be confusing. The problem with your point of view is, like most pundits of the Internet 'revolution', that you have gotten so used to using rich, local software that you dont even recognise the complexity it hides and you have simply taken it for granted. The fact that you dont have to think about printer drivers, network interfaces and all sorts of plumbing is because Apple and MSFT normalised this environment (Linux struggles to do this because its open model and multiple distributions). The Web is normalising other areas of computing like collab, content and doc sharing. Its the connections of the local computing power with services from Internet where the REAL magic is. You cant have one without the other to provide the simple experiences you state: even AJAX relies on high end local processing (next time you connect to an AJAX hava a look at the bloat you browser experiences as it downloads all that Java Script and lets not mention Flash plugins which are invoked); otherwise you are stuck with ugly pages which refresh every time you change a field - which is simple but a terrible user experience. Dont lose the big picture ...
Posted by SI | June 18, 2007 11:29 AM
And he goes on that the killer application is Google Search. Compared to Word, Excel, Outlook, Expression Blend, Web, Design, Media, VS2005, etc... And what Google has a search engine and can't get that right to the point that they feel a threat by Vista Search capability but not the Mac OS X built in search with out Google?
I like how the internet was to replace the Desktop and it did not. Because IT not end users wanted to have a simple deployment of an application instead of a rich UI. Ok, works for shopping carts and email. But once the user got over the whole internet idea and realized that Excel or Word running on the desktop was much better than one over the internet.
What did companies like Google do to make it sound like they now have the Rich UI problem solved they bring in Web 2.0. More garbage but getting there.
If deployment of an application is the issue then fix that and don't replace it with some clunky web browser that looks like a high end Green Screen Terminal for the 60's with text and graphics but no UI.
You want to talk about a mess up of branding. What the hell is Web 2.0 and why do I get twenty different answers just like 20 different MS Branded products? And how do I explain to the average Joe what Web 2.0 is with out using AJAX or JavaScript in the sentance?
I'm a developer does Google have a Visual Studio type of development tools or would the application development be done over the web, I get some IDE in my Web Browser and build applications that are on Google. Ohhh wait Microsoft Already did that Popfly. http://popfly.ms
Where is Google's version of Popfly?
Users are confused period regardless if Microsoft puts it in a plain brown box. They simplified the Expression line and branding those products with Blend, Web, Design, Media but do you mention the Pro's in that area no, just the branding that went south?
I missed you point Microsoft is behind Google because of what? People are confused on branding was that it, or Google has a better search engine? Or Google offers a Web 2.0 development site like Popfly?
I need to spell check this post, can I copy and paste into Google or Word to correct my spelling?
Posted by Some One | June 18, 2007 7:22 PM
put the bong down. the sf area has become so myopic that they would try to sell you buying pet food over the internet..oh wait they did. If this was 1999 and a company with 99% of revenues from advertising should be considered a rival to anything but flooz or beenz they would be laughed at. Heres rooting for another recession to google can go away..and arent all of you ms hater "journalists" going to look stupid.
Posted by blah | June 19, 2007 11:56 AM
"When I first heard the "Silverlight" brand name, the first image that popped into my mind were those ugly little insects that crawl around in your basement (silverfish). Blech!"
I'm pretty sure that's because it's "Microsoft Silverlight".
"Silverlight? Nice name! Oh, it's a Microsoft technology? Blech. What an ugly name. Yuck!!"
Posted by sk | June 19, 2007 5:45 PM
You nailed it SK, really there is a worldwide antipathy against MS (MS having full merit on it), and that's why actually the whole thing will be an uphill struggle for MS (meaning, their products would have to be by far superior to those of its competitors to have a chance of being sold.)
Posted by Marco | June 19, 2007 6:15 PM
I think that there is a place for both the desktop and the Web in our computing world. To posit that one must "win" at the expense of the other is naive (and typically American) "horse race" thinking. Personally, I am a big fan of Google, and feel that the products and services they offer have a tremendous amount of value for users; but, I am not about to give up my ability to work in an unconnected manner when that better serves my needs. Even if connectivity were universal (which it isn't), and bandwidth could entirely meet our requirements (which it can't), I would still prefer to have some shelter from the storm of constantly being "plugged in." The tension between Microsoft and Google is healthy for everyone, including their partners, the end users, and the companies themselves. Here's to them both surviving, thriving -- and remaining relevant -- for the foreseeable future!
Posted by JeffT | June 22, 2007 11:11 AM
The comparison of Google and Microsoft marketing makes sense, but all this talk of the Google "platform" does not. As other folks have noted in previous comments, Google has no platform. You cannot build a large number of business applications on any (platform?) API that Google provides. If Google stock is at its current highs because of this misconception, then it is a good time to go short.
Posted by WaltM | June 22, 2007 2:53 PM
Excellent analysis! Branding and platforms are so important to business, especially in the computing world. Google gets it and Microsoft got it, but Microsoft has to come up with something new, if they don't want to be overtaken by Google. The Platform is What Matters: http://digg.com/tech_news/The_Platform_Is_What_Matters
Posted by Jesse | November 14, 2007 2:27 PM