I've noticed lately that the media is really starting to dig into Google's privacy approach. In fact, there are investigations behind Google's privacy approach in over 12 countries.
An organization who abuses their brand can take an awful nasty hit in the long run. Look at Microsoft, for example. Microsoft created their own competition [Linux, etc.] because of the public's disgust at their monopolization and tough-guy tactics. You can no longer say that Windows Rules. In fact, in the server world, Windows is nearly replaced with Linux based servers. In the software development world, more and more software has moved to Linux.
Another example is WindRiver. In the embedded world, the world where car computers, satellite computers, cable set-top boxes, etc., are created, WindRiver, the monopoly operating system, has been seeing such a huge hit from "Embedded Linux" that the organization was sold. So, Microsoft doesn't remain alone.
What did Microsoft do that was wrong? Afterall, not all monopolies are bad. As a Field Application Engineer who worked for Microsoft, I saw first hand how their tough-guy tactics drove their customers away. WindRiver isn't much different in their approach. The WindRiver approach was to get a customer in cheap, then raise the prices over the years. If your organization became a 'WindRiver House' or a 'Microsoft House', you soon found yourself at a competitive disadvantage over those using an unchained Linux solutions.
Okay, so how does this fit with Google?
Google is creating their own competition right now. That is, someone is already working on a similie to every Google product and they will offer that product for free or next-to-free. Google will become so top heavy, they won't have wiggle room to change their own marketing strategy. Like Microsoft, they'll lose their ubiquitious standing and will, in years to come, become obscure; a story you tell your kids, "There once was this one company...."
Microsoft, WindRiver, Google, even IBM for that matter, are monopolative organizations that traded their true skill of innovation for marketing savvy and marketing control.
We've all seen this before. In fact, we've seen it many times!
Before closing, I ask this-- does this model of too-huge-to-fail, to-good-to-replace fit any other industry that you know of? How about an entire country?
stormborns
yousharknotpass
areudirty
gamechangershow
discoholicmusic
gracieabrams
tangentwithtanner
prguitarman
andulkaphoto