I read a post this morning on TechCrunch that stuck out to me.  It seems Google has a desktop client for Google Voice ready to ship, but they’re not moving it.  They’re not shipping it because it violates an internal policy, “We don’t write desktop software.”  Google instead prefers to write browser-based or at least mobile applications.

This argument makes it sound like a religious debate, it’s not.  What Arrington doesn’t point out, is that if Google builds a desktop application that people become dependent on (certainly possible given all the possibilities that a Google Voice application opens up) they no-doubt will effect sales of Android and Chrome OS based systems.  If you make a competing operating system (or two), it’s probably sound business to avoid producing something that makes people crave their Microsoft or Apple based systems.

On the other hand, this isn’t what’s good for the market as a whole.  If Google Voice were still Gizmodo5 and Grand Central (the startups that Google acquired to form Google Voice), they wouldn’t hesitate to launch this application.  Then when Google computers based on Android and/or ChromeOS hit the market everyone individually, and the market as a collective, could decide what works best for them.  That’s the way a market economy works; Google instead is holding a product that people want because it messes with their vision of the future.

For the record, I’m not saying that what Google is doing should be illegal.  In fact on Monday, I think I’ll write a “Why Big Companies Exist” post.  What I am saying, is that as a long-time Google advocate, I’m disappointed in what they’re doing.  This also shows one of the ways that Startups are more effective in driving innovation then big companies.