The author’s voice is neutral. He gave some examples to support his statement – there is a high chance that Google will open its brick-and-mortar retail stores to compete with Apple and Microsoft. This topic is relevant to marketing because it allows Google brand to interact with customers actively, not depend on other retailers (e.g. BestBuy), and improve its market shares. For example, Google’s competitor, Apple is considered a pioneer in many aspects of customer service and store design. Its philosophy is not to sell, but rather to help customers solve problems. As a result, Apple's annual retail sales per square foot have soared to $4,406- excluding online sales, according to investment bank Needham & Co. Add in online sales, which include iTunes, and the number jumps to $5,914. That is far higher than the sales per square foot and online sales of jeweler Tiffany & Co. ($3,070), luxury retailer Coach Inc. ($1,776), and electronics retailer Best Buy Co. ($880) (Sherr, 2011).
Furthermore, Apple can take a lot more risks than other manufacturers because it has the stores. For example, if a customer has an iPhone’s battery problems, he/she feels confident to pop over to an Apple Store and get it replaced. In contrast, what would the customer do if his or her Nexus phone has the same problem? Mail it to Google? Google doesn't have the same retail infrastructure, so it can't take the same kind of product risks that Apple does.
In short, I do believe that Google should build its own retail stores. Today Google has tried to work on multiple fields, such as: service (e.g. social network), software (e.g. Android), and hardware (e.g. Nexus), so having the retail stores will increase its competitive edges in the IT market. Retail stores will create the interactive environment between Google’s brands and