Why Did Google Build a Phone and a Browser?

Microsoft was kind enough to comment that Google will have a tough time selling both a phone and an OS.

Microsoft Corp.’s Robbie Bach, head of the division that makes mobile-phone programs, said Google Inc. will have a hard time attracting partners to its wireless software after introducing its own handset.

Roughly Drafted toes the Apple-fanboy line that Android simply isn’t very important in the scheme of things:

But importantly, it will also expose Google’s tired attempt to beat Microsoft’s Window Mobile at its own game (without applying much creativity) as being much less important than the Android-enamored seem to think it is. Google isn’t changing the world with Android, it’s just ripping off an existing, unexceptional product. Google’s Android is not more special in the grand scheme of things than Compaq’s effort to clone the original IBM PC.

Both miss the point rather badly.

At least as I read the situation.

Google isn’t really interested in building a phone, any more than it is really interested in building a browser (Chrome), or even a phone OS (Android). Don’t misunderstand, I have no doubt the specific individuals working on those projects are highly motivated people who believe passionately in their products. I just don’t think having a phone, even a good phone is really directly crucial to Google’s corporate survival.

Why then, the Nexus One? Why Android? Why Chrome? Why Chrome OS? Why try to buy radio frequencies?

What Does Google Want?
Google is large, with lots of money, talent, resources, and leverage in the marketplace. It has a wonderful brand. It has cachet. It has no interest in being the same company in five years that it is now — it is maniacal about growth. So what does it do with its resources? To answer that question, you have to ask: What does Google want?

Google is not really interested in making a pot of money selling phones (They, er, have a pot of money already). That’s kinda far from their core business, search. They are not really hoping to provide email for every man woman or child, or move every person to Google Docs. I doubt they were crushed that they didn’t win the radio frequencies.

Google is, in a general sense, interested in leveraging new technologies. Particularly Internet technologies. Why not? If I was Google I would believe that if a new area of application space opened up, Google has a better than even chance to develop best-in-class revenue generating software from it. They do have some talent.

Put another way, Google figures if it competes on a level playing field, in a new area, it can win large. Trying to monetize a slightly better email client is a loser. The real success for Gmail? It pushed the state-of-the-art in browser apps. So did Google Maps. Google Docs. What does Android do? Pushes the state of the art in phones.

Oh, Android phones aren’t better than an iPhone, not yet; but the Nexus One and the Droid and such will push Apple to do things its closed mentality would rather not do. It will push battery technology — you need power to use a network machine all the time. It will push cellular companies to commoditize their bandwidth. Add in Google Voice, and you no longer need a separate voice plan. Having lots and lots of super-capable smartphones will push people (and then companies) to cloud data, which will make RIM unhappy but Google very happy. The list goes on.

What happened when Chrome was released? A mini javascript-engine war that continues today. Why is speed of Javascript execution so important to Google? All those applications run far faster with a better Javascript engine. So Chrome pushes Apple, Mozilla, Microsoft et al to improve their Javascript. Who really wins? The users, for sure, but Google wins big. The average capability of the web browser went way up, at relatively little cost to Google.

Google isn’t so much interested in selling the best phone, or providing the best browser.

Google is intent in raising the average in areas it thinks are key to its future.

This is what Google’s handset partners understand: they only really compete with Google if they don’t push the state of the art. As long as HTC and Motorola are pushing the bounds of what a smartphone can do, Google will be happy. If they slack, Google will produce a phone just advanced enough to give them a kick in the pants.

Put it another way — Google producing its own phone guarantees (as much as Google can) that Android (and by extension the cell phone industry) will not stagnate like Windows Mobile.

That’s why Mozilla and Opera aren’t afraid of Chrome — they only need to be afraid when they choose to stop innovating.

And this is why status-quo industries should be afraid when Google casts an eye their way. Put Chrome OS in every TV — scare the crap out of cable companies and Dell at the same time. Create the ‘Google Web TV Network’ and program it from crowd-sourced web submissions? NBC might keel over. Etc…

It is an interesting approach — Google is basically spending resources to accelerate areas of technology into the Garage.

Who knows where Google might push innovation next? Make no mistake, they do this to make money. It’s just that they have a different conception of how they’ll make money from an advanced phone than say, Motorola does. Or Apple does.

Hard to bet against them.

Explore posts in the same categories: Tech

Tags: Android, Apple, AT&T, garage principle, Google, iPhone, Microsoft, Verizon

You can comment below, or link to this permanent URL from your own site.