3 ms·

Being dramatically better than google is a high hurdle. It's tough for competitors but google pretty much did an end-run around the search problem and to be jus

by 0x12 15y ago

Being dramatically better than google is a high hurdle. It's tough for competitors but google pretty much did an end-run around the search problem and to be just like google is not good enough a reason to switch. Now if someone would do to google what google did to altavista that would move the needle on many fronts. I suspect DDG is not it, but I'm not saying it is not possible.

timr 15y ago
"Being dramatically better than google is a high hurdle." Everyone likes to say that...but really, how do you know? By definition, disruption comes when you don't expect it. When Google came along, people didn't know that search could be made better. Likewise, today, people don't see what they're not getting with Google...they just know that Google's results cause about the same level of satisfaction as they always have. The search engine that gets a toehold against Google is going to do something completely different, and re-define the search game for all of the players. It's not going to be a head-to-head competition on the same playing field.
beagle3 15y ago
The change will not come from being better than Google at their own game (unless they start being incompetent), but rather from winning a different game that Google didn't pay attention to in time. That's how Facebook happened. In the mobile search space, pay attention to DoAT.com - it's mobile search done right, unlike google (or anyone else). If they gain enough traction, they can dethrone google eventually. Or it could just be a passing fad. It's rare to win an established game, like Google did with search (or Microsoft did 20 years ago with word processing and spreadsheets). It's much more common to win at a new game that is being overlooked by the giants. (Some people say the Microsoft takeover of the office space is "a different game" because no one took "office suites" seriously except them; However, Word really was better than WordPerfect and friends at the time; and Excel really was better than 1-2-3, and people were switching one-package-at-a-time. So I think this should be considered winning an established game)

by 0x12 15y ago

timr 15y ago

"Being dramatically better than google is a high hurdle." Everyone likes to say that...but really, how do you know? By definition, disruption comes when you don't expect it. When Google came along, people didn't know that search could be made better. Likewise, today, people don't see what they're not getting with Google...they just know that Google's results cause about the same level of satisfaction as they always have. The search engine that gets a toehold against Google is going to do something completely different, and re-define the search game for all of the players. It's not going to be a head-to-head competition on the same playing field.

beagle3 15y ago

The change will not come from being better than Google at their own game (unless they start being incompetent), but rather from winning a different game that Google didn't pay attention to in time. That's how Facebook happened. In the mobile search space, pay attention to DoAT.com - it's mobile search done right, unlike google (or anyone else). If they gain enough traction, they can dethrone google eventually. Or it could just be a passing fad. It's rare to win an established game, like Google did with search (or Microsoft did 20 years ago with word processing and spreadsheets). It's much more common to win at a new game that is being overlooked by the giants. (Some people say the Microsoft takeover of the office space is "a different game" because no one took "office suites" seriously except them; However, Word really was better than WordPerfect and friends at the time; and Excel really was better than 1-2-3, and people were switching one-package-at-a-time. So I think this should be considered winning an established game)