Government, get out of the way. And don’t try this at home.

This recent New York Times article–with Google talking smack about Microsoft–is a symbolic representation of why government needs to get out of the way when it comes to choosing sides. And when it buys technology.

Here’s the smack directly in this interview with ZDNet Asia:

“In a year, most enterprises will have the choice to “get rid of [Microsoft] Office if they chose to”, suggests Dave Girouard, president of Google’s enterprise division. Girouard, one of the company’s four presidents including founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin, said in an interview with ZDNet Asia that he expects Google’s online document application, Google Docs, to reach a “point of capability” next year that will serve the “vast majority’s needs”. He acknowledged that Docs is currently “much less mature” than Google Mail or Calendar. “We know it. We wouldn’t ask people to get rid of Microsoft Office and use Google Docs because it is not mature yet,” he said. But, this is expected to change in a year, when the company’s introduces some “thirty to fifty” updates to Docs to beef up the SaaS (software-as-a-service) office suite. These will include updates to features and performance, Girouard said.
“That having been said, I don’t think Office will entirely disappear,” he added. Instead, Microsoft’s offering will become a specialized offering for office workers who need its additional functions, akin to Adobe Photoshop, which is targeted at skilled workers, said Girouard. Microsoft Office is “an overkill tool for most people”, he noted.

What’s so important and meaningful about this clash between Microsoft’s vision of the world and Google’s vision of tomorrow is that consumers (and taxpayers) are the sure winners. We win from market innovation, creativity and cut-throat price wars over technology. We win when giant companies compete each and every day to unleash the ideas that inspire consumers to act. That doesn’t mean there won’t be victims and implications, failure and mistakes. There will be and we all know it. And it isn’t always pretty. It’s the purest form of cut-throat, ruthless capitalism. But the marketplace of ideas is on the march in government IT and Washington needs to embrace this journey with courage and conviction. We need to recognize that our old models are based upon a government centric approach that simply can’t compete with the race of innovation. Need another example? Here.

Cloud computing is not fully baked today and is not the magic bullet. But software as a service (SaaS) and other cloud-based approaches to applications and services will win on some very real level. It already has and consumers adopt web based email, calendar and other important functions. Tomorrow the product launches for the public sector will be more robust and thorough. Everyday the public sector teams at both Microsoft and Google are innovating–learning about the needs for applications and services. They can build an application faster and more efficiently than any level of government–and we all know it. Does that mean we close shop and hand over everything to the big boys? Of course not. But it does mean that we work with the marketplace instead of against it.

My fear about the state data center is that it will, in effect, shut down our ability to realize the benefits of the competition between Microsoft, Google, Amazon, Sabey and many others by isolating the state’s data in a proprietary silo (old databases, poorly executed middleware, applications without interoperability) without price and quality pressures. No competition, no price context, no new applications, no incentive to improve quality, no reason to push for new uses of old resources. (Disclosure: Microsoft and Sabey contributed to my 2008 campaign).

We know what this looks like and it’s not pretty.

The battle between Microsoft and Google is more than the age-old battle between the ideas of Netscape and Explorer. That argument ended when all browsers became total and complete commodities–and free. It is not about the web versus proprietary software. It is not even about open versus closed standards or client versus server technical strategies.

It is about the constantly changing notion of value.

Los Angeles’ decision to outsource their email for 30,000 employees, following a rigorous RFP process, competitive bidding and a ton of hard-edged lobbying, shows that taxpayers win when giants compete for government business.

I truly appreciate the state’s Information Services Board (ISB) and the state Department of Information Services (DIS) effort to drive forward with a formal and comprehensive effort to objectively analyze email options for Washington. I look forward to seeing the assessment and am excited we’re exploring all options. That is the sort of objective, technically-neutral analysis I hope we see in all of our endeavors as we wrestle with the $1.2 billion-plus we spend each year on technology. I genuinely congratulate the agency for embracing this important challenge.

Whether a small startup or a multi-billion, worldwide company, fierce market competition for your very survival makes you stronger, more engaged, vigorous and sharp. On some level many of us want the Redmond team to win and win big both because they are an integral part of our community and because so many of our friends work there. But more importantly we want them–and other Washington companies–to win with courageous honesty by unleashing real value for consumers, taxpayers and society. We don’t want a hollow, short term victory because we know that it won’t last.

In the area of technology, our state government probably shouldn’t spend a lot of money competing with the most innovative and aggressive companies in the world. The State of Washington should have the humility to use the power, spirit and energy of the marketplace for the public good. Let’s focus on those vital public services we do really, really well–and that go to the core values and integrity of public service–and leave email hosting to the experts.