RSS
Twitter
Google's Gaggle Of Problems
from the always-taking-aim-at-the-leader dept
People seem desperate these days to write any sort of Google backlash story. This one isn't all that different from any of the others, though it does look at things more from the business perspective. The argument is that Google's own service is cutting a bit too close to that of the companies it partners with, and it's also facing tough competition in the corporate search space. They also think that Google won't be able to keep up it's user-friendly policies once it goes public and short-term thinking shareholders start clamoring for better financial performance. I get the feeling that the media is making a bigger story out of all of this than there really is. I'm sure that some Google partners (Yahoo, specifically) are getting annoyed that Google is moving more and more into their space. However, it doesn't do them much good to ditch Google, when the alternatives really aren't that good. Perhaps, over time, they will get better, but right now they're just not there. If Yahoo wants to switch entirely to Inktomi's technology, it could backfire badly. If the search results are nowhere near as useful, they're practically handing over a percentage of their users to Google - losing all the ad revenue they're already taking in from people who do Yahoo searches. As for the issue of becoming less user-friendly after an IPO... it's certainly possible, though it'll be up to Google's management to convince investors that being user-friendly goes hand in hand with their success. Putting in more overbearing ads ruins the experience and will drive users elsewhere - defeating the whole purpose of putting the ads there in the first place.
Reader Comments
(Flattened / Threaded)
'Google' is primarily a business entity--
and is becoming a search monopoly by virtue of reputational legacies and stout computing power moreso than by regular algorithmic innovation.
Google defenders seem to view Google as Howard Roark like protagonist. Google is not a character, but an institution.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: 'Google' is primarily a business entity--
I agree that it's a company, which is why my analysis focused on the business aspects of Google.
However, it's been my experience that the Google experience works much better than any other search experience. The ads don't get in the way, the site is fast, and it finds stuff better than any other search engine I've tried. And, I do try the others quite freqently - but always return to Google.
So, I have no illusions about the "mystique" of Google. But, I do think that companies that ditch them without a credible solution are asking for trouble. I also think that their user-friendly nature is worth talking about. They've gone out of their way to make sure the user experience is worthwhile and enjoyable... rather than focusing on the short-term bottom line objectives.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: 'Google' is primarily a business entity--
I have no complaint about your analysis. However, it's been my experience that the Google experience works much better than any other search experience. Ah, then we're talking about the business implications of the foiables of consumer memory; Dr. Feelgood's information retrieval stew. Many search engines are specialized for certain tasks; Google's performance will not defeat a specialist on its own turf. If, for convenience, we generalize all searching, it's more effective to use a tool that queries multiple engines (in the manner that Webferret and Sherlock do), then analyses, weights, and reorders the collective results. For speed, a droplist with tooltips is an order of magnitude faster than a web browser's mosaic manager. I agree that Google doesn't suck.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: 'Google' is primarily a business entity--
Ah, then we're talking about the business implications of the foiables of consumer memory; Dr. Feelgood's information retrieval stew. Many search engines are specialized for certain tasks; Google's performance will not defeat a specialist on its own turf. If, for convenience, we generalize all searching, it's more effective to use a tool that queries multiple engines (in the manner that Webferret and Sherlock do), then analyses, weights, and reorders the collective results. For speed, a droplist with tooltips is an order of magnitude faster than a web browser's mosaic manager. I agree that Google doesn't suck.
I don't see what that has to do with any of the points that I made.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: 'Google' is primarily a business entity--
just this one: the site is fast, and it finds stuff better than any other search engine I've tried.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Google IPO?
> once it goes public< br>
Is this a foregone conclusion. There's no requirement that a company, even a dot-com, must at some point go public.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Google IPO?
Indeed, it is a good point, and one we've discussed before.
I, personally, a gree that not all companies need to go public. In fact, I think too many companies do go public when they shouldn't.
However, this is a venture backed startup with money from Kleiner Perkins and Sequoia. Those guys are in it for the money, and the big money comes from an IPO.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Add Your Comment