Taking the Shine off Chrome

Chip Meyer

CEO, The Chip, Inc., a Microsoft Gold Partner focused on technology solutions for small business

 

Google has high hopes for their Chrome browser, and apparently no lack of ambition, because they recently announced that Chrome would be offered as an Operating System for PCs, putting them in direct competition with Microsoft’s core business.  It will be an interesting battle, but one that Microsoft should win handily.

 

The basic technology behind the new Google OS is the old Linux platform, with their Chrome Browser sitting on top looking all new and shiny.  The purpose behind this is not for the benefit of your local applications, but because Google wants to move processing power into the cloud of the Internet.  The concept of Cloud Computing has received a lot of attention as of late, but frankly the hoopla surrounding it reminds me of the over-hyped claims of the dot com era, and I don’t expect much to come of it in the next several years, at least not for the average user. 

 

In reality, security is already a tough enough problem for us all.  Just think about the ramifications of what happens when all of your data resides on computers you do not have physical access to, and may not even know what state or country they are in.  Besides which, local applications remain far ahead of web applications in power, response time, and reliability.  Windows, for all of its problems, remains the best sandbox for applications to play nicely in, as well as share data between.  And even though Vista was a comparative flop, Microsoft still shows no sign of ignoring the competition, especially Google.

 

In some ways, this is similar to the 80s application wars, when Lotus and Word Perfect looked unbeatable, and Microsoft was getting no respect for Word or Excel.  What they did have was Windows, a product that scared the competition because it would force them to integrate their products into a set of standards designed to make all applications play nicely together.  Standards controlled by Microsoft, which was not a position the other software companies wanted Microsoft to have.

 

Even as Microsoft was getting rave reviews for Windows 3.0, Lotus and Word Perfect made the fatal mistake of assuming their customers would stay with DOS as long as they never offered a Windows version of their products.  The market had different ideas, and consumers rapidly adopted Windows, where they found that the only spreadsheet available was Excel and the only word processor was Word.  This was not Microsoft muscling out the competition; this was the competition trying to break Microsoft, and losing.  

 

By the time they realized the extent of their foolishness, it was way too late.  The Windows versions of Word Perfect and Lotus 1-2-3 were rushed to market poorly designed and fatally bug-ridden.  As the 90s rolled in, Microsoft Office became the de facto standard for business users.  Not to belabor the point, but Microsoft’s near monopoly with Office and Windows came more as a result of stupid companies trying to bury Microsoft than because of anything Microsoft did themselves.  We liked Windows better, it was that simple.

 

Today, it’s reversed, and Microsoft holds the dominant market share, while Google has the sexy new competition.  The difference is that Microsoft knows how fast this industry can move.  The anti-trust claims against them in the past were misguided: the success of companies like Netscape, Yahoo and Google have repeatedly shown how fragile Microsoft’s control of the industry really is.  While the failures of companies like Lotus and Word Perfect demonstrate how hard it is to stay on top of the industry, it just moves too fast.  

 

So don’t expect Microsoft to take the newest Google threat lightly.  By this time next year, expect free online versions of Office, targeted directly at Google Apps, and by extension, the Chrome OS.  Microsoft has a huge advantage over Google here, because they really do understand how to make complex business tasks simple.  Microsoft spends billions looking at how users work and how they interact with their computers.  Google spends billions trying to find better ways to make their users see more advertising.  That really is a huge difference in approach. 

 

Microsoft gets money from people buying their software, which is an inherently sticky relationship.  Google gets money from selling ads, which is heavily dependent on traffic and is always at risk of competition.

 

Google does simple things very well.  Google search is a masterpiece of simplicity – as long as you don’t have to do an advanced search.  They are not real good on the not-so-simple tasks.  Gmail, for instance, has a confusing interface that never feels comfortable.  Google Apps are unreliable and tough to use for collaboration.  Google Chrome is fast, but just does not feel complete.

 

I don’t doubt that Google can eventually produce applications are attractive to business users.  What I question is whether they can do that fast enough to survive.  Microsoft is about to do unto Google what Google has done unto others: build something that users like – enough to pay for – then give it away for free.  And even with that give away, the full version of Office is expected to remain a huge revenue source for Microsoft for many more years.  How much money can Google raise giving away free software?  Advantage: Microsoft.