The Future of Google

A popular opinion piece making the rounds on the web is Molly Wood’s editorial, in which she speculates about the future of Google on the desktop as a thin client. Thin clients have been around for a long time - the idea is that instead of having a computer with a powerful CPU to run programs and a storage device to save data, users have a screen that lets them run programs and read/write files that reside on a central server somewhere remote. The advantage of the thin client model is that you can access your files and programs from any computer anywhere with an internet connection, and server redundancy (theoretically) prevents the loss of data if your laptop falls in a mixing vat at the pudding factory. The traditional disadvantage is that thin clients with graphical user interfaces are unbearably slow and unresponsive.

This is changing, thanks to a combination of web technologies being called Ajax. Unless you’re interested in the details, all you need to know is that Ajax is a set of web programming techniques and technologies, new in combination, that allow for such novel and highly responsive web applications as Gmail and Google Maps. The latter blew my mind when it came out - it’s so smooth, and such an improvement on previously dominant MapQuest.

Fine. Google’s great; not news. But the larger significance of what they’re doing is. Once you start using web apps, you realize how powerful it is to be able to fire up a web browser anywhere in the world and get work done.

I believe Google’s destiny is to displace Microsoft. How is that possible? By following the leader: giving away free what the competition depends on as a profit center, as Microsoft did when they crushed Netscape with Internet Explorer. In personal user space (the IT market is a whole other discussion), Microsoft relies on Office and Windows as profit centers. To undermine Microsoft’s position, Google could develop thin-client versions of Word, PowerPoint, and Excel, and blanket America AOL-style with Google OS CDs that contained a tuned version of Linux.*

Why would Google go heads-up with Microsoft? Because the growth upside is so great. Richmond is their only natural competitor. Search is the be-all, but not the end-all, and as focused as I know Google is on next-generation tools like video, there’s something to be said for getting people to use your tools for the most common computing tasks besides search. Thin clients are not suitable for things like video editing or computationally intense video games, but the majority of computer users require only word processing, email, web browsing, presentations, and solitaire. Why would an ordinary user abandon their Windows applications for Google’s thin client versions? The portability angle, and freedom from worry about viruses and security. And they could buy a $200 Linux box and screen at Wal-Mart and compute like a champ.

To return to her article, I think Ms. Wood is wrong in her conclusion that Google would charge for a complete thin client. It goes against their business model, and besides, the more proprietary data they have on their servers, the more profoundly they can mine that data - hopefully in a non-sinister way. If you’re okay with Google displaying ads based on keywords and phrases in your email as you read, you’ll probably be okay with the direction in which they’re going; if not, you won’t.

For this to work, Google would have to produce some amazing web applications, leverage trust in their brand to get people using those apps for real work, then not screw it up with data loss, downtime, security problems, or institutional evil. I believe they can do it, which is why their stock price is probably justified.

*For the record, I don’t think an actual Google operating system is in the pipeline. A Google browser seems much more likely.