As Google prepared to blow out the 10 candles on top of its birthday cake on Sunday, founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin could be forgiven for cracking a wry smile as they reflect upon the fire they had just lit under Microsoft.
The conflagration that has the creator of Windows running for the fire extinguisher was caused by Google’s launch of its own Internet browser. The arrival of Chrome, announced in typically idiosyncratic style through the medium of an online comic strip last week, represents more than just a challenge to Microsoft’s market-leading Internet Explorer. It represents a fundamental fight over the future of the computer.
Microsoft, as so many potential rivals have found over the years, has a stranglehold over the market for the software that runs computers thanks to its hugely successful Windows operating system. So Google has taken heed of the old adage that if you cannot win, change the game.
The rise of broadband Internet access has finally created an environment where applications such as word processors or spreadsheet programs do not need to reside on a computer. Instead they can be run on the Internet and the documents created can be stored on Web servers so they can be accessed from anywhere a person can get online. In a world where such Web-based applications abound, it does not matter what operating system a computer runs because all it needs to have is an Internet browser and an Internet connection. In that world, a user could even opt for a free operating system.
It’s a change that Bill Gates himself foresaw when 13 years ago he wrote an internal memo in which he assigned the “highest level of importance” to the Internet and warned his colleagues that it was a potential “tidal wave” that could fundamentally alter the rules.
That memo mentioned then market-leading browser Netscape as having the potential to “commoditize the underlying operating system.” That infamous memo was one of the catalysts of the browser wars of the late 1990s, which ultimately saw Internet Explorer crush Netscape Navigator, and it also included a line about ensuring that makers of computers ship their machines with a Microsoft browser pre-installed. That practice landed Microsoft in court and led to the effective split of the company. But by then the damage was done and Netscape ended up in the hands of AOL before disappearing all but completely.
When Gates testified as part of the anti-trust case brought against the company 10 years ago he was asked what that line about “commoditizing the operating system” had meant.
“They were creating a product that would either reduce the value or eliminate demand for the Windows operating system if they continued to improve it and we didn’t keep improving our product,” he replied.
FIREFOX CUB
Ironically, Chrome, which has been roughly two years in the making, builds upon innovations made in browser technology by Microsoft’s rival Mozilla, custodian of the Firefox browser, some of whose technological DNA comes from Netscape Navigator.
But the browser wars of a decade ago do not live on just within the technology of Chrome, but in Google’s decision to create it in the first place. The search engine’s chief executive admitted after the launch that “the browser wars of 10 years ago were right: the browser matters.”
Brin said that “operating systems are kind of an old way to think of the world. They have become kind of bulky ... We [Web users] want a very lightweight, fast engine for running applications. The kind of things you want to have running standalone are shrinking.”
That is bad news for Microsoft, which makes a significant chunk of its revenues from its Windows operating system and Office suite of software, both of which sit upon the computer itself.
Google, of course, makes pretty much all of its revenues from online search. It has gone from a doctoral project at Stanford University to the world’s largest search engine in 10 years, blasting through the traditional media and advertising industries on the way. It is now one of the world’s most trusted and recognized brands.
Over the past few years, the company has moved into online applications and services such as e-mail, word processing, calendars, instant messaging, maps, spreadsheets and even bought the online video phenomenon YouTube.
But ultimately everything it does is about persuading people to do more with the Internet. The more time people spend online, the more likely they are to search for something and the more likely they are to generate revenues for Google or queries that help improve its search algorithm. So why would it want to dabble with browsers?
First, the sense that Google’s executives have given over the past few days is that if the rest of the industry had produced good enough browsers, there would have been no need for them to create Chrome.
Announcing the launch of Chrome — which was leaked after a Google staffer posted a copy of the 38-page comic that heralded the move — the company said on its Web site: “People are spending an increasing amount of time online, and they’re doing things never imagined when the Web first appeared about 15 years ago.
“We realized that the Web had evolved from mainly simple text pages to rich, interactive applications and that we needed to completely rethink the browser. What we really needed was not just a browser, but also a modern platform for Web pages and applications, and that’s what we set out to build,” Google said.
Chrome, according to early testers, is certainly faster than many of the browsers already in the market — especially the current version of Internet Explorer — and it has been engineered so that if one Web site being visited freezes up, the entire program does not crash.
ANDROID ATTACK
Google has moved into another area — mobile phones — for roughly similar reasons. The creation of its Android operating system for mobile phones — the first device that runs it is expected in time for Christmas — owes much to the fact that the mobile Internet has been promised for years but the industry’s love of proprietary systems has held back its arrival.
The first gadget to deliver on the promise of the mobile Web, Apple’s iPhone, owes some of its success to the fact that it is an “open” platform, so anyone who uses common Web standards can create applications for it. Android is also an open mobile platform, in the same way as Chrome is an open browser platform.
But Chrome is also a crucial defensive play for Google. If you rely — as it does — on people having access to the Internet to make your money you not only want to make it as simple as possible but ensure no one gets in your way.
The new, eighth version of Internet Explorer, which is due out soon, includes the ability to view Web pages anonymously. Erasing a user’s online footprints would make it harder for Google to collect the data about visitors that it uses to improve search results and serve relevant adverts.
Chrome also has an anonymous browsing mode — which has quickly been dubbed “porn mode” because it hides details of where the user has been from other users of the same machine — but Google will still know what that user has been doing online.
Then there is the fact that browsers increasingly contain search boxes within them, raising the risk that a popular new browser could slowly squeeze Chrome out of the market by signing up with a rival search engine.
Google has already been hedging its bets. It has a deal with the Mozilla Foundation, a non-profit-making organization that funds the development of Firefox, the Web’s second most popular browser, to have its search box within the browser itself.
Just last month Google extended that deal — which has recently generated more than three-quarters of Mozilla’s revenues — until 2011. Google’s toolbar is already standard on Apple’s Safari browser and can also be downloaded and installed on Internet Explorer.
Chrome has excited the tech world but ultimately it all comes down to money and for Google that means more people searching more often.
As Citigroup put it in a note to clients last week: “Given that search has become such a fundamental part of Internet usage, anything that impacts overall Internet usage is important for Google.”
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
RSS