Skip to main content

Diigo Home

The Microsoft vs Google Endgame - Harvard Business Online's Umair Haque - The Diigo Meta page

discussionleader.hbsp.com/...icrosoft_microsoft_the_we.html - Cached - Annotated View

Colin Henderson's personal annotations on this page

bankwatch
Bankwatch bookmarked on 2008-05-19 umair haque facebook
  • That’s why it’s a (massive) fallacy to argue that any value has been “created”. Value might be created when connected consumers can share and trade preference information or applications across social nets. But value is actually foregone if Microsoft acquires a closed Facebook, because opportunities for consumers, developers, and advertisers alike to meaningfully interact are destroyed. That’s what evil really means: coercing others into accepting value destruction.

This link has been bookmarked by 6 people . It was first bookmarked on 19 May 2008, by FruFru FourOne.

  • 11 Jun 08
    mbauwens
    Michel Bauwens

    Both Google and Microsoft are poised to make fairly dramatic strategic moves. But the moves they're poised to make are polar, extreme opposites: the contrast between them couldn't be sharper or starker.

    Netarchical-Capitalism P2P

  • 22 May 08
    jamesknowsit
    James Sunderland

    Two starkly contrasting approaches to business strategy. Microsoft vs Google.

    Microsoft google business_strategy strategy open innovation business internet umair_haque Facebook economics

  • 21 May 08
    • According to an interesting rumour making the rounds: Microsoft is to acquire Yahoo's search business as well as Facebook, and lock both down, to better take on Google. And Google is letting third parties access one of its most valuable assets: it's ad network.

      What's really going on here? Microsoft is poised to shift from open to closed. Google is already making exactly the opposite move: shifting from closed to open. ...

      Unfortunately for Steve Ballmer, this ain’t your grandpa’s "platform war”. It’s the reverse: only openness can maximize the value of network effects in this space, because there are no hard technological switching costs creating lock-in. For example, yesterday, it was massively costly to recode applications across operating systems, or for consumers to switch all their applications to a new platform – but that’s distinctly not true on the www: in fact, much of the point of the www is to vaporize those tired, obsolete scale economics and switching costs.

      That’s why it’s a (massive) fallacy to argue that any value has been “created”. Value might be created when connected consumers can share and trade preference information or applications across social nets. But value is actually foregone if Microsoft acquires a closed Facebook, because opportunities for consumers, developers, and advertisers alike to meaningfully interact are destroyed. That’s what evil really means: coercing others into accepting value destruction.
    • According to an interesting rumour making the rounds: Microsoft is to acquire Yahoo's search business as well as Facebook, and lock both down, to better take on Google. And Google is letting third parties access one of its most valuable assets: it's ad network.

      What's really going on here? Microsoft is poised to shift from open to closed. Google is already making exactly the opposite move: shifting from closed to open. ...

      Unfortunately for Steve Ballmer, this ain’t your grandpa’s "platform war”. It’s the reverse: only openness can maximize the value of network effects in this space, because there are no hard technological switching costs creating lock-in. For example, yesterday, it was massively costly to recode applications across operating systems, or for consumers to switch all their applications to a new platform – but that’s distinctly not true on the www: in fact, much of the point of the www is to vaporize those tired, obsolete scale economics and switching costs.

      That’s why it’s a (massive) fallacy to argue that any value has been “created”. Value might be created when connected consumers can share and trade preference information or applications across social nets. But value is actually foregone if Microsoft acquires a closed Facebook, because opportunities for consumers, developers, and advertisers alike to meaningfully interact are destroyed. That’s what evil really means: coercing others into accepting value destruction.
  • 19 May 08
    • That’s why it’s a (massive) fallacy to argue that any value has been “created”. Value might be created when connected consumers can share and trade preference information or applications across social nets. But value is actually foregone if Microsoft acquires a closed Facebook, because opportunities for consumers, developers, and advertisers alike to meaningfully interact are destroyed. That’s what evil really means: coercing others into accepting value destruction.