3 ms·

Five reasons Cuil won't kill Google...yet

iamdave 18y ago
Already with the speculation? Google got there first, and is friendly enough to consumers to keep them coming back with free email, free photo sharing, free web applications and so forth. So did MySpace. Then along came Facebook. First impressions matter a lot and while Cuil's search results may be better, more complete, or even more aesthetically pleasing, the fact that the site is stumbling in its first day out will leave a lot of potential users unimpressed. Anyone who looks at a new piece of software, web based or desktop branded and expects it to work flawlessly out of the box needs to get out of this industry right now. Analyzing searchers may not be popular with the public, but it's insanely popular with advertisers who, after all, are search engines' real customers. Summize, an analyzing searcher was popular, and it got acquired. It's unlikely that making search results better, even a lot better, will be enough by itself to capture the attention of users. The Google toolbar is already well established on tens of millions of search browsers. Taking something good, and making it better wont attract users. The thought behind this is laugable, but wrong. Ex-Google employees make a search engine that techies are going to flock to. When techies flock to something, they're going to be the first to point out flaws, suggest improvements and make it even better. That way, when the rest of the world catches on, it's a much better version than the oh so elusive one-size-fits-all debut release. However dubious Google's privacy protections may be, it has yet to prove evil enough to topple Microsoft in the annals of technological villainy This isn't even relevant to anything.
- unalone 18y ago
  1) Facebook offered something significant to its users over MySpace. Personal networks are HUGE, and they are far more usable if you're Facebook's target audience. With a search engine, all you're doing is searching. Google's enough. 2) Anybody who expects a flawed piece of software to ever compete with Google needs to get out of this industry right now. 3) The article doesn't mention being acquired. It talks only about direct competition. Summize was the equivalent of Google in this scenario: it was the first one to do it well. 4) Techies only have influence when what they flock to is something that matters to users. Look at Linux. Techies LOVE Linux. But most people use Microsoft, because it's all they need. 5) Of course it is. The only way for Google to lose is if the masses boycott it or pull something similar. Otherwise, there's no incentive to switch. I love being cynical against articles too, as much as anybody, but in this case the article did a good job of explaining things. You're just wasting time.

Already with the speculation? Google got there first, and is friendly enough to consumers to keep them coming back with free email, free photo sharing, free web applications and so forth. So did MySpace. Then along came Facebook. First impressions matter a lot and while Cuil's search results may be better, more complete, or even more aesthetically pleasing, the fact that the site is stumbling in its first day out will leave a lot of potential users unimpressed. Anyone who looks at a new piece of software, web based or desktop branded and expects it to work flawlessly out of the box needs to get out of this industry right now. Analyzing searchers may not be popular with the public, but it's insanely popular with advertisers who, after all, are search engines' real customers. Summize, an analyzing searcher was popular, and it got acquired. It's unlikely that making search results better, even a lot better, will be enough by itself to capture the attention of users. The Google toolbar is already well established on tens of millions of search browsers. Taking something good, and making it better wont attract users. The thought behind this is laugable, but wrong. Ex-Google employees make a search engine that techies are going to flock to. When techies flock to something, they're going to be the first to point out flaws, suggest improvements and make it even better. That way, when the rest of the world catches on, it's a much better version than the oh so elusive one-size-fits-all debut release. However dubious Google's privacy protections may be, it has yet to prove evil enough to topple Microsoft in the annals of technological villainy This isn't even relevant to anything.

unalone 18y ago
1) Facebook offered something significant to its users over MySpace. Personal networks are HUGE, and they are far more usable if you're Facebook's target audience. With a search engine, all you're doing is searching. Google's enough. 2) Anybody who expects a flawed piece of software to ever compete with Google needs to get out of this industry right now. 3) The article doesn't mention being acquired. It talks only about direct competition. Summize was the equivalent of Google in this scenario: it was the first one to do it well. 4) Techies only have influence when what they flock to is something that matters to users. Look at Linux. Techies LOVE Linux. But most people use Microsoft, because it's all they need. 5) Of course it is. The only way for Google to lose is if the masses boycott it or pull something similar. Otherwise, there's no incentive to switch. I love being cynical against articles too, as much as anybody, but in this case the article did a good job of explaining things. You're just wasting time.