Google continues to be in disputes with the Chinese over what content should be restricted. This dispute started many years ago. How Google has handled it shows their differentiation versus Yahoo! and others.
Google has a mission to "do no evil". Its founders wanted to attempt to do well by doing good. The company was wise early on when it brought on CEO Eric Schmidt, one of the best CEOs in Silicon Valley--adult supervision that Yahoo! could have used.
About 10 years ago, California wanted the search engines to provide the names of anyone who did a search that might be related to child pornography, in hopes of entrapping pedophiles. Yahoo!, MSN, AOL and others quickly complied; Google refused, saying that those who used its search engine did so with the guarantee of anonymity. Identifying someone as a pedophile from a search was a "slippery slope" that would open the Internet to censorship. While pedophilia is a horrific crime, how might one differentiate a student or journalist doing research on the subject from a true pedophile. It could become a new "McCarthy era" witch-hunt, with people being judged guilty until they could prove themselves innocent, but tainted nonetheless. Google judged that agreeing with California authorities would not be true to their brand promise. They incurred the wrath of California authorities and others who questioned their morals and ethics.
Fast forward, and Google ran into trouble with the Chinese government that wanted the names of anyone in China who searched for information about banned subjects (e.g.,Tiananmen Square, or Falun Gong, a banned religious group, or the Dalai Lama). Yahoo! complied, turning over the names of journalists which lead to their arrest and incarceration. Google stayed consistent. It refused to turn over names of those doing searches. Instead, it agreed to put up a notice blocking the information and telling the searcher that they were complying with Chinese law. While the government did not like this, it was accepted.
Google's actions at the time were not applauded by all. Many members of Congress, including the late Cong. Lantos of California, wanted Google and all other companies to abandon China until the country agreed to improve its human rights. Lantos had been a holocaust survivor and had tremendous sensitivities to country abuses of human rights. He had wanted a "Sullivan Principle" (the principles that were introduced by Rev. Leon Sullivan that kept U.S. companies from doing business in South Africa during the time of apartheid) for countries like China.
The dispute in China has continued. Now, Google believes that not only has China been the source of international hacking, but that the Chinese authorities might be behind the hacking of Google and other companies. While the Chinese say that they are not responsible, they do not deny that they want to block Internet and search access that they deem "disruptive to the state and its people". They also have the motive and the ability to get back at Google for its unwillingness to comply with their desire to hunt down offensive searches and searchers. The dispute might drive Google out of China.
Lest anyone think this is easy for Google to stand its ground, they should recognize that China is the largest potential Internet market in the world. The future development of that country's Internet will be enormously profitable. Google could find itself pushed out of operations in China and may make the decision to abandon the country. If Google is not in China, it gives the Chinese the motivation to create a competitor that could challenge Google not only in China, but also around the world. I can image that this will be a difficult situation for Google and its board, given the profits it would be foregoing.
While this may seem like a dispute amongst competing governments and philosophies of government, it is a demonstration of the difficulty companies have globally. Many times, companies argue that they must adapt to the whims and cultures of their different world markets. While adaptation to local customs is a correct action, a company still must maintain a core set of brand attributes that it will keep immutable. This is what Google has been trying to do. I applaud them! They have earned my respect and admiration.
Showing posts with label Google. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Google. Show all posts
Saturday, March 13, 2010
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
Google vs. Apple--Battle of the Titans
The new Droid operating system by Google has raised a lot of interest in what this will mean to both Apple's I-Phone and RIM's Blackberry. Everyone keeps looking for the I-Phone "killer" the way people a decade ago looked for the Palm killer. What killed the Palm was the smartphone--a different category. The industry moved from the Palm, which was a PDA, to a smartphone, a convergence technology that combined PDA with mobile technology (phone and e-mail).
So, when people start looking for comparisons with what happened to Palm, they need to be cognizant of the fact that there was a category shift or a new category created. People stay within a category when their needs are being met. They switch only when they determine that the new offering provides greater benefits than they are receiving and the price of those benefits is worth it. In other words, there is value ("worth what's paid for").
Droid is not a new category. It is an operating system. I-Phone has its own operating system, as does Blackberry. However, we are talking about an operating system by Google, the most valuable and respected technology brand in the world--beating even Apple. We now have set up the "Battle of the Titans".
So, who is going to win and who is going to loose? My students have been asking me this since they first heard about Droid. So, here is my prediction and my rationale. I think that Droid will erode Blackberry, not I-Phone. I do not think that I-Phone users will switch, but there will likely be a significant number of Blackberry users who will. Droid is an improvement over Blackberry in many respects, although it will need to improve its e-mail functions to hurt Blackberry significantly.
Why will I-Phone continue to survive? This is no longer a matter of phone, but Apple brand. Apple has a community brand-- a "cult", similar to what we see in brands like Abercrombie and Fitch, Aeropostale, and the like. It is a reference group brand. We know that others are part of our same community because they have the same brand--it is entry into membership.
Google is loved as a search engine and one of the smartest companies around. I believe that Google will eventually use cloud technology to do to the technology space what Wal-Mart did to the retail space--many companies will become suppliers to Google. Google is becoming a brand beyond search engines the way Apple became a brand beyond computers.
Google will soon be selling its own branded mobile phones. It will create its own community. Blackberry has users; Apple and Google have community. Blackberry likely will be in trouble.
What does trouble mean? There are several things happening. First, there is what Boston Consulting Group calls the "market of three". That is, when an industry begins to mature, it devolves into three main players. Others either are squeezed out or become niche players. We also can look at this from a perceptual map and see the variables that drive mobile phone selection and map them. I think that Google and Apple will squeeze Blackberry into the middle, a dangerous place to be in any market--neither here nor there. Blackberry will remain the phone of choice for corporations, but for how long is the question. If Google is an accepted operating system, it will make inroads. To date, the CIOs in companies have resisted I-Phone, preferring Blackberry. How they react to Google and Droid will be interesting to watch. Clearly, there will be pressure coming from users to open the corporate market to another system. Younger users have wanted that to be I-Phone.
This is going to be an interesting battle between two very smart, very rich, very talented giants with incredible brand communities. I have talked with a number of people who are part of the "Apple community" who are starting to dislike Google because it threatens their beloved brand. We are likely to see battles between Google and Apple--the future Coke and Pepsi of the technology industry. Those caught in the middle, like Blackberry will be in a tougher position than ever.
So, when people start looking for comparisons with what happened to Palm, they need to be cognizant of the fact that there was a category shift or a new category created. People stay within a category when their needs are being met. They switch only when they determine that the new offering provides greater benefits than they are receiving and the price of those benefits is worth it. In other words, there is value ("worth what's paid for").
Droid is not a new category. It is an operating system. I-Phone has its own operating system, as does Blackberry. However, we are talking about an operating system by Google, the most valuable and respected technology brand in the world--beating even Apple. We now have set up the "Battle of the Titans".
So, who is going to win and who is going to loose? My students have been asking me this since they first heard about Droid. So, here is my prediction and my rationale. I think that Droid will erode Blackberry, not I-Phone. I do not think that I-Phone users will switch, but there will likely be a significant number of Blackberry users who will. Droid is an improvement over Blackberry in many respects, although it will need to improve its e-mail functions to hurt Blackberry significantly.
Why will I-Phone continue to survive? This is no longer a matter of phone, but Apple brand. Apple has a community brand-- a "cult", similar to what we see in brands like Abercrombie and Fitch, Aeropostale, and the like. It is a reference group brand. We know that others are part of our same community because they have the same brand--it is entry into membership.
Google is loved as a search engine and one of the smartest companies around. I believe that Google will eventually use cloud technology to do to the technology space what Wal-Mart did to the retail space--many companies will become suppliers to Google. Google is becoming a brand beyond search engines the way Apple became a brand beyond computers.
Google will soon be selling its own branded mobile phones. It will create its own community. Blackberry has users; Apple and Google have community. Blackberry likely will be in trouble.
What does trouble mean? There are several things happening. First, there is what Boston Consulting Group calls the "market of three". That is, when an industry begins to mature, it devolves into three main players. Others either are squeezed out or become niche players. We also can look at this from a perceptual map and see the variables that drive mobile phone selection and map them. I think that Google and Apple will squeeze Blackberry into the middle, a dangerous place to be in any market--neither here nor there. Blackberry will remain the phone of choice for corporations, but for how long is the question. If Google is an accepted operating system, it will make inroads. To date, the CIOs in companies have resisted I-Phone, preferring Blackberry. How they react to Google and Droid will be interesting to watch. Clearly, there will be pressure coming from users to open the corporate market to another system. Younger users have wanted that to be I-Phone.
This is going to be an interesting battle between two very smart, very rich, very talented giants with incredible brand communities. I have talked with a number of people who are part of the "Apple community" who are starting to dislike Google because it threatens their beloved brand. We are likely to see battles between Google and Apple--the future Coke and Pepsi of the technology industry. Those caught in the middle, like Blackberry will be in a tougher position than ever.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
