Google isn't trying to create new grand markets that they might or might not get a share of, they are simply commoditizing their complementary products, and making them as good as possible.
Complementary products are products that are used together, and where one enhances the other - cars and gasoline are classic examples. By commoditizing, or making cheaper, your complementary product your own product becomes more desirable: If gas is cheaper cars are more desirable. This is classical economics, and has been known since Adam Smith.
Basically what this means for Google is that they have a strong interest in commoditizing the webbrowser, making it as good as possible, thus making their own complementary products more desirable. This is also one of the reasons they are interested in firefox - it isn't philanthropy: it's purely business.
At any rate, what is far more interesting to me is whether or not this comment would have been posted as-is in context (i.e. on the comment thread on the original article), which the author is clearly paying attention to.
http://discussionleader.hbsp.com/haque/2008/09/where_is_the_...
</pedantic>
Why not "How to Apache Your Industry" or "How to Linux Your Industry"?
Furthermore, he suggests that it would be somehow similar if Walmart were to build parks... That's a huge jump.
"Imagine what would happen if GM and Ford collaborated to invest in the components and architecture of a better public transport network -- and then licensed it for free to cities, states, and countries."
What? This is a completely bogus analogy with Google's browser strategy. A better public transport network in no way benefits GM/Ford to anywhere near the same extent that a better browser benefits Google. In fact it would quite possibly be detrimental to their business.
That's quite a jump to make.
