Microsoft, Google and the Bear

http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/26/microsoft-google-and-the-bear/

by Flemlord • 17 years ago

36 16 17 years ago

bits.blogs.nytimes.com

ellyagg• 17 years ago

Pretty brilliant, really. Google doesn't want to be the gatekeeper, but they don't want anyone else to be the gatekeeper either.

roc• 17 years ago

Google seems to be applying that strategy across several of its more-puzzling projects. E.g. Android, Chrome, Chrome OS

seldo• 17 years ago

I'm not sure I buy the premise that all of Android is just a blocking move to Microsoft. Microsoft had 10 years to make a dent in the mobile market and failed against Nokia and RIM, and that was before Apple jumped into the game and stomped everybody else. There was no danger of Windows Mobile, sorry, Windows Phone getting anywhere.

If Android is a loss-making strategic move against any company, then it's Apple -- having an open development platform in place from a credible company like Google keeps Apple honest and open, when they would otherwise tend to lock things down.

wmf• 17 years ago

Google bought Android before Apple announced the iPhone, although it wouldn't surprise me if Google changed their strategy to target Apple after seeing the iPhone.

netsp2• 17 years ago

The point is still a good one though. The market was fractured when they entered. It is still fractured & it doesn't seem to need Google to stay that way.

joezydeco2• 17 years ago

Microsoft is looking at it from the wrong angle.

Google has been honest about the goal of Android from the beginning: to address the billions of non-PC owning people out there that aren't using the web and, consequently, not using Google and it's services.

Google couldn't care less if they make a red cent off of the Android platform. What they DO care about is cornering the eyeballs and advertising dollars on mobile platforms. Since Microsoft's core business doesn't involve selling ads, it's totally off their radar.

GeneralMaximus• 17 years ago

> ... to address the billions of non-PC owning people out there that aren't using the web and, consequently, not using Google and it's services.

Then they're doing a pretty bad job.

Here's what Google is missing. Most of those non-PC owning people broadly fall into two categories: (1) those who live in 3rd world countries and/or cannot afford computers and (2) people who are just afraid of technology or have no use for it.

Selling to (2) is useless. (1) is where the money is.

Now consider a country like India. Back here, cellphones are bigger than computers, penetration-wise. Reason: a large number of competing carriers which results in dirt-cheap calls (the phone I use costs me about $7 a month since most calls I make are completely free) and affordable GPRS. MTNL and BSNL, who have a penchant for utterly destroying competitors on pricing alone, just launched dirt-cheap 3G services. I think we all know what happens next.

What is the only barrier in the way of cheap mobile Internet? The handset. To be precise, a 3G handset that is fast enough to render web pages and a few basic apps. This is where Android fails. Cheapo handsets from small manufacturers, cheap J2ME phones from LG/Samsung/Sony and Chinese clones of high-end smartphones are pretty big here. Why buy a Rs.30K Android phone when you can get similar functionality in a 10K unbranded Chinese phone? Or even a 15K HTC phone with Windows Mobile?

Unless Android can run on cheap, low-end handsets, I don't see it ever becoming big with the non-PC-owning crowd.

krschultz• 17 years ago

Today's high end handsets are tomorrows cheapo ones.

ShabbyDoo2• 17 years ago

"That’s fine. But what are you going to do as your music experience? What will you do for your photos experience?" [Asking this question of carriers, not consumers]

Either this MS exec was just FUD-ing, or he really doesn't get the benefit of an open mobile platform. Users don't want all their X "experiences" coupled with their decisions about device and carrier (presuming that everything works together as advertised). I want an Android phone because it keep Verizon from limiting functionality as a means of attempting to maximize monthly revenue/subscriber. If the market is big enough, there will be twenty good music apps from which to choose.

What will the carriers do? Probably offer up a suite of open source apps as defaults or sell "space" on the out-of-the-box phone to 3rd party devs who have compelling apps. By selecting Android, carriers have already opted out of the user extortion game, so why would they be worried about a photo "experience"?

symesc• 17 years ago

FUD-ing indeed. I agree. That comment is almost something I'd expect more readily from Apple than Microsoft these days, given how Apple manages the iPhone/iTunes platform (disclosure, I have an iPhone and can't remember life as worth living before it).

What I find fascinating about the carriers clamouring to move to Android is that, yes, they're avoiding licensing fees and the cost of building their own solutions . . . but at the cost of basically eliminating all other mobile revenues other than bandwidth.

This revenue destruction will be at the hands of Google themselves and via the open nature of the Android marketplace. Google Voice kills SMS revenues today. It's free. I expect Voice to eventually include Skype-like functionality, but if it doesn't, Skype will do. It's as close to free as it needs to be. No cost for Skype to Skype calls, and 2 cents a minute to most of planet earth's landlines.

Throw in all of Google's other services that are enabled out of the box on Android (read: almost all of them) and the carrier is out of the services business altogether and is nothing but a pipe. Which is what they should be.

It's almost as if the carriers are collectively waving the white flag here (can't compete on applications and services), and since actually makes sense it leaves me wondering what the hell I'm missing?

netsp2• 17 years ago

I always wonder if MSFT FUD more than everyone else or if media just like to portray them like this.

Maascamp• 17 years ago

"Users don't want all their X "experiences" coupled with their decisions about device and carrier (presuming that everything works together as advertised)"

Isn't that what made the iPhone so popular?

ShabbyDoo2• 17 years ago

I guess this is partially correct as Apple doesn't allow apps that compete with core services. Loopt (which I have never used) is an example of my point. Would I prefer to buy a device that is limited to a particular locate-people service or would I like to buy a device which can run any of N competing services?

Quarrelsome• 17 years ago

Does Windows Mobile really end up costing so much? I'm pretty sure at the business end of things, especially in larger deals the costs become negligable.

The fact that these manufacturers are so eager to try out Android pretty much illustrates how disappointed they are with WinMo/wince. It's alright but it is kinda meh.

gamble• 17 years ago

This is basically what I've been saying about Android since it was announced. The iPhone comparisons and controversy over 'openness' were inevitable, but Google's motivation for Android was always to prevent Microsoft from acting as a gatekeeper for mobile search. I don't think they anticipated how quickly MS's position in mobile operating systems would deteriorate.

Microsoft, Google and the Bear

Related Stories