Narain is the founder & CEO for 360 Degree Interactive, a web services firm based in Chennai, India. This blog is about his personal views on Web 2.0, RoR, Social networking,Digital media, interactive advertising, SaaS, Service Oriented Architecture, India Inc, rural education, Web standards, mobile 2.0 and more.

Tuesday, September 6

Why Microsoft can't beat Google?

In his weblog, Phil Wainewright of Zdnet argues the above point. His point of focus is desktop is dead, where Microsoft is the king. I second that opinion. Computing & connectivity is considered more important than merely having a box sitting on top of your table. Desktop from the traditional point of view is lingering for life. All our communication & interaction happens via Internet. Like my yesterday's post, more & more softwares are finding their way online. To tell you the truth, we are seriously considering using ThinkFree online for our business, rather than investing on Microsoft office in our office. The world is surely moving towards an integrated online experience, where like we say today "we are online", tomorrow we will say "we are offline for next few hours" . Internet and connectivity will be everywhere. It's upto us to make use of it. Wainewright rightly argues on why Microsoft is history.

"Google's turf is the Internet. It's not interested in devices that don't
connect to it — Microsoft is welcome to that market. It simply wants to extend its reach to any device that does go online.

Meanwhile, Microsoft's focus on desktop capability is the crux of why it can't possibly succeed against Google (or any future Google equivalent). It's focusing on yesterday's market. Microsoft's dominance of the desktop is as relevant to the future of computing as Union Pacific's dominance of the railroads was to the future of transportation in the twentieth century.

Here's a sampling of reasons why Microsoft is history:

  1. Microsoft wants everyone to have a rich desktop experience, Google wants everyone to have a rich Internet experience.

  2. Microsoft's business model depends on everyone upgrading their computing
    environment every two to three years. Google's depends on everyone exploring what's new in their computing environment every day.

  3. Microsoft looks at the world from a perspective of desktop+Internet. Google looks at the world from a perspective of Internet+any device.

  4. Microsoft wants computers to help individuals do more unaided. Google wants computers to help individuals do more in collaboration. In the Internet age, who wants to work alone any more, when all the unexplored opportunity is in
    collaborative endeavor?
In a few year's time, who's going to still be working at a desk anyway?"


Post a Comment

<< Home