Hacker News Reader

Comment by yousifa | Hacker News Reader

Even if chrome does end up gaining a monopoly on browsers (or google in general is in a monopoly position), eventually they will cease to innovate and will be taken over by the underdog (or the newest/best solution).

View on HN

Is that true? It seems like an oft-quoted truism that when companies get big, they "turn into Microsoft," or (gasp), "turn into IBM!" This assertion is logically impossible to verify or prove. There have been less than a dozen monolith tech corporations, every one is different, and the world changes every day. Just because Microsoft "stopped innovating" (is that even true?) does not mean that Googe will. That kind of macroscopic extrapolation is predicated on weak logic and completely unreliable.

It remains to be seen, and likely forever will, whether large corporations suffer from some unavoidable, fundamental flaw that prohibits them from innovating. As a casual observer, it seems to me that Google is very aware there is a risk of that, and its executives consistently make moves to mitigate it. They silo small innovation labs like Google X within the company, they fund "moonshots," and they acquire as many innovative small teams as they can. They do all of that with more resources at their disposal than almost any other company in the world. So it stands to reason that if Google is consciously aware of the risk of innovation slowdown ("turning into Microsoft"), and actively throwing more money at avoiding the problem than any other company on the planet, that they have a far better chance of continued innovation than "the underdog."

I think the difference this time is that if Google controls the browser AND the biggest websites, then they'll be more confident introducing features that lock you into that browser (See the offline storage bit mentioned in the article). With those lockin features more common, people will be less willing to support other browsers in the future, because they wont be able to offer those exclusive features. With that large userbase that can use cool features like those, other large websites will take advantage of the proprietary API's (see, the issue with webkit css prefixes right now). Lack of possible support from users means most alternatives wouldn't be able to gain any traction, which is going to discourage any growth in that field.

A comparison I think is valid is if an

Google has very deep pockets, and is successfully executing an astonishingly vast integration play. Google can potentially own:

- Your communications (Gmail, Hangouts, Voice)

- Your working data (Drive, Docs)

- Your footprint on the Web (Google Analytics, Ads)

- Your footprint on the Internet (Fiber, Loon)

- Your browser (Chrome)

- Your operating system (ChromeOS, Android, GlassOS)

- Your device (Chromebooks, Glass, Wear, Android phones and tablets)

- Your movements and travel (Maps, Ingress, ITA)

- Your robotic overlords (Boston Dynamics)

Not to mention the upcoming plays for home integration (Nest, Thread), your means of transportation (Android Auto, self-driving cars), and your activity and health data (Fit).

Each vertical success reinforces the Google Platform, and lends momentum to Google's efforts in other verticals. It presents one hell of a barrier for start-ups (unless you fancy share-cropping), decreases consumer choice, and ultimately, that amount of consolidated power just doesn't seem healthy for a functioning market or society.

Edit: All of that, and I somehow forgot YouTube. And G+. But we all forgot G+, right?

And Twitch...sorta

And search!

so Google is unbeatable.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com