Big Is Bad and That Is Good
Apple(AAPL) is accused of running sweatshops, of creating cartels to monopolize e-books and Silicon Valley employment, and of avoiding taxes.
Even Facebook, which has yet to go public, is attracting class action suits, scammers and antitrust pushback.
The question is, does any of this matter? Dan Lyons of The Daily Beast thinks it does. He says a possible antitrust suit against Google could destroy the company by putting a stop sign in front of innovation.
Hyperbole? Or opportunity?
I've been watching technology for 30 years and every recovery goes through phases. The first phase is often marked by dominance, the kind that attracts the attention of government. It was at about this point in the dot-com era, after all, that the Justice Department went after Microsoft(MSFT) over its efforts to kill Netscape.
It's what comes next that matters. Start-ups, new ideas, IPOs. Small, aggressive companies poaching employees from the big boys and launching new concepts in money-making. We've already seen some of that with social networking and online games. We're starting to see that happen with cloud computing.
What makes America's technology market special is just this economic mobility. The market is huge, the government pays attention to entrenched interests, and there are whole industries dedicated to finding and nurturing the next big thing.
What's wrong with big isn't what big does, but what it is, its nature. It's slow. Because big companies need big hits to move the earnings needle, they focus on a few things and leave smaller ideas alone. It's these smaller ideas that power the tech economy forward, because a few will turn out not to be that small after all.
Under CEO Larry Page, Google has already demonstrated this. Page was reportedly told by dying Apple CEO Steve Jobs to focus on just a few things, and has been busy pruning projects like a mad tree surgeon. Google Desktop, Google Notebook, Google Fast Flip, Google Health, and even Google Labs have all been quietly shuttered.