Google vs everyone: an epic war on many fronts

92 Comments

June, it seems, is the season for new product announcements in Silicon Valley. At its annual WWDC shindig,  Apple (s AAPL) announced a slew of new products including its hot-new Macbook Pro with Retina display and iOS 6. A few days later, Microsoft (s MSFT) announced Surface, a new tablet/computer that has been designed by Microsoft team and will be sold under the Microsoft brand in Microsoft stores.

And this week it seems it is Google’s (s GOOG) turn. So far, it has announced massive upgrades to its search platform, the newest version of Android (Jellybean)the Google Glass, the Nexus 7 tablet and a new multimedia device, Nexus Q. It is also likely to introduce a new cloud offering at its Google I/O event, as I reported earlier.

However, when you stand back from all the announcements made by Google today and increase the periphery, you start to notice that this is a company that is fighting a lot of battles on many fronts. In some places it is winning, but most places it is trench warfare.

It is still the king of search and advertising. It is doing quite well when it comes to Android, though they never really talk about its real financial impact on Google’s business. I would argue that Google Apps and Google Chrome OS have a decent shot of carving out a meaningful role inside corporations, retailers, airlines and campuses. Google Maps is a market leader and well, there is nothing like YouTube – though the monetary impact of the video colossus is still kept under a fog by Google. However, this is where the list of sure things end. Simply take a look at this list of what I believe are important battles Google is fighting, and you begin to understand the challenges that Google faces.

Apple

  • Google’s Android is fighting with Apple’s iOS platform. It says a million new devices are being activated every day and there are 400 million Android devices out there.
  • Google just launched Nexus 7 to essentially compete with Apple’s iPad and other tablets in the market.
  • Google TV and Apple TV are in competition for the dollars and attention of connected-entertainment consumers.
  • Google Drive vs iCloud.
  • Google Maps versus Apple Maps.
  • Google Wallet/Play versus the Apple iTunes platform.
  • Google Books, Google Music and other Media versus iTunes and iBooks.

Microsoft

  • Google’s Chrome OS is taking on Microsoft’s OS.
  • Google Apps versus Microsoft Office Apps.
  • Google Android versus Microsoft Windows 8 platform.
  • Google Nexus 7 tablet versus Microsoft Surface tablet.
  • Google Cloud will be competing for Microsoft’s Azure cloud and developer affections.
  • Google Drive versus Microsoft Skydrive.
  • Google Search versus Microsoft Bing.

Amazon

  • Google Nexus 7 versus Amazon’s Kindle Fire.
  • Google Android platform versus the Amazon Fork.
  • Google Cloud wants to challenge Amazon Web Services.
  • Google Wallet versus Amazon payment system.
  • Google Books, Google Music and other media plays versus Amazon Music, Books and Media

Facebook

  • Google+ versus Facebook.
  • Google messaging versus Facebook Messaging.
  • Google Picasa versus Facebook Photos.
  • Google Ad Platform versus Facebook Ad Platform.
  • Google Search versus Facebook Social Discovery.

And there are some other companies Google is tussling with.

  • Google Drive versus DropBox as a hub of mobile data and apps.
  • Google Nexus Q versus Sonos.
  • Google Local versus Yelp.
  • Google Wallet versus Paypal, Square.
  • Google Search versus Twitter.
  • Google+ versus Twitter.
  • Google’s YouTube versus others such as Hulu.

The human cost of these battles

When I see Google fighting those battles, I can’t help but recall those history lessons. Rome, Napoleon and his Napoleonic wars, the Ottoman empire – they all took on challenges on multiple fronts and eventually lost. The human costs proved to be too much. Google too faces a similar dilemma. Admittedly, it has all the money in the world, but despite tens of thousands of employees, it lacks the star power to win on all fronts. Google no longer has a monopoly on attracting great talent to its team.

Bret Taylor, outgoing CTO of Facebook & ex-Googler

Google today has to keep buying companies to attract talent, but frankly that may not be enough. There are rivals who offer more attractive options to the Bret Taylors (ex-Google Maps & then CTO, Facebook) of the world. Why work at Google Wallet when you can get a gig at Square? Why stay at Google when Facebook beckons? Why be a product manager when you can start Instagram and cash out for a cool billion?

Having followed Google from its very inception, I know that Google’s product and experience was far superior to its competitors, many of who were essentially weakly run companies that were hobbled by the dot-com bust. Yahoo, despite its size, wasn’t really a great competitor for Google’s search technology and was too plodding in its embrace of search-based advertising.

Microsoft, too, was focused on its software businesses to actually put up a good fight in the marketplace. The second decade of the 21st century is proving to be a much tougher place for Google. The new rivals — everyone from Apple and Facebook to upstarts like Dropbox and Square — are more more fierce, more focused and more hungry.  The attitude of me-too-ism isn’t enough for Google.

As Google tries to expand into new territories it is leaving its core search vulnerable — not to another rival’s technology, but to end-users. The injection of Google+ into search results seems to be a growing point of dissatisfaction.

In my years of following the company, I came to understand that what separated Google from many of its competitors was its audacity. When search was supposed to be a dead-end, they did one better. When advertising was mired in morass, they took an existing idea of text ads and turned it into mega-billion dollar empire. The scale of Google’s infrastructure and belief that software was indeed going to be the intelligence inside a company were concepts that were inherently futuristic and ambitious. Google Mail and Google Maps are two other projects that started small but proved to have that special Google quality.

When I look at the first day of Google I/O, I am left impressed by Google Glass. The product itself is too nerdy and it still has ways to go before it becomes an everyday product. Nevertheless, it represents a bit of old Google. It represents the kind of things the company needs to do in order to leap forward of its rivals.

92 Comments

Dave

I think following is a better way to organize your list as a war map:

Nexus/Android: Apple iPhone/iPad, MS Windows 8/Surface, Amazon’s Kindle Fire/Fork

TV: Apple TV

Maps: Apple Maps

Wallet/Play: Apple iTunes platform, Amazon payment system, Paypal, Square

Books/Music/Media: Apple iTunes/iBooks, Amazon Music/Books/Media

Chrome OS: MS OS

Apps: MS Office Apps

Cloud: MS Azure, Amazon Web Services

Drive: iCloud, MS Skydrive, DropBox

Search: MS Bing, Facebook Social Discovery?!, Twitter?!

Plus: Facebook, Twitter

Messaging: Facebook Messaging

Picasa: Facebook Photos, Yahoo Flickr

Ad Platform: Facebook Ad Platform

Local: Yelp

YouTube: Hulu, etc.

Gmail: Yahoo Mail!! ;)

Sean Ammirati

Really insightful post on the overall tech landscape. I do suspect some of this goes back to the point of the Web 2.0 Summit Map – http://map.web2summit.com/#t However, it is sobering as you’ve listed it company / product by company / product for Google.

Tom Marthaler

You should also mention Google Hangouts which a direct competitor to Skype, purchased by Microsoft.

susankuchinskas

yahoo too plodding in embracing search ads? Hardly. People forget that yhoo bought Overture the inventor of search ads. Google eventually had to pay yahoo for patent infringement. But google’s search was much better. That’s why they won in search ads.

V.A.N.

IMO, I don’t think Google Search is vulnerable. As a matter of fact, I think it’s even strengthened. Google may be a Search and Advertising Company, but what exactly is being searched and advertised? The answer to that is: Information. Not only are their content providers on the net to provide that information, but Google has created tools making the end user the provider of content information as well. With what i saw yesterday, in regards to Jelly Bean, I don’t think Google has ignored Search at all. As a matter of fact, I think they enhanced it.

beetee2

I don’t think google is leaving their core search vulnerable. I recently saw a video from one of their top search guys and they are innovating a LOT when it comes to search. They’re trying to make it more contextual, just like our brains work. So that when you have phrases that you’re searching for the relevance of your results are improved a hundredfold. When this is polished and released I think that will be the biggest improvement search has seen since, well Google.

Lionel Menchaca Jr.

I think Google will continue to have success on the search side of things, and I bet there’s a chance they will do well in some periphery kind of stuff.

However, the biggest problem I see for them–unlike Apple and Microsoft, Google has no foothold in the desktop realm. And Chromium won’t cut it. The combined ecosystems of smartphones + tablets + laptops + desktops are where the big winners of the future will pull ahead. Right now, Apple has a clear lead for Consumers, but it looks like Microsoft will be the big winner on the corporate side.

Om Malik

Lionel

Thanks for your comment. I think they have a very good shot at doing well in Cloud (core competency is infrastructure) and they are doing well in Android but need to figure out a stronger offense strategy there. Apart from that Google Apps is another area they can do well. Rest of it, I am not sure. To your point, focus will win any day.

kibbles

how do you quantify that Google is doing well in Android? the only valid metric is profit — businesses breath profit. how much profit has Google made from Android? reports are very little. that in fact they earn more profit from ads on iOS than Android.

do you have data to suggest otherwise?

realist50

I will second Kibbles point and raise that question for every product that Google has outside of search and display ads. YouTube, Apps, etc. – where is the evidence for any of these as profitable endeavors? (I’ve seen occasional estimates for YouTube revenue but never a bottom-line number.)

Andrew Ashbacher

I’m interested in the implications of efforts such as Chrome browser on Google’s long-term survival.

As I understand, the goal of Google Chrome browser (and maybe OS?), is not to take over the space but to inspire (or even force) innovation in this previously stagnant field.

Jack C

Name an empire that has endured forever. If we followed your analogy as the guide for our ambition, we’d all be nihilists.

I think the more interesting questions are, what are Google and others doing, organizationally and culturally, to ensure that they will be able to continue to expand to compete on an increasing number of fronts. Are they making the right sorts of changes, or not, and why? Does the mission at Google still unify its expanding portfolio, or are they beginning to sell natural gas and cupcakes?

Eric

everyone, not just google, is fighting on multiple fronts cos they all aim to be the same thing, the OS of your life. basically Apple, MS, Google and Facebook all have napoleonic ambitions. no empire lasts forever but Rome lasted long enough.

Abhi

Of course it’s google vs everyone. Google has been copying everyone’s products!

lokanadam

No longer a 1 trick pony: plan B, C are solidifying for google
1. the web is becoming siloed because of apps ! web slowly becomes b2b and apps become b2c !
2. also text search is dying and audio search is finally becoming mainstream – watchout for siri and audible [which do not use google]
3. because of above 2 reasons google search usage will come down.

Jaffer

I believe Google’s “Empire” has passed its zenith and is in decline. All empires decline and you note several. You could have listed more: The rate of collapse is faster these days than in teeh time of Alexander and Octavius. Two years ago, I wrote a blog post “Has Google’s Empire Past Its Zenith?” http://www.mediabizbloggers.com/jaffer-ali/111541179.html …of course I could be wrong- Jaffer

Hamranhansenhansen

The glasses are not only ridiculous, they have a Big Brother overtone and remind me that Google went Wi-Fi snooping and likes to play on the creepy line.

The problem at Google is no imagination. It is just engineers impressing other engineers. There are millions of jobs not being done, and millions of unsolved problems. I wanted to see Google do to cable company ISP’s what Apple did to phone makers: ship something that obsoletes them by 5–10 years and creates a new generation to build even bigger things on. Instead, Google has no projects, just hobbies. Uncle Apple makes something, so Google wants to play. It is brutal to watch Google stand still. All of their stuff is forgettable except maybe Android v2.3, which will be remembered like XP, purchased again and again by users on disposable hardware.

Arun Prabhudesai

Yes, Google Glass is impressive – But will it have a mass appeal and will it brings $$$ go Google.. I doubt..

You cant doubt the fact that Google is far more innovative than Microsoft’s & Facebook’s of World. Apple is in same league but elitist… Think of people beyond Western countries. Thats where Google will play a major role..

All the Google projects will one day culminate under one roof (aka Google+) offering us everything from Education to socializing… from entertainment to productivity…

I cannot brush off the I/O hangover even now…

lokanadam

nothing revolutionary here !
glasses and autocars are the only thing not making it a 1 trick pony.
its just evolution/sequels.

kibbles

how, exactly, is apple “elitist’? you can buy their ipods from $50, phones from $0, tablets from $400, desktops from $600, ultrabooks from $1000. hardly elitist price points.

Arun Prabhudesai

Kibbles – Please look outside of US and outside of contracts…

In countries where contracts are not available, like India, iPhone or iPad 4 even today costs roughly about (INR 40k) USD 700 dollars. Macbook cost (INR 80k) USD 1500 etc…

Comparatively… top of the line spec Androids cost half of that..

Thats what I meant… I did mention in my previous comment…please look outside US…

Ram Kanda

I surprised about what part of the conference the media are really getting excited about. The Q device is half baked and overly expensive. The Jellybean update seems largely incremental (despite Google tacitly admitting the laggyness of their current devices by introducing their Butter initiative). Despite the promise of Glass, what they actually showed is really just a cellphone camera taped to some shades, at this point.

The real star of all this for me was Google Now. This thing is incredible and is going largely unnoticed. THIS is what I see as the future. As much importance as Apple has always put on pairing hardware and software, this now shows the promise of adding social and AI to software. I’m so impressed by this and I think it looks far more like what the future will actually be than any Microsoft concept video… and it’s HERE! SO awesome. Google deserves a huge pat on the back for making this happen and a slight chiding for not making a bigger deal of it or presenting it better.

K.Nirmal Kumar

Compete, collaborate, innovate fail or pass , it does not matter, BE^Do^nt be evil^Ensure common man whose count will increase in leaps and frogs, give freebees like G mail, Google drive, Blog spot etc and try to protect his security and make the world better and better.

Grzegorz Maj

I think it is easy to copy. But it can be something like smart refrigerator: tells you that you need to buy x, because you last routine indicates that you are using it x/day, just when you are fed up with x. When other companies introduce something like that there will be algorithms battles: be prepared for flash traffic jams on roads nobody uses(just like flash stock crash).

motionblurred

I think that Google will be in serious trouble eventually. They remind me too much of MS where they were focused on million different things much of which is losing money for them while their core products suffer. The companies they are battling are far more nimble, focused and have been in their field of expertise far longer than Google has.

The greatest threat to Google is Facebook and I don’t think there’s a way that Google can beat them. Facebook will eventually challenge AdSense and reign supreme in web advertising because no one in history has come close to the amount of data Facebook has on an individual.

Much like when Google and Apple teamed up to make MS irrelevant, Apple, Facebook and Twitter are teaming up to do the same against Google. It amazes me how easily Google is willing to follow MS off a cliff. Whether they like it or not, friendship in the Valley is a necessity and not choice.

lokanadam

by the time facebook can grab ad market share; google becomes a hardware+cloudservices+search+social company.

Shameer Mulji

Google is already there. It’s just a matter of them refining their platform and focusing on growth.

Lesley

A war that forces innovation as its missile- both inspiring and daunting. To quote a famous book… “nothing that they propose to do will now be impossible for them. “

MoneyForTravel.net

”Why be a product manager when you can start Instagram and cash out for a cool billion?”

I think that sums most of it up right there. There really isn’t any reason to look past that fact at all.

Charbax

Google is the king of the web. Nobody can compete with Google’s web apps, web-access OS in Android and Chrome OS, Google is the best at connecting all the worlds businesses with users of the web, which is the definition of being the best at online ads. Ergo, Google has already won all those battles you talk about. There is no hope for Apple, Microsoft, Facebook unless they can somehow do something worthwhile in the web space, which is very unlikely. Betting against the web is a failing strategy. And guys like Bret Taylor just went to Facebook to make a hundred million dollars after the IPO. Google doesn’t need to compete with certain of their star engineers being tempted by becoming multi-millionnaires for doing no work. Like Bret Taylor and the Google Wave guys going to Facebook, they didn’t actually have to do anything at Facebook to each make a big mountain of tens of millions of dollars after the IPO. Facebook is worthless yet hugely overvalued, that many people are going to loose billions of dollars on facebook stock isn’t Google’s problem.

Chien-Yu Lin

I look at it differently …

Silicon Valley titans Apple, Facebook and Google have recently revealed the first part of an operational business shift. Declining growth rates, reduced social networking engagement and receding confidence from Wall Street and global brands like GM have led these companies to rethink their ‘walled garden’ approach. The Big 3 can no longer continue to solely focus on honing their existing products and competencies in order to monetize their offerings, specifically in the arena of mobile.

Recent product introductions and acquisitions reflect a shift to a ‘city state’ model: a brand-contained mobile monetization chain where all components are either developed or acquired by the brand, or resources are shared with as few partners as possible. For consumers, this approach solidifies brand preference by offering more seamless search-and-sale experiences. For Apple, Facebook and Google, vertical integration facilitates greater engineering alignment and compatibility, veils intellectual property of code and cell phone design, and protects the relationship data derived from countless search-and-sales executions.

Solvency aside, the long-term benefits to becoming the dominant monetization path includes staving off Amazon’s march against online and brick-and-mortar retailers, and potential and continued partnerships with Microsoft. Sure to create a wider schism in the iOS-Android debate, the city state model requires securing three categories of products: Profiles, Positioning & Payment.

matt

as far as apple is concerned, what declining growth? their walled garden approach to hardware & software has made them the largest company in the world and the most profitable in the industry.

lokanadam

the web is becoming siloed because of apps ! web slowly becomes b2b and apps become b2c ! also text search is dying and audio search is finally becoming mainstream – watchout for siri and audible [which do not use google]

Shameer Mulji

You can also add the newly announced Google Now to that list.

Jim D

Do you have any stats you can share that show voice search is eating into text search’s queries? I have a hard time buying that considering the amount of searches that are of a “private” (read: porn) nature.

Aaron B

I think that this is where Google’s traditional search/advertising business is most at risk. The use of voice obfuscates the underlying search technology, and gives a provider the ability to change the search technology if it so chooses. If refinement of the query conditions is also done via voice, there is little opportunity to display advertising.

zato

Google will be the next Microsoft. You can tell by the comments to this article. The haters, creeps, and sickos who want Google to “win” are the majority. They want the total destruction of the two companies they hate more than anything, Apple and Facebook. It’s not so much about Google “winning” as it is about Apple and Facebook “Losing”. They would probably like Microsoft to win, since they are PC gamers, and gamers want to “win”. Apple and Facebook must go for these sick creeps. Apple and Facebook remind them of who they really are.

Anonymous Coward

Still, you have to consider one thing: Google has not shown the strong-arm type of sales politics Microsoft practiced even in the face of being split by the DoJ until now, and it still takes privacy more serious than any of its competitors, in spite of so many people whining about Google exploiting their personal data. Also, Google has not yet made any attempt to milk their developer community – which is something both Microsoft and Apple are doing heavily. And neither Microsoft nor Apple have an investment in open source as big and important as Google.

Sid

I don’t quite agree with your analogy since these are not a winner takes all kind of wars. The market is big enough to allow at least these major players to exist. Also, In many cases, Google was forced to make a product to protect it’s search and ad business in the long term. I don’t think they would have launched Google+ if Facebook didn’t have the potential to eat some of it’s lunch. They couldn’t just let Apple walk away with the smartphone market and put their survival in their hands when it’s so easy to change the default search and maps applications as Apple has recently demonstrated with Siri and their own maps.

Grzegorz Maj

Market allows only one winner that takes most, and 10% for loser. Ecosystem Wars aren’t finished yet. It is again: Amiga, Macintosh, PC. Leapfrogging each other. Google has to port its apps to Glasses, while Metro tiles are Fortaleza ready.

Shameer Mulji

I disagree. Although this obviously happened in the traditional PC space, that market was no more than a billion strong. The new mobile device (or Post-PC) space is much larger, at least three times that, if not larger. The market can definitely sustain at least three major successful platforms.

Anonymous Coward

Facebook & Apple: not quite. Google+, like many a project at Google (gmail is another example) came out of two things: many googlers being frustrated with facebook lacking some features they dearly wanted, and a need to unite several products at Google with which Google users interacted separately – this provided a bad user experience. The Moto/tablet stuff, IMO, is similarly a result of things not particularly related to Apple. Google simply needed a pool of patents to be able to protect itself in patent wars, and Moto proved to be a good opportunity to also help Google in its hardware experiments on the consumer side – like Glass, whatever Nexus-like they’ll do in the future etc.

So you see, I wouldn’t say that opening several fronts was always just a defensive move. IMO, it’s more like those fronts appearing as a natural cause of moves on Google’s side which were determined by mostly reasons not related to the resulting battle.

John Proffitt

I guess my question about Google today is, “What’s your mission?” Is it still to “organize the world’s information” or some version of that? If not, what is it? Is there a unifying vision or mission or message for the organization?

It seems like the unifying vision now is “we want you to access the world through our tools so we can profile you and sell you to advertisers (and worse) for money.” A more positive version of that might be, “we make experiencing the Internet great” but I think empirically they haven’t gotten there, which would explain the multi-front battle (that’s likely to fail for purely human/organizational capacity reasons).

I want to see a few Google products continue to improve — Search, Apps, Chrome OS — but the rest strike me as better collaborative zones for Google rather than competitive zones. Just imagine what Apple and Google could have done together, with better and better integration, pulling Apple design into Google engineering. Instead, Google went into competition via chasing. What about Facebook and Google coordinating? That would be powerful as well. But nope, that’s a battleground, too.

Oh well, here we are. It’ll be interesting to watch.

Able Lawrence

For that apple and Facebook also would want to share and collaborate on terms acceptable to Google and public. So blame them and not Google

Srini Kommoori

One thing is definite: everyone is trying to eat away other people’s market. We can argue same way with Amazon, Microsoft and Apple. Effects of technology getting commoditized.

Tim B.

I think the comment translates into: the internet would be useless without Google. Sorta like trying to navigate the streets of NYC, for the first time, without a map or guide: You wouldn’t be able to take advantage of the entire landscape.

However there are other alternatives to Google so the statement is a little overblown.

cheese

Om, any particular reason to have the first 2 letters of the word Glass in a different color than the remaining 3 (see para 2) ? Guess Google would like that product to kick ass, but that’s not the motivation for the typography, is it ? :-)

tapsboy

Eventually Google will put Goggles App on Project Glass

tle9

I agree that they’re fighting too much of the me-too battle. Glasses and self-driving cars are what I want to think about when I think of Google.

Thanks for the post!

montywest28

it looks much like the famous Mahabharat scene where ABHIMANYU got trapped in CHAKARVIYU and fight with hundreds of warriors alone………hope this time google win LOL!! :)

Aakar

I think it’s not appropriate to compare “Google battle” with “Rome, Napoleon and his Napoleonic wars, the Ottoman empire”. They’re using different technology and it’s happening completely in a different space, though we cannot neglect the human workforce. I hope Google will win all the battle. There’re millions of people in the world who loves Google.

Peadar Ó Guilín

Surely their main competitors are all involved in a matching set of battles on a similar number of fronts?

Comments are closed.