Coyote Tracks: Cattle Guards
Okay, here’s the challenge: explain why the scenario I’ve just described is good when Google did it with Android, but bad when Microsoft did it with Microsoft [Internet] Explorer…
Easy- Microsoft illegally leveraged their monopoly by pre-installing IE, defaulting most people who didn’t know better to an inferior browser. Google leveraged their brand and talent to create a competitive device that people can freely choose. I don’t have to buy an Android if I use Google search or Gmail. They don’t have a monopoly in search anyway. It’s not illegal to use your large sums of money to give things away for cheap (and with strings attached).
IE stifled innovation and competition, Android spurs it. Why can Google create a browser but Microsoft can’t? With Chrome, Google is providing choice and innovation. There’s evidence. The launch of Chrome started a multi-way performance (Javascript) and standards compliance (ACID) race. Firefox, Safari, Opera, and even IE all stepped up their game after Chrome. Not so with Microsoft- the launch of IE killed Netscape. Android is the same- it’s another available choice. There are some phone companies that might die, but that’s just as much because of competition with Apple, not because of a monopoly.
Google is obviously competing fiercely. They aren’t just doing things out of the kindness of their hearts. Yes, they are protecting their existing revenue streams by entering strategic new markets as Microsoft did. But the similarities end there.
(Source: chipotle)
