InnovationInspiration

Google’s OS Anti-Trust: History Repeats Itself?

We are moving towards a world where the traditional OS is replaced by the browser, with Google spearheading this transformation in computing paradigm. 

I was thinking yesterday about different applications that could be built for the new cloud operating systems, and then I realized that I would have a hard time competing with whatever applications/services Google bundled natively with their browser OS. This sounded vaguely familiar, familiar of a time before I was building applications - and that is of course, because it parallels the Microsoft Anti-trust suit of the late 90s:

United States Vs. Microsoft (From Wikipedia):

“The issue central to the case was whether Microsoft was allowed to bundle its flagship Internet Explorer (IE) web browser software with its Microsoft Windows operating system. Bundling them together is alleged to have been responsible for Microsoft’s victory in the browser wars as every Windows user had a copy of Internet Explorer. It was further alleged that this unfairly^{[citation needed]} restricted the market for competing web browsers (such as Netscape Navigator or Opera) that were slow to download over a modem or had to be purchased at a store.”

Will we soon be seeing the same phenomenon with Google’s OS, where they bundle software natively within their chrome/chromium browser? Or, will things be different this time around - and if so, what does different mean?

Anyone who is themselves the platform on which they are building, will have some advantage in terms of the capabilities of the platform they are able to leverage - and they also have the advantage that they are able to change the platform itself. So, what will the native apps that the Chrome OS bundles be? Will there be competing App Stores, or just theirs? Will their be a social layer built directly into the browser/OS that makes it difficult for others social applications to compete? What will be considered fair and unfair in this cycle of computing history?

This time around, it won’t be browser lock-in that will be contentious. Rather, it will be things like applications that enable social interactions, content consumption, and content discovery that will be the root of the problem. Or, perhaps, I’m still thinking of hot air balloons, when planes are on the horizon. 

Regardless, I think we’re at a turning point in Internet history - where the idea of free content, and to some extent free software appears to be declining. Where “Walled Gardens” are becoming more of a norm, and where app stores such as Apple’s and Google’s become the standard way to get the software and content you care about.

Note: I am aware that Google is already having anti-trust issues, but those current issues stem from their tampering with search results to give preferential ‘search’ treatment to their own products, and other ‘friendly’ products. These current problems aren’t inherently related to bundling applications natively with platform software. However, in line with the ongoing anti-trust issues, it may be that we end up seeing Google skew search results in their future App Store to get you to install the software they want, rather than actually natively bundling it.

Now, what is the fairness of all this? Anti-trust and anti-monopoly regulations are put in place because economics tells us that monopolies create market inefficiencies. Companies are able to leverage their market dominance to extract higher prices from their customers. So to what point is it acceptable to leverage the power that is gained from being a platform to promote your own products? This is one of the ironies of capitalism - it wants you to be successful, just not too successful. Whether there’s any issue with this, I don’t know. Whether there’s any issue with bundling at all, I don’t know. But, it’ll be interesting to see how things play out over the coming years.