Is it just me, or did we see sworn enemies making common cause two days in sequence?
First they threw in “independently” in comment letters on Dec. 23 to the Federal Communications Commission (
Then, they both jumped in to distribute
It’s true, their businesses are more similar than they used to be, or rather Microsoft has evolved to compete more directly with Google’s cloud model, but there are ways both of them benefit from some of the same trends and developments.
Technology firms believe in technology solutions the way capitalists have faith in capitalism and the Pope accepts the Church as true. So, in many respects, you would expect Microsoft and Google to have a similar job of persuading all of us that technology is the answer to all our ills. And you would expect others — particularly
And they didn’t take advantage of the large theater chains’ reluctance to distribute The Interview the way Microsoft and Google did. Apple and Amazon passed on the opportunity.
What’s up with that? Are they “chicken”? Getting stodgy in their old age? Is it something about their business models or personalities that prevents them from jumping on a good break or defending a principle that benefits technology adoption overall? Is it simple risk aversion?
There’s something of all of that, I’ll wager. Apple is particularly reluctant to take a public stand on anything. Tim Cook has in fact gone a good deal further than Steve Jobs ever did in at least saying something — about employment nondiscrimination and human rights, and charitable works in general. But his is a fairly narrow agenda.
Jeff Bezos, Amazon’s founder and CEO, was politically savvy enough to buy the Washington Post, but mostly backs publishing ventures as a sideline. A book guy through and through.
Apple has always made money selling great hardware with integrated solutions at high margins with a simple brand image and nothing extra to distract. It has tended toward the conservative on issues of content, nixing apps in its App Store that fall below certain “moral” criteria. But is it now slower than it used to be because it no longer has a dictatorial leader who can make the whole organization turn on a dime?
Amazon has been plowing all its profit back into building out its infrastructure, leaving perhaps less for dabbling in evangelical maneuvers. What Apple and Amazon share is incumbency in digital video distribution. Reason enough not to make any sudden moves.
So what do Microsoft and Google have in common that the other two don’t seem to have as much of? Is it evangelism? Some of this activity obviously has a long-term benefit, but it’s more diffuse, less cause-and-effect driven. Are they just more mature? Google’s Eric Schmidt and Microsoft’s Brad Smith (both descendents of metal workers?) certainly had high-minded words to justify their deeds. They’re both essentially software companies, although their business models differ.
Whatever it is, they seem more inclined to take the risk associated with high-profile activity in return for a shot at the gold. I’m exposing my own bias here as a technology analyst when I say I find this quality admirable. Yes, there’s profit in the wind, but it’s not guaranteed, and the risk may be for naught.
It will be interesting to see whether Microsoft and Google continue to show up on the same side of highly visible public issues in the future. Technology is about nothing if not “frenemies,” companies that compete is some areas and cooperate in others. Maybe this flexibility is one of the reasons that the technology sector is so dynamic.
