Julian Sanchez header image 2

photos by Lara Shipley

Cringely Inducing

July 21st, 2009 · 7 Comments

Sometimes I swear the Times runs articles just to make my head hurt. Consider this op-ed by one Robert X. Cringely, who does actually appear to be a fictional character dreamt up by Arthur Sulzburger (or other, darker forces) to be the instrument of my torment:

Microsoft makes most of its money from two products, Microsoft Windows and Microsoft Office. Nearly everything else it makes loses money, sometimes deliberately. Google makes most of its money from selling Internet ads next to search results. Nearly everything else it does loses money, too.

Neither company really cares because both make so much from their core products that it simply doesn’t matter. But companies, like people, strive and dream and in this case both dream, at least sometimes, of destroying the other. Only they can’t — or won’t — do it in the end, because it is against the interests of either company to do so.

The theory here is that these companies are just burning money for no better reason than the “dream” of crushing the other—though they’d harm themselves even in victory? Sergey Brin is Khan Noonien Singh, basically? I feel like we have a more parsimonious explanation here. “Nearly everything else” Google does is either another way of getting ads in front of eyeballs or is, in fact, also profitable—with the potential to become more so once they’ve been doing it for as long as they’ve been providing search. Nearly everything else Microsoft does is an attempt to enhance the value of Windows. Oh, and there’s XBox, which also finally went profitable last year. I guess maybe the Zune is part of some kind of striving-and-dreaming to stick it to the iPod, cost be damned… or maybe products companies hope to profit from just flop sometimes.

What Google’s chief executive, Eric Schmidt, has to fear more than anything else is that he’ll awake one day to learn that the Google search engine suddenly doesn’t work on any Windows computers: something happened overnight and what worked yesterday doesn’t work today. It would have to be an act of deliberate sabotage on Microsoft’s part and blatantly illegal, but that doesn’t mean it couldn’t happen. Microsoft would claim ignorance and innocence and take days, weeks or months to reverse the effect, during which time Google would have lost billions.

The other thing he really fears is that he’ll awake to learn that Steve Ballmer has bludgeoned his own gonads to a pulp with a claw hammer. Whoops! No, sorry, I get mixed up sometimes: The common thread there isn’t “persistent fears of Google executives” but rather “insane things Microsoft would never do.” I mean, I suppose it’s conceivable that in a fit of acute syphilitic dementia, some MS honcho might think it were a good idea to cut their customers off from the most popular site on the Internet, disabling a whole slew of ancillary applications, and leaving Windows with a reputation that makes the Corvair look like a Benz. But I also feel confident said honcho would be packed off to the countryside for some therapeutic rest before he got too far, and I very much doubt Eric Schmidt is losing much sleep over it.

Actual sane reason for Google to release a free OS: Lowering the cost of networked computing devices (by eliminating the software licensing fees) increases the potential number of online eyeball-hours. More so if you do it with an OS designed to be used with Web/cloud apps of the sort Google specializes in delivering. It doesn’t need to “supplant Windows” if it can grow the networked-device pie. I can’t say I care enough to think very hard about what Microsoft is doing with Bing, but unless Steve Ballmer has an MBA from the Travis Bickle School of Business, I doubt it’s to “remind Google who they’re messing with.” I realize we’re in a period of correction away from idealized models of perfectly rational markets, but I doubt the alpha-monkeys-flinging-feces-at-each-other model will prove substantially more predictive.

Tags: Economics · Markets · Tech and Tech Policy



7 responses so far ↓

  • 1 Justin // Jul 21, 2009 at 6:17 pm

    Ow, that’s a painful op-ed. I’d add mockery for the thought that Apple will knock off Windows. Much as I’d be happy with that result, Apple is clearly focused on high quality, high margin profits, and have no intent to enter the sub $500 computer domain, where a large quantity of PCs are sold.

    There is a lot of copy-catting and me-tooism in the tech world, sometimes without a clear plan for how it will benefit the parent company. It seems like Cringely took that behavior and spun the most implausible story possible for its motivations.

  • 2 Mike // Jul 21, 2009 at 8:13 pm

    Yeah, this was one of the worst columns I’ve read in a while. There are so many things wrong with it that you’ve only scratched the surface.

    BTW, one of the most interesting things about Chrome OS is that it will run on ARM processors. ARM processors power virtually every cell phone, and people are looking at putting them in low-cost portable computers. The main reason this isn’t done now is the lack of a popular OS. Chrome OS has the potential to fix that problem. If it does, we could get some cool new computer options!

  • 3 RickRussellTX // Jul 21, 2009 at 8:45 pm

    Unfortunately popular commentators tend to focus on consumer products. True, MS is not finding many other sources of profit among consumer products.

    But does Cringely have any clue what Microsoft makes from business products? Microsoft ERP, CRM, business intelligence, remote access (terminal services and its brethren), Sharepoint, database products, enterprise services and support…

    Sure, none of these are the cash cow that is Office, but I bet plenty of these divisions are making good money.

  • 4 Consumatopia // Jul 22, 2009 at 10:07 am

    It’s not that Microsoft would block access to Google’s site, it’s a fight over who has control over APIs and underlying technologies that users will use to connect to the cloud, e.g. Google Gears and Microsoft Silverlight.

    Fights over tech standards and infrastructure descend into alpha-monkey-ism quickly.

  • 5 Barry // Jul 22, 2009 at 10:38 am

    Julian: “I can’t say I care enough to think very hard about what Microsoft is doing with Bing,…”

    What I recently realized about Microsoft’s ads for Bing is that they’re saying that Bing won’t give those sh*tty search results that so many pre-Google search engines did. What I call the “145,359 results, in random order” problem.

    IOW, the problem that Google solved a few years ago, which made Google the Tiger Woods of search.

    It’s really strange; those guys are operating at 5-7 years in the past.

  • 6 Emma Zahn // Jul 22, 2009 at 12:18 pm

    Teh funny.

    Robert X. Cringely’s blog, I, Cringely, shows up in my reader just before yours. He has been on my blog roll for several years.

    I am not technically inclined. I do not read him for his tech stuff but because he occasionally has some interesting gossip and financial information on the tech industry. Of course, he is from an earlier generation of a very youth-oriented industry so his contacts and the utility of his information are likely aging along with him. That is good to know so thanks for the contra post.

    Just to confirm he is not a creation of Arthur Sulzburger, here is the About page from his website:



  • 7 Joey Giraud // Jul 27, 2009 at 10:22 pm

    The very title “I, Cringley” is cringe-worthy. He’s not very interesting.