Do Google and Microsoft really want to beat each other up? In a fascinating article which first appeared in the Wall street journal and in the Australian on the 23rd of July 2009, columnist, Holman W Jenkins Jr, develops a compelling argument. 

Jenkins writes:

Microsoft and Google…have the power to damage each other, and are better off if they don’t. They spend a lot of money on deterrence….Even more than the Cold War superpowers, they have every incentive quietly to agree to be deterred without investing quite so much on an arms race….

Their little secret is that neither Google nor Microsoft really have an interest in challenging each other’s core franchises, if it means risk to their own. Their posturing is primarily defensive–fear of loss is greater than hope of gain.

And both companies by now have a well-earned reputation for being willing to invest large sums simply to threaten the profits of companies that potentially threaten theirs. Ownership may also be from commen source investors.

Google has Google Apps and Microsoft have Bing, and Microsoft is developing its online advertising to keep Google from thinking too hard about Chrome OS.

The question is, do these two rivals really want to upset their positions of dominance in order to take on their competitors’ markets?

Jenkins may be right: every move and counter-move each takes against the other is almost certainly meant to warn more than seriously hurt.

The opportunities for Google and Microsoft  lie in discovering and profiting from innovation in the market. It is unlikely that Google really want to challenge Microsoft Office on the desktop but more likely in the clouds.

Instead, Google is investing in collaboration and e-mail with Wave, which may position Google squarely into the office market.

It will be interesting to see how strategies unfold over the next critical two years. 

Share This

The Australian website has an article with the rumour that Mortgage Choice is close to buying LJ Hooker for between $60m and $70m.  The article claims that Ray White and Century 21 were also previous bidders.

In my opinion it is just the exchange of one finance group ownership for another.  If any real estate franchise group is owned by anyone who does not have real estate and franchising as its core business then you run the risk of major conflicts of interest which can only end in tears.

The article states “The listed broking group is believed to be close to striking a deal for between $60 million and $70m for Australia’s second-largest real estate agency chain.

Suncorp wanted between $90m and $110m when it first put LJ Hooker up for sale in September last year.

However, the 700-strong real estate agency franchise business was later pulled from the market as the banking crisis deepened and Suncorp became caught up in an internal crisis that resulted in the departure of chief executive John Mulcahy.

The situation was further complicated in March when LJ Hooker managing director Warren McCarthy resigned.

Suncorp yesterday declined to comment on the sale of the real estate group it has controlled for the past 17 years.

A spokesman said Suncorp did not comment on market speculation, and LJ Hooker remained strategically important to Suncorp’s future.

Mortgage Choice spokeswoman Kristy Shepphard said it was inappropriate to make any public comment because Mortgage Choice was in a market blackout ahead of its August 21 results announcement.

However, industry sources said Mortgage Choice had agreed to buy the chain after rival mortgage group AFG dropped out of the bidding only days ago.

Although a sale between $60m and $70m is well below Suncorp’s original asking price, it is well above the $40m to $50m believed to have been offered by other real estate groups.”

Share This

It was reported on the ABC yesterday by Murray Cornish that a Townsville real estate agent in north Queensland is facing legal action for exposing a staff member to mould.

The article said “Lawyers launched a workplace health and safety action against the real estate agent after a complaint from an employee that long-term exposure to toxic mould has left her with ongoing health problems.

It is believed to be the first legal action of its kind in Australia.

Lawyer Rebecca Jancauskas says if successful, it could have wide ranging implications.

“If you are a landlord letting out premises, you know you have someone living in those substandard conditions then absolutely … you could be brought to account,” she said.

She says the action highlights the dangers of failing to adequately clean commercial premises.

“The injury and ill health caused is very substantial in that it impacts on all aspects of one’s life including one’s employment capacity - the compensation could be substantial,” she said.
The Sunday Mail also reported the action and the Sun Herald include additional information.
This action is a wake up call to all employers that staff complaints are not to be trivialised and should be taken seriously and investigated thoroughly.  Such action may extend to the employer, the tenant, the property manager and the property owner.

Share This