Google and Apple always seem to get lumped together as the “new tech titans” that will define our digital future. While no one can deny the leadership each of these great companies has shown in their respective markets, they each represent a fundamentally different view of how this future we are racing toward will unfold. In many ways, Google’s approach to the market is actually pretty similar to that of the company many define as their biggest competitor: Microsoft.

Both Google and Microsoft take the view that the best way to develop a product is to quickly put out a roughly thought-out “beta” version of it (hardware, software, or service), and continue refining it until it becomes something that might have appeal beyond a hard core tech audience. Products that never get to that critical mass eventually get pruned, and the really successful ones become the drivers of the business. All of the other products or services continue to roll along in limbo, backed by someone in the organization that believes in their potential to succeed but not fully supported by the organization as a whole. This ends up creating a fairly Darwinian environment for these projects to mature in, and the competition that results from it doesn’t always provide the best outcome.

Apple, on the other hand, takes pretty much the exact opposite approach. They rarely release anything that hasn’t been fully thought out, and they focus on getting the core value proposition of an offering to a fairly high level of polish before it goes out the door. Even a product like Apple TV – which is clearly still trying to find it’s footing in the market – was still well integrated into Apple’s iTunes ecosystem from the day it launched. But given it’s evolving feature set and interface, Steve Jobs never misses a chance to refer to it as a “Hobby” product for Apple – clearly distinguishing it from their very successful mainstream offerings. Apple is all about creating an extraordinary consumer experience, anchored by market redefining design and technology. Anything less is unacceptable to them, and they invest years of internal product refinement to try and avoid that kind of failure.

The difference between these two approaches will have an important impact on the long term success of both these companies – positive for Apple and negative for Google.

Because so much refinement takes place before a product hits the market, Apple is able to provide a focused, consistent product and brand strategy across everything they do. Their product sets are diverse enough to cushion market fluctuations in various lines of business, but still linked at a software level that lets them integrate more or less seamlessly. Apple makes a limited number of products, which lets them lavish great attention on each one. And unlike most tech companies, they view a product as the entire user experience with a device – shopping, packaging, design, technology, interface, functionality and support. And that results in products that people don’t just like but are actually passionate about. To Apple, defining the future starts by tapping in to the needs of the individual. And they do that very well.

For Google, in contrast, defining the future starts by tapping in to the power of a collective community – something they also do well. They cast a wide product net, giving them a finger in just about every aspect of evolving internet trends, standards, and technologies. In some areas – like Search based advertising, online video, mapping, and email – they have been incredibly successful. But the number of real Google successes is small when compared to the full suite of services and capabilities they now offer. Just look at the number of significant product betas, open source initiatives, and Google Lab projects that they have active at this point. And even more telling than all of that is that, if you put popularity aside, search advertising still ends up being the only really meaningful source of revenue they have today. While incredibly successful right now, Google as an organization is unbalanced and spread thin. Outside of a few big areas they lack cohesion, with many smaller project teams competing with each other for funding and management attention. This has driven many incredibly bright, entrepreneurial developers, unable to make an impact or accomplish anything meaningful in this environment, to simply leave the company in complete frustration. I personally know a number of them. While this may not matter much to Google while the search ad dollars are still rolling in, it could really end up undermining their competitiveness over the long term. Not only are they losing talent they really could leverage today, they are seeding it to an incredible number of small, innovative companies that could end up competing with them in the future. Web search is still in its infancy, and the web is littered with the remains of once dominant search providers. Google isn’t immune to this, and needs to be careful.

Don’t get me wrong – I use many Google services on a daily basic and I depend on them for a great deal of what I need to do online. They are an extraordinarily innovative company. That said, I don’t have the same passion for Google’s services that I have for Apple’s products. There is a pleasure I get every time I open my Macbook or touch the screen of my iPhone that transcends the basic utility the devices provide. There are very few things in life that are able to deliver that type of experience, and none of them spring from the efforts of a collective. It takes the vision, talent, and desire of individuals to produce a result like that. That is the feeling I hope I’ll get one day from doing a search on Google.

But they still have a long way to go.

This isn’t to say the the next new product from Apple couldn’t be a complete market failure, or that an update to Google couldn’t completely redefine our expectations of web search. Either of those outcomes are possible. And while both Google and Apple are in exceptionally strong market positions today, that shouldn’t be much comfort for either of them going forward. Change is the one constant in the tech world that no one, no matter how big, can avoid. And change can be unforgiving.

After a decade of dominance in the 1990′s, Microsoft struggled to maintain relevance in the evolving internet landscape. Their size, diversity, and lack of clear focus made them slow to react and adapt. They instead tried to use their dominant position to preserve the status-quo that tilted in their favor. When they could no longer do that, the wave of competition that followed upended the entire market, even placing into question the fundamental value proposition Microsoft built their business around. Despite the strength of their significant product franchises like Windows and Office, Microsoft now finds itself in the position of playing catch up in as market that won’t cut them any slack.

The challenge for Google is to avoid a similar fate.