Mark Evans

After reading Roger Lowenstein's review of “The Google Story” in today's NYT (I'm in the process of reading John Battelle's “The Search“), I wonder what it would take for a new search to supplant or take on Google. If you look at all the different components required to even be a serious threat to Google, the challenges are daunting, if not impossible. First, you would have to develop new search technology that would be appreciably better or different that what Google offers. Maybe the New Google would generate results from the deep Web that are now hidden behind firewalls or buried within databases. Then, you'd have to convince people to abandon Google or maybe use it less. If you can get to that point, another major issue is infrastructure. To really compete against Google, you'd have to make a huge investment in servers to meet the expectations of users. This is Everest-like mountain to climb, which probably explains why new search engines such as ZoomInfo are focused on vertical markets rather than offering broad Web search. Does this suggest Google is invincible? Yes and No. Google could be had if its strategic focus veers off towards television (Tivo?), print advertising, content (Knight-Ridder?), smartphones (an obsession of  Larry Page) or what else the company decides to pursue. Then again, search is the foundation of whatever Google does so it's difficult to believe it could be distracted. The only other thing that could knock Google off its strides is a Google backlash. As Google strives to be all things to all people, there could come a time when many consumers seek an alternative - much like there are anti-Microsoft crowd. For the time being, Google seems pretty invincible. My own mini-experiment recently to use a search engine other than Google was enlightening if only because Google's results are so superior to anything else out there.