Umair always asks the big questions, and this is no exception. What struck me about Chrome is how it disrupts Microsoft’s entire business model by promoting a browser designed for the application web – MS weak point. But that’s not half the story.
Imagine what would happen if GM and Ford collaborated to invest in the components and architecture of a better public transport network — and then licensed it for free to cities, states, and countries.
Imagine what would happen if pharma players directly invested in better hospitals and clinics — instead of in trying to own the relationship with doctors, and furiously outspending one another when marketing blockbusters.
Imagine what would happen if Wal-Mart invested in town squares and parks — instead of just in featureless warehouses draining what little vitality remains in already bleak exurbs.
Imagine what would happen if P&G and Unilever invested in people’s opportunities for education, global mobility, and meaningful, authentic relationships with others — instead of just trying to control distribution channels, and then push-market more stuff to you.
Where is the Chrome in your strategy? What shared resource have you invested in – or should you invest in – to expand the pie sustainably for everyone over the long-run?
Umair goes light years further than my initial thought.
Chrome takes Google from core to edge. Chrome isn’t about building and strengthening core competencies, but edge competencies: competencies shared with others. The more Chrome – remember, it’s open source – is hacked, remixed, and tweaked, into still better browsers, engines, and plug-ins, the less Google itself has to invest to explode the utility of the entire www itself for everyone.
Chrome is not Google’s browser; it is open source, which means it is shared with anyone who wishes to make changes, provided those changes are available to all, to further improve and enhance. In other words the internet can only get better and better for all, which ironically helps everyone including Google’s competitors, which dramatically enhancing Google’s ad revenue model.
Hence the examples that Umair draws out above. His point is to seek analogies in other industries that share the attributes that Chrome offers Google.
Relevance to Bankwatch:
What is the Chrome for Banks? What are the things Bank(s) could develop and promote to open source, that would benefit them, their customers, and other Banks, and the benefit could snowball to be orders of magnitude greater than any simple new product enhancement, and in fact alter the basis of competition?
Some thoughts to get us going; feel free to note others in the comments. Umair is on to something here, that is truly innovative.
- eliminate phishing: a secure standalone secure browser only for online banking, and nothing else. Any bank could use and develop provided all enhancements are freely shared with the community, ie everyone.
- eliminate (ok reduce) credit problems: several banks collaborate on local financial advice centres in every city
- eliminate identity theft: banks collaborate and develop IDtheftfree Inc – a system to disallow provision of credit bureau information to company or Bank unless it comes through IDtheftfree Inc. The new system has rights and authorities that are controlled only by each consumer. Credit bureau information becomes controlled by the consumer instead of the credit bureaus. By power of union, force the Equifax, TransUnion, and Experian to co-operate. Build a secure version of the thing they can’t (won’t) effectively build.
Where is the Chrome for your Bank?
Bankwatch 
Wicked post Colin. Some great thoughts there sure to prompt some interesting discussion. I’ll have to share this at my next meeting.
Thanks Benry, but I can only attribute the credit to Umair’s post. He is truly inspirational! btw any other feedback or suggestions on Chrome strategies welcome!
Dont we all love Google! Perhaps a contrary view would be of interest….
1. Chrome is open source – yes. Why? Could it perhaps be in an effort to avoid the antitrust/competition issues that have plagued MS for exactly the same thing – monopolising a market segment.
2. Google isn’t being philanthropic. They are simply looking after themselves – creating a nice controllable environment so they can enhance their office killers and take that chunk of market share from their biggest competitor. Should MS be concerned? I think so!
3. When will the world wake up and see Google for what it is – not the solution to the MS domination of our computing lives but simply an alternate domination. Except… they want your data too. Do you really feel comfortable leaving your google docs on a server somewhere under google’s control?
I like a lot of Google software but let’s not lose sight of what they really are. Philanthropists and infrastructure donators I think not!
@Adriaan .. thanks for stopping by the words of contrariness; always a good thing.
I never indicated that Google are philantropic. Quite the opposite – by taking the action they have with Chrome, they are altering the basis of competition between them and Microsoft, with at least a two pronged outcome:
– they ensure a solid platform for running web apps. This plays to Googles strength and attacks Microsofts primary revenue source, MS Office
– they ensure a level playing field for web apps. It makes it hard(er) for MS to develop proprietaryness in their browser that advantages MS Live.
I think Open Source is generally misunderstood. It is far from charitable. It is a legitimate method of software development, that still costs money, just in different ways, as essentially companies donate employees time for software development. Nontheless companies are ok with that, because the software quality achieved is better due to the active voluntary engagement of users.
Interesting but naive blog. – a web browser is just that. I predict that it will compete with Mozilla and not Microsoft and is more about big swinging d!cks than open source.
All of the the ‘shared’ stuff you mention is constrained by privacy and confidentiality regulations and most importantly consumer resistance. They payoff might be to FIs but not obvious why the little folks might care
@GordonD … re ” a web browser is just that”
I would suggest that is the naive statement. I get the BSD point, but the application web requires something more powerful that either IE or FF. Time will tell.
Coincidently, I came across this article after reading your post:
Could There Be More To Google, Android, Chrome, & Gears Than Meets The Eye?
http://www.informationweek.com/blog/main/archives/2008/09/could_there_be.html