Bad Google But Is there an Alternative?
November 7th, 2005 Posted in Google
On the drive into work today, the CBC had an interview with Corey Doctorow about Google, which is attracting an increasing amount of negative attention. This includes a story in the New York Times
yesterday that looked at how even large companies such as Wal-Mart are
adopting a wary approach to Google's growing economic presence and
strength. When Doctorow was asked what Google might look like in
10 years, he quasi-ducked the question by suggesting the need for an
open-source search engine that would give people an alternative to
Google. He also mentioned his hope that new search engines will emerge
to attack Google's dominance. The biggest problem that
I see is whether there's a legitimate opportunity for a “new” Google to
establish a foothold. In other words, is there a Firefox
out there that can be different and good enough to grab 10%
of the market? At this point, I just don't see how Google can be
knocked off its perch. If Yahoo and Microsoft are still battling it out
for second and third place, how can a new entrant have any chance? Of
course, I thought Hotbot and Alta Vista
owned the search engine market a few years ago - and they're almost out
of the picture now. Google's biggest strength is the
widespread acceptance it offers the best service - an
“asset” that keeps people from even trying Lycos, Teoma or All the Web. To test this theory, I'm taking a personal vow not to use Google this week. I know it's a tough addiction but I think I have the internal fortitude to do it - wish me luck anyway.
yesterday that looked at how even large companies such as Wal-Mart are
adopting a wary approach to Google's growing economic presence and
strength. When Doctorow was asked what Google might look like in
10 years, he quasi-ducked the question by suggesting the need for an
open-source search engine that would give people an alternative to
Google. He also mentioned his hope that new search engines will emerge
to attack Google's dominance. The biggest problem that
I see is whether there's a legitimate opportunity for a “new” Google to
establish a foothold. In other words, is there a Firefox
out there that can be different and good enough to grab 10%
of the market? At this point, I just don't see how Google can be
knocked off its perch. If Yahoo and Microsoft are still battling it out
for second and third place, how can a new entrant have any chance? Of
course, I thought Hotbot and Alta Vista
owned the search engine market a few years ago - and they're almost out
of the picture now. Google's biggest strength is the
widespread acceptance it offers the best service - an
“asset” that keeps people from even trying Lycos, Teoma or All the Web. To test this theory, I'm taking a personal vow not to use Google this week. I know it's a tough addiction but I think I have the internal fortitude to do it - wish me luck anyway.
Another thought about Google is how it is increasing been as evil despite its “Don't be evil”
corporate motto. Among the hot buttons are privacy issues,
copyright concerns, and sudden changes in search algorithmics and
advertising policies. It's almost like Google is becoming the new
Microsoft in which a dominant market player starts to attract
detractors even though most of these people use their products. It's
like hockey fans in Toronto used to boo Bobby Orr
even though he was the sport's best player. This must be a difficult
strategic balancing act for Google because it has no choice but to
press ahead aggressively to maintain its dominance. This will, no
doubt, ruffle some feathers but when the competition is only a click
away, there is no room for complacency or a half-assed strategic
approach.
Update: Just came across a recent post by Nicholas Carr
who argues base Internet search has become a commodity, and that Google
has lost its lead. It's certainly a provocative position that does
little to explain why Google is such a stronger player even though it
the pain of switching to a rival search engine is low.
corporate motto. Among the hot buttons are privacy issues,
copyright concerns, and sudden changes in search algorithmics and
advertising policies. It's almost like Google is becoming the new
Microsoft in which a dominant market player starts to attract
detractors even though most of these people use their products. It's
like hockey fans in Toronto used to boo Bobby Orr
even though he was the sport's best player. This must be a difficult
strategic balancing act for Google because it has no choice but to
press ahead aggressively to maintain its dominance. This will, no
doubt, ruffle some feathers but when the competition is only a click
away, there is no room for complacency or a half-assed strategic
approach.
Update: Just came across a recent post by Nicholas Carr
who argues base Internet search has become a commodity, and that Google
has lost its lead. It's certainly a provocative position that does
little to explain why Google is such a stronger player even though it
the pain of switching to a rival search engine is low.
November 7th, 2005 at 3:05 pm
Would you also take a vow to stop using your telephone because Verizon acts like a monopoly, or stop watching cable TV because Comcast fights free wi-fi? Or stop buying Nike shoes because they might be made using child labor?
If something (in this case Google) does the job for you, they why punish yourself? You certainly aren't hurting them. And have you tried the other engines? MSN and Yahoo! are fine, but there is a reason nobody uses Lycos anymore. And Google provides other services all from one screen as well.
I still don't see how Google is being evil, even if that matters. It is after all a for-profit corporation. But it does provide a useful service for me.
November 8th, 2005 at 9:09 am
Among all the press and blogging, nobody seems to have picked up on Google's purchase of web analytics provider Urchin (www.urchin.com) earlier this year. Seems that Google is looking to get into not only where people go on the Internet, but also how they surf within Corporate sites. They're offering it cheap - US$199/month for the first 100,000 page views - then it scales up.
Also re: Google's dominance - if you haven't, you should refer to Christensen's The Innovator's Dilemma (and The Innovator's Solution). Incumbents generally always get get pushed off the mantle at some point. While Google may offer the best product out there right now, it really is only intellectual property they control. They don't own the consumers like Microsoft does (did?) with Windows or Bell did with copper wired telephony. Switching costs are extremely low! (Which makes me wonder whether all of the added services they are offering is more a means to maintain their dominance rather than expanding it.)
November 25th, 2005 at 3:56 pm
What if you could clone Google but leave out the evil bits? Check these out:
Scroogle Search Engine: http://www.scroogle.org/scraper.html
Scroogle's raison d'etre: http://www.scroogle.org/gscrape.html
Me: http://openboardblog.blogspot.com