Google’s Chrome is a Disruptive Threat
September 13th, 2008 Greg Daines
Ever since Google released its new browser, “Chrome” last week, it has been the subject of hot debate. People are arguing whether the world needs another browser, whether this new browser is any good, and whether or not this is really innovation. A very interesting post by Scott Anthony on his blog takes the position that Chrome shows signs of classic disruption: easier and faster to run web apps, open source, and free. Anthony makes the argument that Chrome is a disruptive threat not just to Microsoft’s now-dominant browser, Internet Explorer, but even to Microsoft’s other flaghsip products - Office and Windows.
This is much more serious statement than many realize. For some time a lot of people have been predicting that the web browser will supplant the traditional Operating System as the layer for which most applications will ultimately be designed. We now see that this vision has the very real potential of becoming reality. Companies such as Salesforce.com and many others have shown that industrial-strength applications can run in web browsers, and Google’s own applications which compete with Microsoft’s Office suite offer a tantalizing taste of what is to come.
But the browser itself has long been the limiting factor. Among the biggest problems with the current crop of browsers are their poor memory and process management. Sophisticated web apps can choke a browser, and the problems get worse when there are multiple windows and tabs open. Microsoft’s Internet Explorer which is used by 70% of the market has been particularly slow to evolve in this dimension and seems to have been spurred-on mostly by the competition - particularly Firefox. There is little doubt that IE wouldn’t have moved very far without the Firefox threat looming.
I think a lot of people have missed the point with Chrome. Google doesn’t really want to compete in the browser market. I believe that their intention is to move browser technology in the direction it wants to go - toward making browsers a more robust application platform. This is the reason that I would argue Chrome will ultimately turn out to be disruptive even if it never consolidates any substantial market share. Many have argued that Chrome’s new features will not be difficult for the market leaders such as IE and Firefox to adopt and that will obviate any demand for Chrome. I think that this is exactly what Google wants. They are lighting a fire under the IE development team. They may or may not want to be the new king of the browser hill - but they certainly want browsers to be capable of delivering the new generation of applications and services that they envision.
That’s why Chrome is not as disruptive of other browsers as it is of traditional software applications like Office and operating systems such as Windows and Macintosh OSX. When the browser becomes the platform of choice for application delivery, we will be able to get our software over the web, and the operating system I use (currently: Macintosh OSX by the way), will recede into the background. In fact, if I am getting my apps over the web, why should I pay a premium for a commercial OS at all when there are free alternatives that support a modern browser just fine. Chrome is disruptive without specifically needing to disrupt any particular product directly. This is because it is going to change the balance of power between traditional computing platforms and the web-based computing juggernaut on the horizon. I think Chrome will prove disruptive whether anyone uses it or not.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
September 15th, 2008 at 1:05 pm
I disagree that Chrome is a disruptive technology at all. The concept of the browser replacing the operating system has been around for a number of years, and is the reason that IE exists today.
The definition of disruption from http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Disruptive_technology:
“Disruptive technology (or disruptive innovation) is a term proposed by Clayton M. Christensen to describe a new technology that unexpectedly displaces an established technology. This is contrasted with sustaining technology, which is viewed as incrementally improving or evolving technology.”
Based on this definition, Chrome is more of a sustaining technology that is trying to improve the existing browser technology that exists today.
Does Microsoft have to worry about the new model of delivering applications on a browser instead of an OS? Absolutely. They have been worrying about this for a number of years now. The advent of Chrome does not change this.
September 15th, 2008 at 9:29 pm
Thanks for the terrific comment! I actually think that we mostly agree here.
First, from your comment I think that you DO agree with me that browsers in general pose a disruptive threat to the traditional OS.
Second, I agree with you that Chrome is not really novel in a technological sense. It represents only an incremental improvement in certain dimensions of browser functionality.
However, remember that Christensen’s full concept of disruptive innovation isn’t about technology at all. It’s about the things that come along and displace incumbents. You are absolutely correct that the browser has long been recognized as that kind of disruptive threat to the OS.
The problem is that, for all their progress and nifty features, the major browsers do not have the capability to handle advanced web-based applications very well for the reasons I mentioned in my post.
My argument is that Chrome may provide the impetus to push those capabilities into browsers that will finally tip the balance in favor the browser as the preferred application platform.
As the owner of a web-based software development firm (http://www.knowligent.com), I can assure you that the current crop of browsers really aren’t powerful enough for the kind of web-based applications that could effectively compete with traditional OS-based applications. Google wants to build those apps (and so do we and a lot of other companies), and they are tired of waiting for the major browsers to “grow-up”.
I doubt that Chrome will prove to be disruptive to the browser “market”, and I don’t think it will, by itself, be directly disruptive to anything else. My argument is that it is likely going to lead to the faster evolution of browsers in general in ultimately making them disruptive to the traditional OS/Application paradigm.
I think of Chrome as part of a category of products (web browsers) that are disruptive to another category (OS’s). That’s what disruptive innovation really means, and I believe that Chrome is going to accelerate that process.
September 18th, 2008 at 8:38 pm
Greg, you make the comment that “Google doesn’t want to compete in the browser market”. While this may be true, before betting any money on this assertion, I would want to run some patent analytics to see whether Google is seeking to obtain patent rights in the area of browser technology. Notably, even “incremental improvements” are patentable, and at the core, Chrome may actually have more innovation than obvious from the surface. Google is a very robust patent filer, and one can often gain insight into the future business plans of companies like Google using filed patent information.
Also, while I see and accept your point about trying to drive the browser market along with Chrome, I had to chuckle at the reaction to this picture someone from Microsoft would have to this thought.
Lastly, it’s an interesting concept for a third party entity to try to drive product development at another company from the outside. Do you have an example of a situation where something like this was successfully accomplished by an entity other than the government? (Governments accomplish this, for example, by funding basic reseach that can be implemented in commercial products.) And, if Google is really trying to drive Microsoft’s actions from the outside, doesn’t that make it so powerful as to be “scary”. (Thankfully, they “do no evil”.)