Forbes.com: Google's Offensive Strategy

Back in 1983 on the hit TV show The A-Team, George Peppard's Hannibal said to Mr. T's Bad Attitude Baracus, "There's an old saying: 'The best defense is a good offense.'"

Mr. T replied,"You got that wrong, man. A good offense is the best defense."

Then they wrestled pythons or something.

Make no mistake: This is not about browsers

On Tuesday, Google  let word slip--while showing off a comic book, of all things--about its new browser technology, code-named Chrome.

Was it offense against Microsoft's  Internet Explorer? Defense against Apple's  iPhone browser, Safari? A fight for the great network operating system in the sky? All of the above?

In our increasingly interconnected broadband world, there are two main elements that matter: the edge and the cloud. The devices on the edge--your desktop computer, laptop and cellphone--request search results or do credit card transactions on cheap servers in the cloud. So far, Google, through search-engine dominance, owns the cloud. Microsoft, via computers, browsers and about a third of the cellphone market, owns the edge.

But as early innovators Netscape and America Online can attest, things move fast in tech land. You snooze, you lose. It's speed poker rather than a series of slow chess moves. Microsoft tried to buy into the cloud--and Google's control--but it was rebuffed by Yahoo! . And now, on the surface at least, Google is trying to eat into Microsoft's control of the edge using its own browser.

Make no mistake: This is not about browsers. That was the last war, and we have too many already. Microsoft's Internet Explorer has a 70% market share, Mozilla's Firefox has around 20% and small Norwegian browser Opera has an even smaller sliver. Then there's Apple's Safari, which does well on Macs, and--wait a second--has a 100% market share on iPhones. A classic lock-in. Maybe that's a clue into what Google is doing.

The original Netscape and Internet Explorer browsers were buckets. A server would fill up the bucket, and therefore your screen, with text, links, banner ads and pictures. When combined, these things displayed a Web page. That was Web 1.0, a digital catalog.

The next generation of browsers we now use can actually run programs from languages like Java, PHP, Perl, Python and Ruby. Web pages aren't just drawn anymore. They are alive, constantly connected to cloud servers to update information, maps, inventory data and more. This development enabled the so-called Web 2.0 and spawned new services like Facebook and MySpace, which tightly link the edge and the cloud. The same goes for pages like Google Maps, which have the ability to mash up and display geodata.

Chrome seems to do all these things. No real surprises--its first cut merely matches what everyone else already does.

But even this technology is getting old. No snoozing, remember? There are two new explosive markets. One, the mobile Web, is overanalyzed. Google is spending big bucks trying to outdo Apple's iPhone with their Android mobile technology. Google figured it might as well build in its own browser and take 100% of that market. It turns out Chrome is built on the same base technology as Safari. So why not?

But the real excitement may come from an adaptive Web. Using the zillions of searches we all type every day, Google should have an edge when it comes to figuring out what we are looking for. Google can base that knowledge on what we are currently working on, or where we--and our cellphones--are currently located.

To do this means choreographing a delicate dance between the edge and the cloud. And implementing this, or any other new whiz-bang technology, exclusively is what will get millions to download and lock-in to a Google browser. Advertising dollars will follow naturally. If it's truly useful, we would all switch in a heartbeat.

Mr. T was right. There's no need for defense; it's all offense. Of course, it'll take more than a comic book--or even Mr. T--for Google to pull this off.

Comments

[Kurt Hinz jr]

Hi there!

FWIW, couple of thoughts... from my personal investor's list.
[as the browser-software, this is considered beta, if not alpha]

1) Google increases its brand name, that's always a good thing.
2) Chrome could and will decrease Internet Explorer's market share.
3) Google forces Microsoft (and Apple) to spend more money and manpower on development (?)
4) Google discourages other/new companies entering the arena (?)
5) Can Chrome's JavaScript-engine become significantly faster then IE's, to boost Web-apps, can Google set new standards/patents?
6) Will it be platform-o/s-independent? (or even an O/S?)

Note: MSFT has obviously serious problems with its coding, why? Confused strategy? Projects too large?
Thought: Will Chrome be simpler and sort of slimmer, so it can run a small device, or on such a device... blackberry,phone,(bios?),whatever. Does that really matter in todays world, ie: low-cost-memory.
Question: Who has the better coders/employees, including management?

7) After victory, what is Google's intention, where're the profits?

- More desktop & mobile users, more ads
- A share of Office apps, on the web (less MS offline apps)
- Creating mobile hardware, like gX (??)

Note-1: Comfortability, cost-efficiency for companies & consumers.
Note-2: IMHO there're similarities between Google's approach & Apple's Safari...
Note-3a: Gates/Ballmer probably had a good reason for their YHOO-bid?!
Note-3b: Google interfered, reason: Monopoly-fears (sic!)...

8) When will victory be?

(Plan A) Cui bono? Who's producing what for Google, and Apple &c, who will. There'll be new technologies, ergo new Bulls. I consider Google a conglomerate, so new ideas/technology/services can be in many areas.

(Plan B) what if they fail, will this strenghten aapl/msft/al?

(X) go read Andy Kessler's blog for waterfall-seightings.

Greetings & best wishes :) Kurt

[Steve P]

Browsers don't "run" programs written in PHP, Perl etc. Where on earth did you get that idea?