Note: Sample below may appear distorted but all corresponding word document files contain proper formattingExcerpt from Essay:
Competitive Strategies of Google and Microsoft
The Battle for the Future of Search:
Comparing the Brilliant, Competitive Cultures of Google and Microsoft
Both Microsoft and Google have emerged as catalysts of remarkable growth in the high technology industry. Each of these companies have a very unique, finely-tuned series of strategies for managing the innovation processes, including the steps each rely on for creating new services. Each also has shown remarkable success at delivering exceptional disruptive innovations in their core markets and globally across the consumer markets as well. This inevitable track record of success isn't an accident; there is a fierce level of intensity and competitiveness both within the company cultures themselves and across their vast, global ecosystems of suppliers, customers and shareholders. And both of these companies are looking to dominate the lucrative online advertising business models now showing the potential to be multibillion dollar businesses over time (Finkle, 2012). Both companies have invested millions of dollars in contextual search as well, in addition to in-car navigation systems and in the case of Google, their completely automated driverless car (Finkle, 2012). Both are also solidly positioned to lead the next generation of cloud computing as well, with Microsoft investing in their Azure platform and Google with their AppEngine series of online platforms (Cusumano, Gawer, 2002).
The cultural strengths of Google emanate from the highly competitive academic environment of Stanford University, where the two founders graduated less than 20 years ago. The culture at Stanford and now at Google place a high value on solving complex, very challenging theoretical problems with elegant yet powerful algorithms (Dollinger, 2006). Google also has a very selective culture, which concentrates on choosing only the most qualified candidates. This creates a culture of continual intellectual challenge and a strong focus on shared intelligence and knowledge (Badawy, 2008). It also forces a galvanizing effect into groups that have many of the world's smartest people in a given field. Contrary to this approach of unified effort through a shared intelligence base, Microsoft is a fragmented organization that thrives on internal competition and the continual effort to upstage other groups with more innovative and elegant algorithms and programming (Love, 2006).
With this background, the goal of this analysis is to show how the cultures of Google and Microsoft continually benefit from competition with each other. A projection is also made with how each company will continue to change and grow rapidly if its current corporate culture changed. In any projection of the future state of a company assumptions must also be made, and they are included in this analysis.
How Google and Microsoft's Competition Drive Each Other
The unique cultural aspects that both of these companies share is their ability to get their best programming and engineering talent on extremely difficult problems and resolve them quickly, while also ensuring the solutions are integrated back into their existing programming platforms (Finkle, 2012). This is especially evident in how quickly Google has moved past Microsoft in the area of mobile operating systems and the rapid development of Google Glass, which has a contextual operating system for wearable computing as well (Finkle, 2012). Google was able to move quickly past Microsoft on this attribute of their broader search strategy. Microsoft however has partners with Nokia and is working on a variation of their operating system which can support advanced phone functions. Both of these groups regularly compare their performance with each other through competitive analysis and continued competitive evaluations (Finkle, 2012).
Google has the speed advantage overall however, specifically in how the company is much more focused on innovation from the engineering teams first. Microsoft's approach to development reflects a more fixed mindset while Google allows their engineers to invest 20% of their time in new product ideas of their own interest. Google calls this the Rule of 20% and today is responsible for 57% of total revenues (Machlis, 2009). This strategy for innovation has been highly successful for generating new product ideas and many of the company's greatest new product innovations have come out of the Rule of 20% programs including Google Docs and applications that get used by millions of people a day (Finkle, 2012). Google's culture attracts a specific type of engineer that seeks out complex, challenging problems that must be coded around to be successful (Badawy, 2008). Because of this Google continues to accelerate the pace of innovation in search and broader technology markets.
Where Google is more open with its rule of…[continue]
"Competitive Strategies Of Google And Microsoft The" (2013, April 30) Retrieved December 5, 2016, from http://www.paperdue.com/essay/competitive-strategies-of-google-and-microsoft-87861
"Competitive Strategies Of Google And Microsoft The" 30 April 2013. Web.5 December. 2016. <http://www.paperdue.com/essay/competitive-strategies-of-google-and-microsoft-87861>
"Competitive Strategies Of Google And Microsoft The", 30 April 2013, Accessed.5 December. 2016, http://www.paperdue.com/essay/competitive-strategies-of-google-and-microsoft-87861
Google and Microsoft Financials Strayer University Assignment 5 Financial management Bus 508 Google, aleader internet information searching, challenged big manes internet technology.Compare contrast Google's business model financial management Micrsoft's, launched Bing Google and Microsoft financial and business performance The increase in internet users and technological advancement has made Microsoft and Google record increased number of customers. The success of any company will entirely be dependent on the financial position and financial records it
eBay needs to attack this issue of trust head-on first and make the most of turning around their reputation for accuracy, reliability of transactions, transparency and vetting of buyers and sellers if they are to preserve their reputation. When all of these factors are taken into account, including the lack of platform focus, the purchase and resale of Skype, the lack of focus on being an exchange over a platform
Google Introduction and Description of the Company Organizational Structure Industry Analysis Value Proposition Financial Performance Figure 1.1 Revenue and Net Income Growth TOWS Strategies BCG Matrix Leadership Alliances Measures Google is a highly successful Internet company that makes most of its money through online advertising. It has been able to achieve this success through a combination of leadership and culture. The company's many strengths are in general aligned with the opportunities that exist in the marketplace. As a result, Google has the
Google Inc. The impact of Mission, Vision, and Primary Stakeholders on the Success of Google Inc. The biggest aim of Google Inc. is to make every type of information accessible for individuals, business corporations, and governmental entities in all the corners of the world in an effective and efficient way. The mission statement expresses the company's interest for the community in which it operates and the primary stakeholders which have a direct
Google is an information services company that makes most of its money in online advertising. The company owns the world's #1 website by traffic (Google.com) and several other top websites in Blogspot and its nation-specific search sites (Google.de, etc.). Google has a number of different product/service offerings including online advertising, the Chrome web browser and the Android mobile operating system. Revenues last year were $37.9 billion and net income was
Thirdly there is the broader dynamic of how social computing is completely re-ordering the competitive dynamics of the two sectors that comprise this division as well. a. Determine the extent to which Microsoft competes with other companies in its industry by assessing the levels of market commonality and resources similarity for each major competitor. Microsoft's levels of commonality and resources similarity with other competitors are relegated to those companies who have
Microsoft's Search Analysis & Evaluation General Environment The advanced show of the U.S. economy in the late 1990's has led a lot of experts to conjecture that a New Economy has materialized in which heavy investment in information technology (IT) has led to an period of continued economic growth. Even though the current economic slowdown has dampened some of the passion for the idea of a New Economy, a basic question remains of