Intense Rivalry: Microsoft vs. Google
Reading this article reminded me of Porter’s framework for the high linkage in terms and concepts between them.
It is pretty obvious from the article that Microsoft and Google are ‘rivals’. The fact that Microsoft asked a county judge to stop Lee from working at Google proves the existence of intense rivalry in a way that Microsoft doesn’t want its confidential information to be dispersed since Lee was familiar with them. This intense rivalry between them is related to some of the factors that Porter has mentioned in his framework which are: 1) Competitors are diverse in strategies, and 2) High strategic stakes.
First of all, Google as a rival (of Microsoft’s) is diverse in its strategies because Google has been trying to enter the Chinese market not forgetting that Lee, who is a senior executive familiar with the world‘s largest software maker‘s plans in China, could ultimately help Google succeed in the Chinese market. This is supported by the article where it affirmed that Google plans to open a new facility in China –at the end of 2005- to develop new technologies and attract computer science researchers. And as Porter said, “diverse competitors have differing goals and differing ideas about how to compete and are continually running head-on into each other in the process” and to me, Google has different goals and ideas of how to compete.
Second, again the fact that Google wants to enter the Chinese market proves that it wants to increase its strategic stakes. According to Porter, “a diversified company may place great importance on achieving success in a particular industry in order to further its overall corporate strategy”. Relating to this, Google wants to perceive a strong need to establish a solid position in the Chinese market to build ‘global prestige or technological credibility’.
But does Microsoft have the right to stop Lee working at Google? In my opinion, I think that Microsoft made Lee sign a contract which binds him legally to a year not working for a competitor. Therefore, I think that Microsoft have the right to stop him working for a competitor (at least for one year). I don’ think that Google’s defense of "He wanted to work for us" is sufficient to justify Microsoft’s claim!
It is pretty obvious from the article that Microsoft and Google are ‘rivals’. The fact that Microsoft asked a county judge to stop Lee from working at Google proves the existence of intense rivalry in a way that Microsoft doesn’t want its confidential information to be dispersed since Lee was familiar with them. This intense rivalry between them is related to some of the factors that Porter has mentioned in his framework which are: 1) Competitors are diverse in strategies, and 2) High strategic stakes.
First of all, Google as a rival (of Microsoft’s) is diverse in its strategies because Google has been trying to enter the Chinese market not forgetting that Lee, who is a senior executive familiar with the world‘s largest software maker‘s plans in China, could ultimately help Google succeed in the Chinese market. This is supported by the article where it affirmed that Google plans to open a new facility in China –at the end of 2005- to develop new technologies and attract computer science researchers. And as Porter said, “diverse competitors have differing goals and differing ideas about how to compete and are continually running head-on into each other in the process” and to me, Google has different goals and ideas of how to compete.
Second, again the fact that Google wants to enter the Chinese market proves that it wants to increase its strategic stakes. According to Porter, “a diversified company may place great importance on achieving success in a particular industry in order to further its overall corporate strategy”. Relating to this, Google wants to perceive a strong need to establish a solid position in the Chinese market to build ‘global prestige or technological credibility’.
But does Microsoft have the right to stop Lee working at Google? In my opinion, I think that Microsoft made Lee sign a contract which binds him legally to a year not working for a competitor. Therefore, I think that Microsoft have the right to stop him working for a competitor (at least for one year). I don’ think that Google’s defense of "He wanted to work for us" is sufficient to justify Microsoft’s claim!
posted by Unknown @ 1:51 PM
0 comments
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home