5 ms·

Search is Google's castle, everything else is a moat.

40 points by dave1619 16y ago

petervandijck 16y ago
A rewrite of this: http://abovethecrowd.com/2011/03/24/freight-train-that-is-android/ http://abovethecrowd.com/2011/03/24/freight-train-that-is-an... (he even used the same picture!)
- zdean 16y ago
  I think "rewrite" is too gentle. this kind of plagiarism would get you kicked out of school or fired from any reputable media company...
- mattmillr 16y ago
  He references, links and quotes that post: "Benchmark Capital VC Bill Gurley reminds us how good this trick is in an excellent post..." (The original article is definitely better than the TC summary.)
dave1619 16y ago
When do you think Facebook will enter search?
- codingthewheel 16y ago
  Not until well after their IPO and the bubble bursts on the absurd 40, 50, 75 billion-dollar valuations we're seeing now, IMO. Entering search actually brings on some risk, because if they screw it up, or if it doesn't take, a lot of Facebook's future equity goes up in smoke.
- maratd 16y ago
  It already did. In fact, it has from the beginning. You can search Facebook. If you want a paradigm, Facebook = AOL in the sense that it's a walled garden.
cosgroveb 16y ago
"Remember, what is the default search engine of Android and Chrome? It’s Google." Actually every time I've installed Chrome it has given me a choice of search engines. Maybe he meant Chrome OS? I don't recall choosing a search engine the first time I booted up my CR-48. Edit: Here's what it looks like for the doubters http://imgur.com/dobse http://imgur.com/dobse
- edanm 16y ago
  I don't remember Chrome giving a choice. But I guess it's possible that it is one of the configuration options, and I just do what almost everyone does: click next without looking at it. The article's point still stands.
  - Jabbles 16y ago
    I remember it giving me a choice. So the article's point does not stand, since it is not true that the default SE of Chrome is Google.
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
  - tonfa 16y ago
    If you've been using chrome since a long time you haven't seen it. I think they introduced it right before their marketing push in Europe...
spoiledtechie 16y ago
This made me think of the olden days when countries waged war for natural progression of the country. I guess its a good analogy for how we progress as a life form. Instead of killing people to get what we want, companies wage war to get what they want. Same aggression and reasons, different tactic.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
raganwald 16y ago
The moat and scorched-earth metaphor also describes Microsoft's development of Internet Explorer. IE was given away to protect the economic castle of desktop development. Incompatibilities delayed and added expense to web development for decades, all to defend Windows and Office sales.
- mkuhn 16y ago
  That doesn't really go hand in hand with my recollection. If i remember correctly Internet Explorer actually was the far better browser then Netscape at least once IE6 got released. But it is possible that Microsoft's refusal of continuing to develop its browser has had the effect you mention and has hindered the web overall from developing into an alternative to desktop apps.
  - raganwald 16y ago
    Of course! If you give a crappy browser away for free, nobody will use it. However, if you make it good but you don't support Netscape's server-side integration, you kill their server business and their browser business. Then after they implode rewriting Netscape, you pull almost everybody off the project and rake in the billions. Until, inexorably, people work around your cruft and release cross-browser libraries that eliminate the "lock-in effect" of websites that require IE. Now you scramble to put people back on it and start active development again. I think the point about the moat and scorched earth stands. For a very direct comparison, consider Android. I believe Google are trying to make it superior to iOS, even through they give it away. Their plan is to scorch the earth so that neither Microsoft nor Apple can turn mobile devices into a Google-free browsing device.
    - yuhong 16y ago
      >Until, inexorably, people work around your cruft and release cross-browser libraries that eliminate the "lock-in effect" of websites that require IE. And also that they recover from the rewrite and released and marketed Firefox enough to make it real competition to IE.
  - 16y ago
gojomo 16y ago
On the one hand, Google doesn't need to make any money from these moats. They can all be loss-leaders defending search. (Eventually this will raise antitrust issues but usually only long after the damage is done.) On the other, perhaps once the 'scorched earth' field is cleared by Google's search-revenue subsidized entries, Google's remaining entries will turn out to be capable of becoming giant profitable businesses on their own. So there's two ways for Google to win: defending search, or discovering the next bonanza in a field where all scalable competition was decimated by search-subsidies.
jbooth 16y ago
This is almost right. Right in one sense. But in a more expansive sense, I read a great quote from some higher-up at Google a year back that really put things in perspective.. He said, "Look, over 50% of the Internet uses Google for search, conservatively speaking. So if we make the Internet better in a general, altruistic sense, and create 2 new internet users, we just created a Google user." So it's a more positive gesture than the denial-based moat metaphor or 'scorched earth' language imply. (The moat metaphor made me think of IE vs Netscape).
wladimir 16y ago
Advertising is Google's castle. Search is also in the moat. Then again, the quality of Google's moat is often better than other companies' castle. Also, Google doesn't so much 'ravage industries', it innovates in them. Which can be the same. The industrial revolution 'ravaged industries' too.

40 points by dave1619 16y ago

A rewrite of this: http://abovethecrowd.com/2011/03/24/freight-train-that-is-android/ http://abovethecrowd.com/2011/03/24/freight-train-that-is-an... (he even used the same picture!)

zdean 16y ago
I think "rewrite" is too gentle. this kind of plagiarism would get you kicked out of school or fired from any reputable media company...
mattmillr 16y ago
He references, links and quotes that post: "Benchmark Capital VC Bill Gurley reminds us how good this trick is in an excellent post..." (The original article is definitely better than the TC summary.)

dave1619 16y ago

When do you think Facebook will enter search?

codingthewheel 16y ago
Not until well after their IPO and the bubble bursts on the absurd 40, 50, 75 billion-dollar valuations we're seeing now, IMO. Entering search actually brings on some risk, because if they screw it up, or if it doesn't take, a lot of Facebook's future equity goes up in smoke.
maratd 16y ago
It already did. In fact, it has from the beginning. You can search Facebook. If you want a paradigm, Facebook = AOL in the sense that it's a walled garden.

cosgroveb 16y ago

"Remember, what is the default search engine of Android and Chrome? It’s Google." Actually every time I've installed Chrome it has given me a choice of search engines. Maybe he meant Chrome OS? I don't recall choosing a search engine the first time I booted up my CR-48. Edit: Here's what it looks like for the doubters http://imgur.com/dobse http://imgur.com/dobse

edanm 16y ago
I don't remember Chrome giving a choice. But I guess it's possible that it is one of the configuration options, and I just do what almost everyone does: click next without looking at it. The article's point still stands.
- Jabbles 16y ago
  I remember it giving me a choice. So the article's point does not stand, since it is not true that the default SE of Chrome is Google.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
- tonfa 16y ago
  If you've been using chrome since a long time you haven't seen it. I think they introduced it right before their marketing push in Europe...

spoiledtechie 16y ago

This made me think of the olden days when countries waged war for natural progression of the country. I guess its a good analogy for how we progress as a life form. Instead of killing people to get what we want, companies wage war to get what they want. Same aggression and reasons, different tactic.

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

raganwald 16y ago

The moat and scorched-earth metaphor also describes Microsoft's development of Internet Explorer. IE was given away to protect the economic castle of desktop development. Incompatibilities delayed and added expense to web development for decades, all to defend Windows and Office sales.

mkuhn 16y ago
That doesn't really go hand in hand with my recollection. If i remember correctly Internet Explorer actually was the far better browser then Netscape at least once IE6 got released. But it is possible that Microsoft's refusal of continuing to develop its browser has had the effect you mention and has hindered the web overall from developing into an alternative to desktop apps.
- raganwald 16y ago
  Of course! If you give a crappy browser away for free, nobody will use it. However, if you make it good but you don't support Netscape's server-side integration, you kill their server business and their browser business. Then after they implode rewriting Netscape, you pull almost everybody off the project and rake in the billions. Until, inexorably, people work around your cruft and release cross-browser libraries that eliminate the "lock-in effect" of websites that require IE. Now you scramble to put people back on it and start active development again. I think the point about the moat and scorched earth stands. For a very direct comparison, consider Android. I believe Google are trying to make it superior to iOS, even through they give it away. Their plan is to scorch the earth so that neither Microsoft nor Apple can turn mobile devices into a Google-free browsing device.
  - yuhong 16y ago
    >Until, inexorably, people work around your cruft and release cross-browser libraries that eliminate the "lock-in effect" of websites that require IE. And also that they recover from the rewrite and released and marketed Firefox enough to make it real competition to IE.
- 16y ago

gojomo 16y ago

On the one hand, Google doesn't need to make any money from these moats. They can all be loss-leaders defending search. (Eventually this will raise antitrust issues but usually only long after the damage is done.) On the other, perhaps once the 'scorched earth' field is cleared by Google's search-revenue subsidized entries, Google's remaining entries will turn out to be capable of becoming giant profitable businesses on their own. So there's two ways for Google to win: defending search, or discovering the next bonanza in a field where all scalable competition was decimated by search-subsidies.

jbooth 16y ago

This is almost right. Right in one sense. But in a more expansive sense, I read a great quote from some higher-up at Google a year back that really put things in perspective.. He said, "Look, over 50% of the Internet uses Google for search, conservatively speaking. So if we make the Internet better in a general, altruistic sense, and create 2 new internet users, we just created a Google user." So it's a more positive gesture than the denial-based moat metaphor or 'scorched earth' language imply. (The moat metaphor made me think of IE vs Netscape).

wladimir 16y ago

Advertising is Google's castle. Search is also in the moat. Then again, the quality of Google's moat is often better than other companies' castle. Also, Google doesn't so much 'ravage industries', it innovates in them. Which can be the same. The industrial revolution 'ravaged industries' too.