http://www.platformonomics.com/2009/04/notes-from-the-super-heavyweight-bout/ Mon, 28 Nov 2011 19:56:49 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 http://www.platformonomics.com/2009/04/notes-from-the-super-heavyweight-bout/comment-page-1/#comment-218 Charles Fri, 08 May 2009 22:07:44 +0000 http://66.147.242.168/~platfor7/2009/04/notes-from-the-super-heavyweight-bout/#comment-218 <p>It is really tough for companies to be great at things beyond their core competence. It is even harder for very successful companies. When you have a world-class hammer, everything is a nail you've seen before. I'm skeptical energy is an algorithmic problem.The Microsoft examples aren't as extreme as Google, but there are plenty of places relatively close to its franchise where Microsoft was less successful than it might have been because the Windows model seemed like a great playbook to apply to new markets (e.g. Windows Mobile and other embedded opportunities). The furthest afield Microsoft got was things like Expedia, which was reasonably successful, although you can argue that was in part survivorship bias (its peers like CarPoint, Sidewalk and such are now forgotten) and in part Microsoft setting it free. There supposedly was a revelatory meeting where Bill and Steve realized Expedia was a very different beast when the biggest strategic issue was not technology but whether the company should buy hotel rooms in bulk to resell. Soon thereafter Expedia turned in a balance sheet event.I think Google's days of throwing things at distant walls are largely over. The alternative energy investments are a sideshow or more cynically proactive PR to mitigate their huge and growing electrical consumption (watch what happens when people in the Pacific Northwest realize their electric bills are going up because the BPA is selling so much juice to the big datacenters on the Columbia).</p> It is really tough for companies to be great at things beyond their core competence. It is even harder for very successful companies. When you have a world-class hammer, everything is a nail you’ve seen before. I’m skeptical energy is an algorithmic problem.The Microsoft examples aren’t as extreme as Google, but there are plenty of places relatively close to its franchise where Microsoft was less successful than it might have been because the Windows model seemed like a great playbook to apply to new markets (e.g. Windows Mobile and other embedded opportunities). The furthest afield Microsoft got was things like Expedia, which was reasonably successful, although you can argue that was in part survivorship bias (its peers like CarPoint, Sidewalk and such are now forgotten) and in part Microsoft setting it free. There supposedly was a revelatory meeting where Bill and Steve realized Expedia was a very different beast when the biggest strategic issue was not technology but whether the company should buy hotel rooms in bulk to resell. Soon thereafter Expedia turned in a balance sheet event.I think Google’s days of throwing things at distant walls are largely over. The alternative energy investments are a sideshow or more cynically proactive PR to mitigate their huge and growing electrical consumption (watch what happens when people in the Pacific Northwest realize their electric bills are going up because the BPA is selling so much juice to the big datacenters on the Columbia).

]]> http://www.platformonomics.com/2009/04/notes-from-the-super-heavyweight-bout/comment-page-1/#comment-217 Keenly following Tue, 05 May 2009 22:47:20 +0000 http://66.147.242.168/~platfor7/2009/04/notes-from-the-super-heavyweight-bout/#comment-217 <p>Charles,Google's interest in disruptive solutions in energy area comes (via VC funding, policy influences, research etc) off as serious attempt in figuring out another area for revenue\profits. How do you see that?One can argue that it's still one area that they are spending some efforts on but the number of arrows are far too many. I don't remember microsoft going after any other big opportunity (non-IT) in that fashion. Anyway, ignoring MS\Google comparison, what do you think?</p> Charles,Google’s interest in disruptive solutions in energy area comes (via VC funding, policy influences, research etc) off as serious attempt in figuring out another area for revenue\profits. How do you see that?One can argue that it’s still one area that they are spending some efforts on but the number of arrows are far too many. I don’t remember microsoft going after any other big opportunity (non-IT) in that fashion. Anyway, ignoring MS\Google comparison, what do you think?

]]>