The Outcome and the Consequences of Microsoft vs. Google

Living under the shadows of Internet censorship, here in China we are
used to the fact that foreign websites are inaccessible and foreign
Internet companies are treated as if they are all secretly working as
cyber-spies for the American government. But when it comes to
Microsoft and Google, two of the world's probably best known companies
involved with the Internet, the attitude of the Chinese government
have been quite different. While Google has been in a constant fight
to get itself greater market share over Baidu, Microsoft's MSN has
seen strong growth in instant messaging despite strong domestic
competition.

At the same time, while Bill Gates is quite an honored personality
here in China, the higher ends of Google has not seen strong following
in either the Chinese government or the public. As the Chinese
Internet market heads to its destiny as the world's largest, Microsoft
versus, one of the most peculiar yet influential rivalry in the human
civilization increasingly dependent upon cyber technology, is
increasingly important to the future of cyberspace. Microsoft, the
long-established symbol of computer software technology, and Google, a
dominant power in the field of cyber navigation, are encroaching the
each others' specialties.

Microsoft's improvement of its MSN search engine coupled with Google's
attempt to create its own counterpart to Microsoft Office have
generated court cases and mutual hatred, all to the worry of the
stockholders and the excitement of the media. It is my belief that
the ultimately, the principle of equilibrium will apply to
Microsoft-Google rivalry just as it has for many other corporate
competitions, allowing both to retain a certain percentage of market
share in their own specialties without decimating each other or
destroying any other large computer and cyber technology companies in
the world.

In biology, there is a theory that states that in any environment,
competition of resources between two species may result in either the
extinction of one species as it is out-competed, or the accommodation
by both species resulting in two separate, yet co-existing niches,
allowing both species to continue existence through noninterference in
acquisition of resources by each. In real life, examples of such
separate niches include two species of fishes that live in the same
river and hunt for the same food, but can avoid competition because
one species live in the cold water under the shade of the trees while
the other lives in the warm, open waters.

The principle of separate niches can also be applied to business
competitions. Companies, although competitive in many different
fields, must ultimately generate a specialized niche with a certain
product or service that a company can guarantee a percentage of the
consumer market big enough for the financial survival of the company.
Although a company, just like a species, can constantly invade the
niche of others throughout its existence, most invasions are destined
to be failures because of the invaded niche is specialized niches of
other companies, with unchangeable allegiance from many consumers due
to the long-established reputation and perceived higher quality.
Therefore, the conflict between Google and Microsoft will end with
both returning to their well-entrenched specialized niches, search
engine technology and computer software development. By the same
logic, no other companies can unseat Google and Microsoft from the
position as the dominators of their own specialized niches.

On the other hand, if two species are to follow the exact same niches,
then the fitter of the two will survive while the other must
inevitably face extinction. The only reason why Microsoft
out-competed Netscape in Internet browsers is due to the greater
"fitness" of Microsoft. With more income due to the larger consumer
base, Microsoft drastically decreased the demand of Netscape browsers
by lowering the prices of its own program, many of which are allegedly
imitation of Netscape patented technology. The inexpensiveness and
the greater reputation of Microsoft allow the vast majority of
consumers to choose it over Netscape, preventing Netscape from
financial success and thus survival in the corporate world.

Google, on the other hand, does not resemble Netscape in any
particular way. Not only does it not depend on the products that also
produced by Microsoft as its specialized niche, it also has the
capability to extend its services far and beyond its original niche,
the search engine, and its original location, USA. As it expands to
different countries, it is superficially following its mission
statement, "organize the world's information and make it universally
accessible and useful." Yet, when looked carefully, Google's
universal rise is as beneficial to the world as it is detrimental.

There should be no question of the dominance of the Western world in
cyberspace. Whether the site is English, German, or French, the West
has systematically placed its culture and values on the Internet,
enlarging their influence. In the process of dominating the Internet,
Westernization has taken place around every corner of the world thanks
to millions of foreign citizens who uses Google's search engine as a
starting point of their everyday Internet journey. The search results
not only does not equally represent the "world's information," their
inherently Western-oriented beliefs and thoughts will only accelerate
the destruction of many native cultures that are unique and
irreplaceable if destroyed. With the introduction of Western
cultures, the people of many of these once-isolated social systems are
marginalized at the benefit of the Westerners economic and political
interests.

In today's cybernetic era, Google and Microsoft became the
representation of a new kind of giants in the corporate world. While
there is no question that both Google and Microsoft will continue to
dominate their own niche in the ultra-competitive cybernetic
environment, it should be known that unilateral attempts to change the
status quo of the market share is difficult and rarely successful; but
at the same time, whether the existing dominance of certain companies
is positive for human society as a whole would always be a
controversial and widely debatable topic.