5 ms·

> Their core product got notably worse over time. > Google’s search results are dominated by ads Googles core product are ads, not search engine!

brazzy 6y ago
But their ability to sell ads critically relies on their dominance in the search engine market, which is based on the quality of the search results. There was a time before Google. There were other search engines with large market shares. Google completely destroyed them through superior search results. An alternative search engine that actually works better as a search engine would be an existential threat to Google, and they know that. Because there is very little that prevents people from switching search engines - no network effects, nothing really except default settings and laziness.
- throw8932894 6y ago
  I remember Altavista. Adsense controls like 80% of ad market. Biggest thread to Google are walled gardens like Facebook or Amazon. Search engines like Bing and Duck are not even on their map. > dominance ... which is based on the quality of the search results Any source for that? Google search already provides inferior results in many areas, but it is still dominant. Google also pays billions to Apple and Mozilla to be default search engine. And if threat emerges and gets like 30% of search market share, Google just dials down ads and make their search experience a bit less crappy.
  - brazzy 6y ago
    > Adsense controls like 80% of ad market. Only about 14% of Google's advertising income is from AdSense, the rest is from ads on Google's own properties, and the vast majority of that is from search. > Biggest thread to Google are walled gardens like Facebook or Amazon. Search engines like Bing and Duck are not even on their map. I guarantee you they are. Facebook and Amazon are threats because they are established with massive userbases so anything they do can quickly have a big impact. But I absolutely guarantee that competition from a better search engine is very much on Google's map as an existential threat, just not an immediate one. The know they cannot stagnate in that field and are continually investing into into research to stay at the bleeding edge. > Any source for that? Google search already provides inferior results in many areas, but it is still dominant. How do you even quantify search result quality? My personal experience from trying out other search engines is that Google is definitely superior, and better search results was most definitely what got them to dominance in the first place - Altavista and Yahoo and Excite weren't even in the same ballpark. > Google also pays billions to Apple and Mozilla to be default search engine. And that should tell you all you need to know about how essential it is for Google to stay the dominant search engine. > And if threat emerges and gets like 30% of search market share, Google just dials down ads and make their search experience a bit less crappy. At that point they would already be fighting desparately for their life, because "just dialing down ads" translates into an immediate, proprotional decrease of revenue from their (at that point already compromised) main cash cow. 30% less ads on 30% less searches would immediately mean Alphabet as a whole is deep in the red. And if a competitor already managed to take substantial market share from them, making the experience "a bit less crappy" is hardly going to be enough to turn things around. No, Google really must be (and is) much more proactive in this: keep investing in research, keep on the lookout for any company that looks like it's doing something that might someday in the future impact search engine technology, and just buy it.
    - throw8932894 6y ago
      Ok, you seem to have better numbers, I was just pulling numbers from top of my head. My point is that search is not priority for google anymore. 15 years ago it won because it had clean simple UI. Now its bog down with ads. Duck and others offer much better experience.

brazzy 6y ago

But their ability to sell ads critically relies on their dominance in the search engine market, which is based on the quality of the search results. There was a time before Google. There were other search engines with large market shares. Google completely destroyed them through superior search results. An alternative search engine that actually works better as a search engine would be an existential threat to Google, and they know that. Because there is very little that prevents people from switching search engines - no network effects, nothing really except default settings and laziness.

throw8932894 6y ago
I remember Altavista. Adsense controls like 80% of ad market. Biggest thread to Google are walled gardens like Facebook or Amazon. Search engines like Bing and Duck are not even on their map. > dominance ... which is based on the quality of the search results Any source for that? Google search already provides inferior results in many areas, but it is still dominant. Google also pays billions to Apple and Mozilla to be default search engine. And if threat emerges and gets like 30% of search market share, Google just dials down ads and make their search experience a bit less crappy.
- brazzy 6y ago
  > Adsense controls like 80% of ad market. Only about 14% of Google's advertising income is from AdSense, the rest is from ads on Google's own properties, and the vast majority of that is from search. > Biggest thread to Google are walled gardens like Facebook or Amazon. Search engines like Bing and Duck are not even on their map. I guarantee you they are. Facebook and Amazon are threats because they are established with massive userbases so anything they do can quickly have a big impact. But I absolutely guarantee that competition from a better search engine is very much on Google's map as an existential threat, just not an immediate one. The know they cannot stagnate in that field and are continually investing into into research to stay at the bleeding edge. > Any source for that? Google search already provides inferior results in many areas, but it is still dominant. How do you even quantify search result quality? My personal experience from trying out other search engines is that Google is definitely superior, and better search results was most definitely what got them to dominance in the first place - Altavista and Yahoo and Excite weren't even in the same ballpark. > Google also pays billions to Apple and Mozilla to be default search engine. And that should tell you all you need to know about how essential it is for Google to stay the dominant search engine. > And if threat emerges and gets like 30% of search market share, Google just dials down ads and make their search experience a bit less crappy. At that point they would already be fighting desparately for their life, because "just dialing down ads" translates into an immediate, proprotional decrease of revenue from their (at that point already compromised) main cash cow. 30% less ads on 30% less searches would immediately mean Alphabet as a whole is deep in the red. And if a competitor already managed to take substantial market share from them, making the experience "a bit less crappy" is hardly going to be enough to turn things around. No, Google really must be (and is) much more proactive in this: keep investing in research, keep on the lookout for any company that looks like it's doing something that might someday in the future impact search engine technology, and just buy it.
  - throw8932894 6y ago
    Ok, you seem to have better numbers, I was just pulling numbers from top of my head. My point is that search is not priority for google anymore. 15 years ago it won because it had clean simple UI. Now its bog down with ads. Duck and others offer much better experience.