Just as human history has been shaped by the rise and fall of successive empires, so the computer industry has, in the few decades of its existence, been dominated by one large company after another. During the mainframe. era, IBM wore the crown. But it fumbled the transition to smaller machines in the personal-computer era, and the throne was usurped by Microsoft. Now, at the dawn of the new era of Internet services, Google is widely seen as the heir to the kingdom. As the upstart has matured into a powerful industry giant, the suggestion that 'Google is the new Microsoft' has become commonplace in computing circles. Is it true? The comparison is both a compliment and a reproach. It is a compliment because it implies that Google has now become the company that defines the environment in which other technology firms operate, just as IBM and Microsoft once did. As with Microsoft in its heyday, Google is the technology firm where the smartest geeks aspire to work it embodies the technological zeitgeist and it is a highly regarded company that has become a household name. But the comparison is also a reproach, because it highlights growing concern that Google is now powerful for its own good, or that of the industry, or indeed that of the world at large. For many people, Google provides the front door to the internet. For many online businesses, their position in its search ranking—the workings of which are a closely guarded secret—is a matter of life or death. Too much power is thus concentrated in Google's hands, say critics, including Microsoft's Bill Gates. Microsoft and other big internet firms, including eBay, Amazon and Yahoo!, are now said to be negotiating various alliances in order to provide a counterweight to the new behemoth. Smaller firms feel even more vulnerable. As soon as Google says it is moving into a particular market, small fry in that market now dart for cover, unless they are lucky enough to be acquired by Google. Yet there are some crucial ways in which Google differs from Microsoft. For a start, it is a far more innovative company, and its use of small, flexible teams has so far allowed it to remain innovative even as it has grown. Microsoft, in contrast, has stagnated as a result of its size and dominance. It is least innovative in the markets in which it faces the least competition—operating system, office software and web browser—though it is, curiously, still capable of innovating in markets in which it has strong rivals (notably video gaming). More important, however, are the differences that suggest that Google will not be able to establish an IBM—or—Microsoft-style. lock on the industry. IBM's dominance was based on its ownership of the proprietary hardware and software of its mainframe. computers. In the PC era hardware became commodity and Microsoft established a lucrative monopoly centered on its proprietary operating system, Windows. But in the new era of internet services, open standards predominate, rivals are always just a click away, and there is far less scope for companies to establish a proprietary lock-in. Try to avoid using Microsoft's software for a day, particularly if you work in an office, and you will have difficulty but surviving a day without Google is relatively easy. It has strong competitors in all the markets in which it operates: search, online advertising, mapping, software services, and so on. Large firms such as Yahoo!, which previously farmed searches out to Google, have switched to other technologies. Google's market share in search has fallen from a high of around 80% to around 50% today. Perhaps the clearest evidence that Google's continued dominance is not inevitable in the fate of Alta Vista, the former top dog in internet search. Who remembers it to today? Without a proprietary lock-in to protect its dominant position, Google will have to work hard to stay on top. And that, ultimately, is where the co