Is Google's Success A Reason To Stop Using It?
from the gmind-control dept
Despite their best efforts, Google's search engine rivals still aren't making much of a dent in the company's commanding lead in the space. Apparently, their latest strategy is to convince users that Google's position allows it to wield a frightening amount of control over the world's information. Of course, they don't just come out and say this; rather, a marketing firm hired by Yahoo and Ask has started promoting a site that cryptically warns users to "Stop The Online Information Monopoly". It warns that it's only a matter of time before Google has the power of mind control, and that the way to stop this is to try a rival search engine. The problem is that Google really doesn't exhibit the ominous behavior that this marketing campaign claims it does. Consumers do have choice when it comes to search engines, and for the most part, they're choosing Google. If they wanted to use Ask or Yahoo, there'd be nothing stopping them, since the barriers to switching aren't very high in this space. Instead of scaring people into switching, how about coming up with something better and giving people an actual reason to try something new? Meanwhile, John Battelle has an interesting suggestion for Yahoo and Microsoft, which is that they need to pool their search resources and take on Google together. We've discussed the reasons why a pure merger of the two companies doesn't make much sense, in spite of many analysts' insistence that Microsoft should buy Yahoo out. But if the two companies found a way to meaningfully combine their strengths, then a partnership might prove more effective than what either company is doing on their own.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mindset
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
For instance: Why would an advertising and search company "buy" its largest customer?
I can't think of a single business parallel where it would make any business sense to purchase your largest customer.
However, I think you are a bit deluded about "Net Neutrality" (or I am), as I see absolutely nothing in net neutrality that is based on doing something to protect the future. Instead, I see two individual camps trying to profit by destroying the future in their favor.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I like Google
I don't care how big a company is as long as they don't do something to piss me off. If google ever starts treating me like a theif and trying to tell me what I need rather then providing a solution for me needs, I'll start to hate them as much as Micosloth.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No problem if you ask me...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: digg suXX!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why don't I use Ask or Yahoo?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Google is now a verb
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stop The Irony!
How about Yahoo? Nope no hits. Ask? Yes. MSN? No.
I think I'll keep using Google for now thank you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
LOL - Even Yahoo uses Google
Guess which database the results come from?
Google image search!
(I know this because I have to block the Google image search from my students due to too many easy exploits to get around proxy settings. Google told me I could get the same results by going to Yahoo!, which doesn't have the same issues (yet))
Makes you wonder why Yahoo! would be biting the hand that feeds it...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: LOL - Even Yahoo uses Google
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Perhaps you should try babelfish
Perhaps I didn't explain well enough, but in general I don't have more than five to seven minutes of free time during the day due to my educational duties.
I would be happy to render a full explanation of how Yahoo! uses the Google image search database if others wish to ask without attacking me.
Why on earth would a Google engineer tell me something not true?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Partnership?
Really? Given the established M.O. of Microsoft to "embrace, extend, and extinguish", I think I'd have a hard time doing a joint venture with Microsoft. Unless I didn't really care about what happened to my company, and I could be assured of personally coming away from the initial deal set for life.
--
Violins and accessories
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
so do it Anonymous
Never An Anonymous Coward
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Err...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Err...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Search engine dominance
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Natural monopoly
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They have done their homework
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Of Course, Attack those that do it right
Yahoo and Ask say Google is going to control us all, Viacom (AFTER signing on with Joost) sues YouTube because OTHER PEOPLE are uploading video clips, and even APPLE is trying to convince hundreds of thousands that using WINDOWS makes you an idiot.
Whatever happened with coming out with a competitive product that actually drew us to a new product?
I know, many will gravitate to my MICROSOFT comment, but the truth is, instead of making a product that is better, and by better I mean so much better that it draws people to it, that companies are now just trying to sway the opinions of the people they want their customers to be by slamming the "other guy".
This type of bullshit is exactly what turns me off from politics and those assinine talk shows about politics. It's easy to say hateful things about other people or other products, it's hard to actually come up with something or someone that is better then what is already there.
Sure, you technoids (myself included) will say LINUX is better then WINDOWS, OSX is better then WINDOWS, and I say, to us, the techies, you are right. But if it were better for the hundreds of thousands that still use WINDOWS then THEY WOULD BE USING THOSE OPPOSING PRODUCTS.
You want to make a quick billion dollars? Make a competiting product to WINDOWS that will run the software that is already out there, and make it so user-friendly that everyone and their mother can not only use it, but understand it. You come out with something like that, then you will make your billions. Until then, stop crapping all over the other product just because you don't like it, it shows a real lack of maturity.
Oh, as for Yahoo, ASK, and Viacom are concerned, personally I won't give these people any of my time or money, until of course, they make a competiting product that is BETTER, instead of talking poorly about their competitors, or worst yet (VIACOM) sueing them.
Bob
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Of Course, Attack those that do it right
google consistently innovates....and consistently also appropriates others technology in an effort to compete. consumers may well be the beneficiaries, but it is simply against the law to compete in this way. intellectual property needs to be respected. the end does not justify the means.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Of Course, Attack those that do it right
Viacom actually does do it right, according to your standard.
Google isn't the one with the product, Viacom is. Viacom created the content, signed a contract (after not coming to agreement with YouTube) with another company and now expects YouTube to respect that and not profit from Viacom's product.
Doesn't matter that Viacom might lose out on YouTube's traffic, thats their choice. And other people might be loading Viacom's content on YouTube, but YouTube is profiting off of this. Banks are responsible for protecting against money laundering, bars get shut down when others sell drugs in their place of business, hotels get shut down for having prostitution going on, what makes YouTube immune? (especially when YouTube says that they have software that can prevent it, but will only use it with companies giving them money.
I totally agree with you on the build a better product and people will come though. Fact is, most people use Microsoft products because they are easy to use.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No, yahoo doesn't
Claim what you want there's no way Google is serving up a different, more relevant, greater number of images or updating the database more frequently for Yahoo than they are for themselves.
That being said, it does seem that Yahoo utilized Google's search technology for a short period a few years ago. Perhaps someone will confirm or correct that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Search engine incumbency
If too few people use a new search engine, it will not get advertisers. Until it gets advertisers, it has very little money. While it has very little money, it cannot expand past the beta stage, and until it does that, people will not use it. they need to find a way to break this cycle to have any hope of ucess, no matter how good theier system is.
Just think of how few people normally use clustering engines like dogPile, Vivismo, clusty, and others, despite thier greater power compared with a secong generation search engine (i.e. one using some form of link-based analysis to rank the pages, with no other soring.)?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The point is still....
As for the VIACOM issue, let's be real open about this. VIACOM didn't sue GOOGLE until AFTER Viacom signed wth JOOST. The suit that VIACOM filed isn't about the VIACOM clips on YouTube, it's about getting people to come over to JOOST. Now, I don't blame VIACOM for wanting to make JOOST popular, after all they signed on with JOOST. I do deplore though, the manner at which they are trying to accomplish their goal. IF Joost is going to be better then YouTube, and I don't know if it will or won't, then JOOST needs to stand on it's own two feet (expression) and become popular because it's a BETTER product, not because VIACOM closed YouTube thru the legal system. This is the kind of action that many other companies have taken that I find wholly offensive and without any sort of ethics or morality. I've said it before, I stick by what I say, if a company has a better product, they will be the one's people go to. If they don't, then they will stoop to suing or calling names. As for the legality of YouTube and the clips, that will be settled in court, but, I'll say this, I would have been fully behind Viacom IF they would have filed this suit BEFORE they signed on with JOOST.
As for companies like GOOGLE buying other companies so they can "break in" to a new market or be competitive, I admit I hadn't considered this aspect. On the surface, and without giving it deep consideration, it doesn't sit well with me that any company would BUY a competitor simply to "shut them up". Although, in the case of GOOGLE, this isn't what's happened. Google bought YouTube and kept it going. It gave YouTube the necessary influx of cash and status that YouTube could do more then it was already doing. If Google had simply shutdown YouTube and brought out it's own brand of service, then I would be putting Google in the same light as the others. Personally I don't see a problem with "breaking in" to a new market by buying a service. Unless of course, as I said, they merely do it to silence their competitors.
In closing, thank you for making me consider aspects of an arguement that I hadn't thought of before, and doing it in such a way that it allowed for free and easy exchanges of ideas and didn't drop to name calling and immature acts.
Bob
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So, they sold a product to Joost and will receive revenue from them, is it any wonder that they would not allow YouTube to have the same content for free? That doesn't make sense at all. Personally (although I am not a lawyer) I don't think YouTube qualifies to the provisions of safe harbor.
I do appreciate your point of view though, and agree with you on the name calling and the mud slinging.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Different, Not Just Better
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
digg suXX!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Has helped me when Google failed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]