Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/20/magazine/the-case-against-google.html
Charles Duhigg wrote an article for The New York Times Magazine - ‘The Case Against Google’. It is a great read where Duhigg also acknowledges the consumer benefits that Google provides.
Duhigg considers that the Microsoft antitrust lawsuit is the single biggest part of Gary Reback’s legacy. Duhigg’s argument is rooted in an argument made to him by Gary Reback, who spearheaded the Microsoft antitrust lawsuit. Duhigg notes that Microsoft could have redirected Internet Explorer users to MSN Search but for the supposedly failed lawsuit. He also claims that a failed antitrust lawsuit led IBM to open up its hardware to 3rd party software, creating the industry that would ultimately do IBM in.
However, he failed to consider that Microsoft employees will always blame the antitrust lawsuit instead of themselves for having missed the opportunities in both search market. He ignores that Microsoft faced a significant obstacle in search: its business model was about building compatibility walls around its ecosystem and charging for access. Google’s success, from the business model to the technical acumen that includes PageRank was predicated on taking Microsoft down. There is no way that Microsoft could have out-competed Google. And even if Internet Explorer may have been dominant, the paradigm shift of the web and Google’s superior ability to make sense of it would have helped Google overcome any obstacles Windows may have put in its way.
It’s same in the mobile as well - Microsoft’s defeat had nothing to do with antitrust, but rather the incompetence to break out of its licensing model and the assumption that the PC would always be a user’s most relevant device.
In short, to believe that Microsoft would have dominated search without antitrust is hard to believe. Clearly, that wasn’t the case in mobile, and I don’t think it was the case for search.
Charles Duhigg wrote an article for The New York Times Magazine - ‘The Case Against Google’. It is a great read where Duhigg also acknowledges the consumer benefits that Google provides.
Duhigg considers that the Microsoft antitrust lawsuit is the single biggest part of Gary Reback’s legacy. Duhigg’s argument is rooted in an argument made to him by Gary Reback, who spearheaded the Microsoft antitrust lawsuit. Duhigg notes that Microsoft could have redirected Internet Explorer users to MSN Search but for the supposedly failed lawsuit. He also claims that a failed antitrust lawsuit led IBM to open up its hardware to 3rd party software, creating the industry that would ultimately do IBM in.
However, he failed to consider that Microsoft employees will always blame the antitrust lawsuit instead of themselves for having missed the opportunities in both search market. He ignores that Microsoft faced a significant obstacle in search: its business model was about building compatibility walls around its ecosystem and charging for access. Google’s success, from the business model to the technical acumen that includes PageRank was predicated on taking Microsoft down. There is no way that Microsoft could have out-competed Google. And even if Internet Explorer may have been dominant, the paradigm shift of the web and Google’s superior ability to make sense of it would have helped Google overcome any obstacles Windows may have put in its way.
It’s same in the mobile as well - Microsoft’s defeat had nothing to do with antitrust, but rather the incompetence to break out of its licensing model and the assumption that the PC would always be a user’s most relevant device.
In short, to believe that Microsoft would have dominated search without antitrust is hard to believe. Clearly, that wasn’t the case in mobile, and I don’t think it was the case for search.
No comments:
Post a Comment