5 ms·

Predictions for 2011: - Apple releases iWeb, a google search clone, signs deal with Verizon to make iWeb the mandatory search engine for all Verizon ISP users.

Predictions for 2011: - Apple releases iWeb, a google search clone, signs deal with Verizon to make iWeb the mandatory search engine for all Verizon ISP users. - Apple sells 25M Verizon 4G iPads for $99 each with 2 year service contract ($20 per month) - Apple announces record profits from search advertising. * Google's core search business is easily cloned in 2 years. How to get market share? A deal with large ISPs. Most of Google's profits come from search advertising, and Apple now has a cutting edge mobile ad platform which is stronger than Google's. It's time to act. Search is not hard anymore. Suppose Apple did this deal with Verizon and possibly Comcast. Google's share of search advertising would fall significantly. Google's floundering with Android (try a device before you dispute this) has emboldened Apple to act fast to hit Google where it hurts, right in the core search business. As Apple moves to the cloud and Google builds devices, Apple and Google are converging rapidly into competitors.

euroclydon 16y ago
What does it mean to be the default search engine for an ISP? Google transcends deals like that now.
- grandalf 16y ago
  If an ISP had a deal with Bing, it could simply map all search traffic intended for Google to Bing... google.com?q=snookie => bing.com?q=snookie Bing could offer the ISP a percentage of ad revenue, and if users didn't complain then (without net neutrality) there'd be nothing to stop it. (I'd guess that most HN users wouldn't be able to tell the difference between Google and Bing results if the styling were identical and they didn't notice the domain name)
  - gojomo 16y ago
    You don't need new net-neutrality rules to prevent such shenanigans; existing laws against fraud, trading on another's trademark, and monopolistic tying are plenty. And even the hoi polloi loves themselves their 'Google'; it wouldn't take much to generate a consumer backlash against such a practice. To the extent an ISP's heavy promotion or nudging might encourage people to try another search engine they might like as much or more than Google, that's a good thing. We need more search competition; a new entrant ought to be able to buy enough attention to get a fair look.
    - grandalf 16y ago
      I agree, which is why I oppose net neutrality. The example I used may be contrived, however I think the essence is true that an ISP could meddle with Google's traffic and send search traffic to a competitor.
      - drivebyacct2 16y ago
        Wait, these ominous predictions you cite are the reasons you are AGAINST net neutrality? The variety of opinions and reasonings for the positions that people take in this debate are beyond me. Completely freakin beyond me.
        grandalf 16y ago
        My point is that I don't think it would be ominous for most users, which is why it should not be prohibited by law. Of course I'd prefer not to have it, and I'd probably pay my ISP extra for a "neutral" net access plan, but I don't have a problem with ISPs trying creative packaging/pricing by capturing revenue via non-neutral business deals. Maybe Comcast would offer 50GB for $30/month if it was getting 30% of the ad revenue Google gets from consumer broadband ad clicks. Thought experiment: How much would you have to be paid to give up your right to vote for one year? How much to give up your ability to use Google search?
        drivebyacct2 16y ago
        A Google competitor would be nice. How hard would it be to really replicate the ease of something like Google's hosted apps. Could users rent their own access to it? Could they use DDG safely, along with their own servers for hosting their mail, voice, etc. But I don't want those services to be tiered. It enables Google and Verizon to negotiate for that streaming video/audio/voice space, if they decide it's not part of the "public internet".
        grandalf 16y ago
        note: I don't think the hosted apps would not be targeted, only search traffic. It could become very ugly, and net neutrality is definitely the simplest and cleanest approach, but there might be a win for consumers with less neutrality too.
houseabsolute 16y ago
I'll put fifty dollars against that.
- grandalf 16y ago
  I'm not saying it's likely, but it (or something similar) is behind Google's recent reversal. Most of GOOG's profits come from simple search ads, and search is not protected by any secret sauce or insurmountable barriers to entry, which is why Google tried to innovate via legislation with its net neutrality push.
  - bradly 16y ago
    > Predictions for 2011: Doesn't this mean you think it is more likely to happen than not?
    - grandalf 16y ago
      Well I was experimenting with how to present the core idea since it got modded down in a few other threads mercilessly :) I suppose it's more of a hypothetical prediction... one that Google ought to be fairly concerned with.

euroclydon 16y ago

What does it mean to be the default search engine for an ISP? Google transcends deals like that now.

grandalf 16y ago
If an ISP had a deal with Bing, it could simply map all search traffic intended for Google to Bing... google.com?q=snookie => bing.com?q=snookie Bing could offer the ISP a percentage of ad revenue, and if users didn't complain then (without net neutrality) there'd be nothing to stop it. (I'd guess that most HN users wouldn't be able to tell the difference between Google and Bing results if the styling were identical and they didn't notice the domain name)
- gojomo 16y ago
  You don't need new net-neutrality rules to prevent such shenanigans; existing laws against fraud, trading on another's trademark, and monopolistic tying are plenty. And even the hoi polloi loves themselves their 'Google'; it wouldn't take much to generate a consumer backlash against such a practice. To the extent an ISP's heavy promotion or nudging might encourage people to try another search engine they might like as much or more than Google, that's a good thing. We need more search competition; a new entrant ought to be able to buy enough attention to get a fair look.
  - grandalf 16y ago
    I agree, which is why I oppose net neutrality. The example I used may be contrived, however I think the essence is true that an ISP could meddle with Google's traffic and send search traffic to a competitor.
    - drivebyacct2 16y ago
      Wait, these ominous predictions you cite are the reasons you are AGAINST net neutrality? The variety of opinions and reasonings for the positions that people take in this debate are beyond me. Completely freakin beyond me.
      - grandalf 16y ago
        My point is that I don't think it would be ominous for most users, which is why it should not be prohibited by law. Of course I'd prefer not to have it, and I'd probably pay my ISP extra for a "neutral" net access plan, but I don't have a problem with ISPs trying creative packaging/pricing by capturing revenue via non-neutral business deals. Maybe Comcast would offer 50GB for $30/month if it was getting 30% of the ad revenue Google gets from consumer broadband ad clicks. Thought experiment: How much would you have to be paid to give up your right to vote for one year? How much to give up your ability to use Google search?
        drivebyacct2 16y ago
        A Google competitor would be nice. How hard would it be to really replicate the ease of something like Google's hosted apps. Could users rent their own access to it? Could they use DDG safely, along with their own servers for hosting their mail, voice, etc. But I don't want those services to be tiered. It enables Google and Verizon to negotiate for that streaming video/audio/voice space, if they decide it's not part of the "public internet".
        grandalf 16y ago
        note: I don't think the hosted apps would not be targeted, only search traffic. It could become very ugly, and net neutrality is definitely the simplest and cleanest approach, but there might be a win for consumers with less neutrality too.

houseabsolute 16y ago

I'll put fifty dollars against that.

grandalf 16y ago
I'm not saying it's likely, but it (or something similar) is behind Google's recent reversal. Most of GOOG's profits come from simple search ads, and search is not protected by any secret sauce or insurmountable barriers to entry, which is why Google tried to innovate via legislation with its net neutrality push.
- bradly 16y ago
  > Predictions for 2011: Doesn't this mean you think it is more likely to happen than not?
  - grandalf 16y ago
    Well I was experimenting with how to present the core idea since it got modded down in a few other threads mercilessly :) I suppose it's more of a hypothetical prediction... one that Google ought to be fairly concerned with.