
Why Google is making an operating system  - mixmax
http://www.maximise.dk/blog/2009/07/why-google-is-making-operating-system.html
======
fiaz
FTA: _Google won the browser war, with the help of Mozilla. The important
point here is that Google doesn't care what browser you use. They don't make
money on browsers, they make money on online offerings and apps so all they
care about is that your browser is fast and supports the newest technologies._

1) Chrome's market share is minute

2) Google makes over 95% of their money on advertising

I'm not entirely certain how much thought went into this article, but I'm
certain that the Google OS hype machine has gone into overdrive as I'm seeing
too many articles like this that make absolutely no sense.

~~~
mixmax
_Chrome's market share is minute_

Well, that's kind of the point I was trying to make - Google make their money
on advertising and webapps, not on browsers. It doesn't matter for their
bottomline which browser people use. All that matters to them is that people
use google's products, and the fewer roadblocks there are the more money
google makes.

Chrome doesn't need to have more than a minute marketshare to drive the
competition to make better browsers and more internet capable OS'es, which
will ultimately be good for Google. For Google it's not about marketshare in
the OS or browser business, it's about driving innovation so that users will
move on to the web.

~~~
fiaz
Ok this is interesting. I agree with you about the roadblock argument to a
point. I think where it breaks down is that the browser itself is the choke
point for any internet based strategy as it is the gateway to the web for
99.9% of the users out there.

To evolve the browser into something that is closer to the server would
eliminate the roadblock of which you speak. I don't think you need to create
an OS to do that. IE has a decided advantage for Microsoft as it comes pre-
installed and is prominently showcased within the OS itself. The fact that you
have to download and then install either Firefox, Chrome, Safari, or Opera
presents a roadblock for users. Switching operating systems is an even bigger
roadblock.

~~~
mixmax
I think that maybe I've put my arguments forward in a bad way. I'll try from a
different angle.

In business strategy there's a concept called complementary products. A
complementary product is one that is one that makes your product more valuable
the cheaper it is. Cars and gasoline is an example of this. Servers and
software is another. The cheaper gasoline is, the more valuable a car is. The
good strategy is to commoditize your complements, thus driving down price.
This will put more value into your product. For instance, if you run Google
you make software. Your interest is to comoditize servers, thus driving the
price down. This makes your business more valuable because your complement has
been commoditized. Indeed, this is exactly what Google is doing when they use
standard boxes in large arrays instead of buying Sun servers.

My argument in the blogpost is similar. If Google can remove as many obstacles
as possible, and commoditize their complementary products they will win. This
is exactly what they are doing with this move. They are forcing their
competitors into making a product that will make Google money. Google doesn't
care (financially at least) about browsers and operating systems. They make
their money on online apps and marketing. Their strategy is to make it as easy
as possible to get online and use their services. The argument is underpinned
by the fact that both are open sourced. They won't make Google any money
directly, but they'll help tremendously in commoditizing OS'es and browsers.

Joel Spolsky has a post about omplementary products that explains the concept
much better than I can ever hope to do:
<http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/StrategyLetterV.html>

~~~
fiaz
Ok well stated. I think I got sidelined by the quote I threw up in the
original posting (especially the browser war statement).

But the theoretical strategy that you state (the commoditization of the
operating system) seems a bit "round about" for Google. In other words, I
think it would be better for Google to really make their web browser into a
new kind of web browser instead of creating an entirely new kind of operating
system. Better yet, a web browser that enhances an existing operating system
might be a better way to commoditize the OS.

It is possible that they have figured out a killer app for their new OS, but I
suppose that's fuel for a separate discussion.

~~~
sielskr
_I think I got sidelined by the quote I threw up in the original posting_

If you had RTFA before your first comment, you would not have gotten
sidelined.

The author (mixmax) of TFA graciously conceded in his reply that his "Google
won the browser wars" was probably not the best choice of words, but the
context made it immediately clear to me what he meant by that choice of words.

------
marcofloriano
I ask you : Is it good for us ? I feel a certain joy in the air when IT guys
talk about how google is doing well and microsoft doing bad. Like if it is
good for the rest of us. It´s not. We cant have just one company owning the
market, specially the internet market. It´s bad for the users, we need more
googles, mor companys winning the internet war. If the Microsoft still being
the number one enemy of google, so we already lost as users.

~~~
mixmax
This is very interesting. And very important.

Any big company will eventually "turn to the dark side", not because they want
to but because that seems to be the dynamic of large corporations. After all
they only have to answer to shareholders, and shareholders demand profits no
matter what the cost.

Google has done a good job of resisting this with their _Don't be evil_ motto
and trying to retain control of the boardroom. But I fear that it's an
oncoming tide that not even Larry and Sergey can stem.

------
murrayh
My Dad uses bing.com, because that's the default. My Dad often clicks on ads.
I think the Google OS is just a way to make google.com the default for people
like my Dad.

