Which is interesting, as Google certainly wants to commoditize operating systems. I'm sure Bing is intended to commoditize Google somehow, but I don't think it's working so far. Microsoft appears to be more in the role described for Sun in Joel's article, of the company trying so hard to sabotage potential competitors that they act against their own interest.
(Not nearly as spectacularly as Sun creating Java to spite Microsoft, and ending up commoditizing their hardware business. But I do not think Bing would look like such a good business strategy without the obsession of beating Google.)
Yes I know about that strategy ... but Google's means are different.
When they release a freebie (like Chrome or Android), they force their new competitors in that market to follow their lead.
The browser's speed, instability and lack of proper standards implementations hurts them? ... so they release a super optimized browser with a clear design and with tabs running in their own process. Now Firefox, Opera and Safari (at least) will follow.
The mobile-market is too closed and becoming more so? So they release Android, a pseudo-open OS with an online-store that has more relaxed rules. And I'm pretty sure they don't need an Android-monopoly (as Microsoft is trying with everything they release) to achieve their goals.
Their strategy is not (directly) for increased lock-in (as Microsoft does) ... it's more for eliminating distribution channels / middle-men that might get in their way on reaching customers.
I don't know of any real market changers from microsoft, save IE, which was an attempt to kill competition and preserve market. Maybe I am too far from the microsoft circle to know of any...
Wasn't the XBox hardware pretty much sold at cost to sell their games for their own platform? How many recent games does Microsoft have for the PS or Nintendo?
All consoles (at least at launch, and for years afterwards) are sold at a loss, with profits made up on the games. The difference for Microsoft is that the XBox division has never made a profit, unlike Sony's or Nintendo's.
Note: the Wii is the only recent exception to this rule that I know of; the hardware has been sold at a profit since day one.
Right. At Google's scale, it will even benefit them a lot if other broadband providers provide a better service, since it promotes more use of the internet, and thus more ad income for Google.
I guess people said the same thing when pictures were first being used on the net.
I'd say that it was still a net benefit not to be text only, wouldn't you agree? Ads can be annoying, but they also pay for a lot of what we're using online every day.
Are there any other companies that do this?