I think the analogy was stated poorly. Here's my take:
1. Big company A sees small company B getting rich off a new market. A forsees B disrupting A. With MS, it was the fear that the web would become the OS. With G it's that social will become the web.
2. A builds a copy of B's product and gives it away while tying it into their main product line. A's main competency can subsidize it. In the G/Fb case, G+ won't need a cut of developer revenue or to show ads.
3. B can't compete and folds. Now that A is dominant in that space it pulls resources from its product back to its main competency. The space stagnates for years. This hasn't happened yet with G/Fb of course, but I don't doubt that G will lose interest in social as soon as they feel safe.
1. Big company A sees small company B getting rich off a new market. A forsees B disrupting A. With MS, it was the fear that the web would become the OS. With G it's that social will become the web.
2. A builds a copy of B's product and gives it away while tying it into their main product line. A's main competency can subsidize it. In the G/Fb case, G+ won't need a cut of developer revenue or to show ads.
3. B can't compete and folds. Now that A is dominant in that space it pulls resources from its product back to its main competency. The space stagnates for years. This hasn't happened yet with G/Fb of course, but I don't doubt that G will lose interest in social as soon as they feel safe.