To challenge Google, Microsoft might want to think Apple
The announcement of Google's Chrome OS plan puts an exclamation point on the challenge faced by Microsoft, but actually doesn't really change the core threat to Microsoft.
In short, Google is aiming to render desktop software irrelevant. To thwart them, Microsoft needs Windows to do things that a browser can't--or do the same things significantly better.
Interestingly, if Microsoft wants some tips on how to do this, it might want to look toward Apple. Essentially, this has been Apple's challenge all along: make the Mac experience enough better than a generic PC that it is worth the added cost.
The Mac's resurgence came when it had a strong OS--Mac OS X--combined with iLife applications that really nailed the experience for the tasks that people wanted to do on their computer at the time.
If Microsoft wants a blueprint on how to make the PC worth paying for, it might want to take a page from Apple's playbook.
(Credit: Apple)This is an area where Windows has been languishing in recent years. Although most people wouldn't want to give up their favorite desktop applications (Windows or Mac), the Web has been gaining ground. Even areas that were once squarely in the desktop's domain--such as photo editing, productivity software, and personal finance--are making their way onto the Web. What Windows really needs is a new generation of killer apps.
Microsoft also has to do something that Apple doesn't--aim for the masses. Part of Apple's success story has been about choosing its battles and accepting that it can't win everywhere. The Windows model depends on ubiquity, so it needs answers with nearly universal appeal.
One area where Microsoft has been investing is around the area of doing the same things better. Its focus on touch screens in Windows 7 is an example of this. Although multitouch is likely to remain a niche in the short term, it shows the power that a desktop interface can have.
Microsoft also needs to minimize the downsides associated with Windows. On that score, Microsoft has made significant strides with Windows 7. The operating system boots quicker and behaves better than its predecessor.
On the Office side, Microsoft needs to create software that is enough better than Google's that companies want to pay for it.
Next week, Microsoft is expected to talk more about Office 2010, the next version of Office, which is due out next year. Microsoft is taking a two-pronged approach.
CNET News Poll
First, it is taking Google Apps head-on with lightweight browser-based versions of Word, Excel, PowerPoint, and OneNote that can run on Safari, Firefox, and Internet Explorer.
It will offer them to consumers via its Windows Live service--a service that today is free--and businesses will also be able to give the browser-based apps to their workers.
But Microsoft is also doing more on the desktop, adding in the kinds of features it hopes will make the Office suite worth paying for.
The path for Microsoft is clear. The big question, though, is whether Google will be able to be "good enough."
Microsoft has some time, but not a ton. Google's operating system won't even arrive on PCs until the second half of next year. Plus, for now, Windows has the advantage of legacy application support--i.e., businesses and consumers want to run their existing programs. But to stay in front for years to come, it will have to do better than that. It needs to figure out--and quick--the next set of tasks users want to do with their computer and how to make those tasks demonstrably better on a PC.
The company also has another option as well. It can work on Windows' successor. It could be that it needs a lightweight browser-based OS of its own.
Indeed, the thinking beyond its Gazelle research project is that the browser needs to be more like an operating system. In that case, the browser doesn't actually take on the operating system's complete role, but rather relies on Windows. However, Microsoft has other operating system work under way as well, including its top-secret Midori project.
My guess is Microsoft will take both approaches, but hold off on the latter unless and until it needs to. That's pretty much what Microsoft has done with Office vis-a-vis Google Apps. It was only after large business customers started threatening to go to Google Apps that Microsoft conceded that it needed to offer full-on browser apps.
During her years at CNET News, Ina Fried has changed beats several times, changed genders once, and covered both of the Pirates of Silicon Valley. These days, most of her attention is focused on Microsoft. E-mail Ina. 






- by andromorr July 10, 2009 12:22 PM PDT
- I must say this is one of the least thought out article I've read on this topic.<br /><br />Firstly, Ina, your very first two lines start out odd - who is the challenger here, Google, or Microsoft? I believe that rather than Google, it is definitely Microsoft which has the upper hand.<br /><br />Your second statement, about an operating system needing to do what a browser can't, is almost hilarious. While I agree mundane tasks can be accomplished using a web-app, they will never truly replace native software. The internet simply lacks the very fundamental concepts which makes native apps popular - the fact that they're "in your computer", a file system, the programming capability and local resources immediately available, etc. The ability to store documents in your own physical disk. Google will turn in your data the moment it's asked by local authorities - I'm a lawyer working on such a case. And Google is really not known for its excellent user-privacy protection record. I'm sure organisations would be wary of that. Beyond such applications, you forget other industries which rely heavily on computers - graphic designers, animation and visual effects specialists, etc. Mac or not, Web-apps simply can't hope to gain a dominance in this market. And let us not forget that ubiquitous high speed internet is a myth, if not in the US, then in the remaining 90% of the world.<br /><br />I really suggest you take a look at your article and work out your biases - Office is way ahead of any other suite - web or native, and Microsoft has really done some good work with Windows 7 - not the "same all over again, just better." Which, I might add, Google is guilty of doing, since Ubuntu is already trying to achieve, and is years ahead of what Google dreams of achieving. And has not been very successful so far.<br /><br />I really did not like that poll either. Not a single option that says Microsoft will dominate this war, just like it has managed to do so with every other "killer-OS" (read: distros) which were touted to be better.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
Showing 1 of 2 pages (62 Comments)