Boojum Posted January 8, 2004 Posted January 8, 2004 I am making a bold prediction--and perhaps a just plain insane one: Google is already obsolete, suffers from terminal hubris, and will be displaced within three years as the leading search engine unless it remakes itself in a hurry. While Google is by far the most popular engine, and holds most of the trumps right now, those very factors can lead to complacency--and we know what that leads to. Meanwhile, it and most other engines continue to return pages upon pages of largely irrelevant documents upon all but the most expertly refined search, forcing consumers to wade through a morass of minutiae. And that will be its downfall--unless, as I said, it innovates in a hurry. The coming trend is for search engines with built-in categorization algorithms that allow the user to find exactly what he or she is looking for with a graphic display of echelons of relevancy. I believe Google is working to incorporate such a feature as a plug-in, but if it isn't quicker on the ball, I think some smaller, more entrepreneurial company will beat them to it. Quote
surefire Posted January 8, 2004 Posted January 8, 2004 I heard on CNN the other day that Yahoo is finally going to be moving away from Google in the coming months and using their Inktomi investment. I hope this happens sooner rather than later. I believe in competition and right now things are too one sided in the search engine world for my taste. I also believe that just as Google came from out of nowhere to become the 'best' search engine, someone else will come along that will change the playing field. Quote
Frylock Posted January 8, 2004 Posted January 8, 2004 I like Google. And not just because I get more hits from it than I did with any other engine, ever. But competition is good. I just don't want to see 50 search engines pop up again... Quote
Boojum Posted January 9, 2004 Author Posted January 9, 2004 Don't misunderstand me: Google remains the most effective, comprehensive search engine on the planet--for now. I have, however, an entrenched distrust of monopolies (and I think Google has effectively become one) because, among other things, they tend to become increasingly inefficient and complacent over time. Quote
SEO Posted January 9, 2004 Posted January 9, 2004 (edited) Will Google become obsolete? Not a chance, for one very simple reason (read on). First some filler: Complacency may be downfallWell I do not see complacency, the drastic November algo change (Florida Update) would argue that they are anything but. I heard on CNN the other day that Yahoo is finally going to be moving away from Google in the coming months and using their Inktomi investment. I hope this happens sooner rather than later.This Wall Street Journal actually broke this story earlier this week. But hear it from the horses mouth: Yahoo! News - About GoogleThere are search results now that show that, in some cases, Yahoo has already drifted from Google. I also believe that just as Google came from out of nowhere to become the 'best' search engine, someone else will come along that will change the playing field.Yea, but Jack the 'playing field' was much, much smaller. The $$ it would take now to do what Google has done would be prohibitive. I think that others can begin to compete but no 'new guy' will appear from 'nowhere'. I have, however, an entrenched distrust of monopolies (and I think Google has effectively become one)They are not a true monopoly in the sense of, let us say a Microsoft. They definitely dominate the free, or what some call the 'organic' search world. Remember though, the search engines primarily make money from the paid listings and there is definite competition here. Quick Tangent: On that note, one aspect of Google that I have always loved is the fact that their serps are the least commercial (along with their site). I like a clean, fair, non-manipulative (ok, that might be a stretch ) approach of their 'tool'. I fear a day when all search results are governed by $$$. Google, in a sense, has kept the 'Internet' honest. The coming trend is for search engines with built-in categorization algorithms that allow the user to find exactly what he or she is looking for with a graphic display of echelons of relevancy.Did you see my post last night: Now this is cool - Grokker! You may also enjoy this: CNN - Better search results than Google? Now the meat (or 'the simple reason'): Besides the fact that the best 'search' research is tied to Google (they support the major research faculties delving in search technology [e.g. Stanford]), there is one basic fact that will allow Google to remain dominate (and even more so): IPO When Google goes public they are going to generate cash, lots and lots of cash. Now what are they going to do with all that cash? Distribute it out in the way of dividends... I don't think so. They will buy (How much for Grokker?). Anyone with a good idea, buy. Anyone with a threatening idea, buy. Anyone... buy! Hmmm, sounds like Microsoft woooot Edited January 9, 2004 by TCH-Scott Quote
Boojum Posted January 11, 2004 Author Posted January 11, 2004 They will buy (How much for Grokker?). Anyone with a good idea, buy. Anyone with a threatening idea, buy. Anyone... buy! Hmmm, sounds like Microsoft. Sounds like complacent, quasi-monopolistic hubris defined. I think--and hope--that one Microsplortch is enough for the technology industry. And if so, I will expect stiff resistance to this "pre-emptively buy (or crush) all potential competitors" business model. (Aack! Sounds a bit like our new foreign policy. ) In fact, it would not surprise me if several or many of Google's competitors joined forces to stop exactly that sort of nonsense. Free enterprise, not unlike communism, is an idea that sounds good: In practice, unfortunately, it is often anything but free, for the powerful will do anything to retain and consolidate their power at the expense of the less powerful. The only way to make capitalism work is to foster full, open competition that forces businesses to struggle for consumers' loyalties by providing more and better goods or services for less money. And if we want to vindicate Karl Marx, the surest way to do that is by allowing more monopolies, more mergers and acquisitions, less competition, and ever-increasing corporate arrogance. Quote
Deverill Posted January 11, 2004 Posted January 11, 2004 In fact, it would not surprise me if several or many of Google's competitors joined forces to stop exactly that sort of nonsense. Why not? This is the exact thing that happens in every field of business in America anyway. It is only that a few are actually powerful enough to make it into the news. About 20 years ago there was a new fast-food mexican restaraunt named Zantigo's in my home state. They were doing a great job until Pepsico came in and said "Hey, they're killing our Taco Bell market" and bought them out. Some closed and others transformed. The same thing happened with Burger Queen which became Druthers which was bought out by Dairy Queen. It's a story that is repeated every day in America. The powerful or fortunate become quasi-monopolies and the others have stiff competition. Sometimes monopolies are the result of simply one guy having the best product and no one else having a clue or a solid market. As far as Google being complacent, that would mean they were self-satisfied and unconcerned. If that were the case the algorithms would never change... they would sit back and say "We are the only game in town - live with what you got." Besides, I've never seen any company unconcerned with a money maker like Google is. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.