This strategy of getting start-ups to explain their business models and share their technologies...
This kind of accusation seems so childish. Of course Google can start a competing service, and looking into possible acquisitions instead seems like a sensible thing to do before starting one. But Google's goog411 has nothing to do with the Free411 business model - they aren't trying to sell ads, they are gathering speech data. If Free411 had an enormous database of voice samples, goog411 might have never been. Just because Google didn't consider Free411.com a valuable acquisition doesn't make them evil.
Google doesn't have to behave like this. At their current share price they can acquire any company -- and I mean ANY company -- for little or no cost. Killing little free411 after first cozying up to them is mean-spirited and, if Google continues to behave like this in the future, will hurt the company's reputation long-term. Maybe having a good reputation means little to Google, but it should.
It's time to grow up, kids.
So Google should acquire all startups that are affected by its services, even if there's nothing to gain from the acquisition... because it's the nice thing to do? I'm all for going out of your way to be nice, but let's double check who needs to grow up here...
Cringley's point is that this could lead to industrywide wariness and hatred of Google, unfortunately. MSFT was known for dirty tricks, and galvanized much of the industry against them. Maybe they're paying for this now to some extent.
If you'd think twice before going to a GOOG meeting to pitch your startup and, if they're interested, start "opening the kimono" during due diligence... Well maybe they wouldn't be first on your list of companies to sell to.
Google is looking to centralize all e-mail services to their servers. The e-mail system (GMail and domain services) aren't competing with MS Outlook, they're competing with MS Exchange and hence with Windows Server. That's one hell of a market. If Google sets themselves up as the strongest "utility provider" with respect to IT, and it looks like they're the only ones that "get it" as an organization at this point, I'm wondering why Google's stock price is so freaking low...
Googling "information technology utility" points me towards a more articulate explanation of the concept at MITSloan:
9 comments
[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 38.1 ms ] threadThis is an impressive organization led by an impressive man. I think that they have potential. Give these folks a go.
This strategy of getting start-ups to explain their business models and share their technologies...
This kind of accusation seems so childish. Of course Google can start a competing service, and looking into possible acquisitions instead seems like a sensible thing to do before starting one. But Google's goog411 has nothing to do with the Free411 business model - they aren't trying to sell ads, they are gathering speech data. If Free411 had an enormous database of voice samples, goog411 might have never been. Just because Google didn't consider Free411.com a valuable acquisition doesn't make them evil.
Google doesn't have to behave like this. At their current share price they can acquire any company -- and I mean ANY company -- for little or no cost. Killing little free411 after first cozying up to them is mean-spirited and, if Google continues to behave like this in the future, will hurt the company's reputation long-term. Maybe having a good reputation means little to Google, but it should.
It's time to grow up, kids.
So Google should acquire all startups that are affected by its services, even if there's nothing to gain from the acquisition... because it's the nice thing to do? I'm all for going out of your way to be nice, but let's double check who needs to grow up here...
If you'd think twice before going to a GOOG meeting to pitch your startup and, if they're interested, start "opening the kimono" during due diligence... Well maybe they wouldn't be first on your list of companies to sell to.
Googling "information technology utility" points me towards a more articulate explanation of the concept at MITSloan:
http://sloanreview.mit.edu/smr/issue/2005/spring/13/