12 ms·

There's a reason why it seems shocking that Google has been able to balance the ads well enough that people still use it. They haven't! Google has orchestrated

There's a reason why it seems shocking that Google has been able to balance the ads well enough that people still use it. They haven't! Google has orchestrated a monopoly over search engine distribution that allows them to get away with search results that are dominated by ads and spam, without losing most consumers. Let's be blunt here - almost no consumer consciously chooses to use Google search anymore. Google has a distribution monopoly through Android, its deal with Apple on iOS and MacOS, and on desktop through Chrome. I'm working on a search engine startup. It is in all practical senses impossible for an iPhone or Mac user to change their search engine to a new search engine on Safari or at the iOS level. And despite being technically possible on desktop with Chrome, it is for all practical purposes beyond what any typical consumer can easily do. Their monopoly over distribution - not search result quality - is what keeps consumers searching Google and clicking ads.

eldaisfish 5y ago
>Let's be blunt here - almost no consumer consciously chooses to use Google search anymore Do you have anything substantive to support this? I highly doubt it is true given the fact that the verb "to google" literally means "to search the internet".
- kahmeal 5y ago
  I think you missed the point here -- people synonymize googling with searching and therefore aren't choosing to google -- they're choosing to search but ending up using google despite having made no conscious effort to do so (it's just there).
- jedwhite 5y ago
  Google is the default search on the vast majority of phones and desktop browsers by default. People don't change their search engine from something else to Google, because it is already the default search engine on the devices they buy and the web browsers they use. So people do not make a conscious choice to use Google. The vast majority make no choice at all. Google is synonymous with search because it is already the search engine on their phones and computers. They are simply never asked which search engine they want to use. Most consumers have no idea that you can even change your search engine. After talking with hundreds of users, they find it's either impossible to change (iPhone/MacOS) or too hard (Chrome). If you're Duck Duck Go or Bing, at least you're in a very limited dropdown list if someone does want to try something else. If you're a new search engine startup, you're not an option at all.
- cco 5y ago
  Your argument supports the original poster. It is no longer a conscious choice, "Do I search for this via Google? Maybe I should use Bing? What about DuckDuckGo?", it is, "Oh, lemme Google that".
  - genewitch 5y ago
    the other day, on HN i mentioned i was trying to find some relevant meme on DDG, and someone said "try googling 'foo bar baz'" and i thought it was funny. I don't use google search if i can avoid it. I'll try 3 others first, and generally just give up. Google doesn't deserve any money.
dwighteb 5y ago
> It is in all practical senses impossible for an iPhone or Mac user to change their search engine to a new search engine on Safari or at the iOS level. On my IOS device, under Settings -> Safari -> Search Engine, I have a drop down with options, including Bing and DuckDuckgo, but defaulted to google. On Macos, with Safari running, Safari -> Preferences… -> Search, Search Engine I have a drop down, defaulted to google, with Bing and DuckDuckgo amongst other choices. Agreed on google”s effort to get their search engine as the default. However I just don’t understand how changing search engine is impossible given what I’m seeing on my devices? Nor does it seem over the top onerous to my eyes.
- jedwhite 5y ago
  Yes, but you can't add a new search engine at all! So if a search engine isn't one of the tiny number of options in that dropdown, you can't change to it. That applies on both iOS and MacOS. And that option is used for the entire system-wide search, not just Safari. So here's a challenge, try adding a search engine not on that list. You can see the search engine I'm working on in my profile if you're interested (I don't want to hijack this thread with self-promotion). I challenge you to change to a new competitive option like it. You simply can't. That is a clear monopoly over distribution. On desktop in Chrome, as noted it is not something any typical consumer can do easily. But even if they could, Google does not allow you to set the New Tab to another search engine, even by setting the homepage to one. So every new tab opened on Chrome takes you back to Google search, even if a consumer figures out how to change their homepage. As for changing the nav bar search, no ordinary consumer is going to be able to work out how to change a search URL pattern. That is clearly intended to prevent consumers changing. So I stand by my point, especially on an iPhone, you simply cannot change your search engine to a new search engine like us. It is impossible.
  - dwighteb 5y ago
    I see your point. I would have sworn that DuckDuckGo was added as a search entry when I installed that app on my ios device, however my memory is hazy from that long ago, so perhaps that search engine was added at a different point, like when it became big enough for Apple to notice them.
null_object 5y ago
> It is in all practical senses impossible for an iPhone or Mac user to change their search engine to a new search engine on Safari or at the iOS level. There are five (very simply accessible) different choices for Safari on iOS. But if you switch to iCabMobile on iOS there are TWENTY-FIVE search engines to choose from.
- jedwhite 5y ago
  I think it's reasonable to point out that is not something most consumers are going to be able to do. The only meaningful search engine choice is that available within Safari. And you did install another App, they still aren't used from the system search on iOS, or from Safari itself. I think you might as well be asking regular consumers to root their device so they can use whatever Apps from outside the App Store, or whatever search engine they want. Also, even for a technical user, there is simply no way on an iPhone to change to a new search engine not already on a tiny list, and from talking with hundreds of consumers, I have not talked with a single non-technical person who could work out themselves how to change their Safari search engine to even one of the 5 limited choices, let alone a new option.
  - Angostura 5y ago
    I don’t think installing an app and rooting a device are fair comparisons
    - jedwhite 5y ago
      Unfortunately, installing an App doesn't let you change the system-wide search on iOS (or Safari browser), so rooting the device would be the only real way. My intended point is that if you're a consumer trying to change your search engine to a new option on an iPhone, there is no way to do it.
- samb1729 5y ago
  Do you have a stake in this iCabMobile project? You were spamming its name 35 days ago and you're doing so again here.
joe_the_user 5y ago
There's a reason why it seems shocking that Google has been able to balance the ads well enough that people still use it. They haven't! Google has orchestrated a monopoly over search engine distribution that allows them to get away with search results that are dominated by ads and spam, without losing most consumers. I disagree. Two to three years ago I could get more what I wanted in a complex search once I tuned it properly. So Google had a twenty year run of good and useful searches. Google also worked to strong arm their monopoly, yes. But I claim they still served some quality after that. It's not that unusual for a monopoly built on quality to maintain their quality for a period of time after it achieves that monopoly status - institutional standards die but they can die over time.
WalterBright 5y ago
I would think that there'd be an online opportunity for a search engine that only searches humanly curated sites. Those sites would be ones that have quality information rather than spam. Some obvious examples - wikipedia, reddit, hackernews, public domain books, etc. It's easy to game an algorithm, but hard to game a human - humans know garbage when they see it. As an aside, whenever I get a prescription, included with it is a dense two page sheet of detailed information about the drug. I see nothing like that online with a search. Why is this sort of thing not online?
- scarface74 5y ago
  I would have gotten so excited about something like that 20 years ago, I would have yelled “Yahoo!” from the top of my lungs.
  - WalterBright 5y ago
    Maybe Yahoo's time has come again! Maybe Google's decline started when they no longer had competition from Yahoo? The interesting thing would be coming up with a sustainable business model for it. One way might be the users pay for it, either per-search or per-month. This way the incentives to provide good search results align with the interests of the people doing the searching, not the people being searched. The people who want to be searched would have an incentive to make a quality site that the search service would believe would please their customers. I can think of people willing to pay for quality searches - professionals looking for things they need, like programmers, lawyers, researchers, etc.
    - Mezzie 5y ago
      Honestly, if we're going to go old school, I vote Dogpile. Let's start pitting the searches against each other again.
    - wintermutestwin 5y ago
      >The interesting thing would be coming up with a sustainable business model for it. Even though I loathe ads, I wouldn't mind one simple, clearly designated ad spawned from keywords in the search. No tracking and no cross site linking. No result promoting, etc... And yes, I believe that the current iteration of the web requires human moderation to be usefully searched.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
oconnor663 5y ago
> almost no consumer consciously chooses to use Google search anymore...Their monopoly over distribution - not search result quality - is what keeps consumers searching Google I don't disagree with this as a fact, but I think there are a lot of things that work this way that aren't actually monopolies in the competition-preventing sense. If I wanted to launch a new breakfast cereal, getting my product into grocery stores would be one of the major challenges of starting that business. Competition for shelf space is a core concern of a lot of consumables. This definitely creates a lot of stickiness and barriers, and that comes with its share of downsides, but there are also good reasons that distribution systems work the way they do. Transaction costs are important.
- jedwhite 5y ago
  I don't think competition for shelf space is the right analogy here. Perhaps for Apps within the App Store you could argue that. But when there are only two mobile operating systems with meaningful market share, and when they make it impossible to change to a new search engine at all, and the results all come from only two sources (Google or Bing) that's a straight monopoly over distribution. It's a similar situation with the App Stores also. They are monopolies. We've gone from a world of personal computing where software was a free market with open choices, to a closed and proprietary world where there is only one available source of software.
  - criddell 5y ago
    > We've gone from a world of personal computing where software was a free market with open choices, to a closed and proprietary world where there is only one available source of software. That’s true but at the same time I think most people are pretty happy with it. HN readers aren’t typical in this regard. I’ve been writing software as my job since the mid-80’s and it’s only been in the past 4 or 5 years where I realized that I’m finally pretty happy with the tech I use day-to-day. If I had any complaint it would be that app stores have made software too inexpensive. When I look at something like Procreate which I think cost something like $10, I’m blown away. This can’t be sustainable.
- ColinHayhurst 5y ago
rhubarbcustard 5y ago
Just tried https://andisearch.com/ https://andisearch.com/ and I like it. Felt like a fresh look on results instead of the same old SEO ones. For example, searched for a few Java queries and found very informative website/results that weren't dominated by Bealdung. Searched for "soccer scores", "chelsea FC", "prince andrew", "WP export" and found things that would never have been on Google's first page, but were excellent returns. Nice work.
- jedwhite 5y ago
  Thank you. While I don't want to distract from the topic here, I do really appreciate your feedback and you trying it out, and would love to talk more if you'd like to reach out! Speaking generally, the world needs more people working on search, and I think there is a lot of room for completely new approaches.
  - jamiek88 5y ago
    I’m impressed! I did a search for ‘Oregon coast gardening’ and bunch of indie sites I’d not see before popped up. Some blogs too!!!!!! Old school. Why don’t you do a show hn so we can have a proper thread I’d love to learn more about the decision making of the AI.
    - jedwhite 5y ago
      Hey thank you. Seriously I appreciate the feedback and encouragement to share Andi with HN. I know there have been a few comments and questions, even though I'm trying to not get off-topic because this is such an interesting thread. You're absolutely right that this needs it's own thread where we can answer questions properly. So we're definitely planning to share what we're building with the community here soon. Andi's very much an alpha and a few things are broken, but we're working on a new release that fixes them, and then we're going to share it and learn as much as we can from the feedback and wisdom here.
      - girvo 5y ago
chillfox 5y ago
I have tried using DuckDuckGo as my default search engine, but Firefox changed it back to Google with every update, so eventually I just gave up on that endeavor.
- CountHackulus 5y ago
  That's really strange, I've got it set as the default in Firefox on 3 different computers (2 mac 1 windows) and it's stayed the default over several updates. I think something might be wrong with your computer?
  - chillfox 5y ago
    I guess. With the current Mozilla leadership it never even occurred to me that it could be a bug. I just assumed that it was something they do on purpose to get more money from Google.
    - HWR_14 5y ago
      I'll echo that what you are experiencing isn't normal. I've had DDG as my default for a while and it's been preserved throughout updates.
_HMCB_ 5y ago
“…almost no consumer consciously chooses to use Google search anymore”? 6-8 quality leads in the last 14 days (ave. sale at $3,200) on less than $220 spent on ads begs to differ with you. We’ve only started advertising the last two weeks. We’ve had calls and form submissions _all_ from Google and we only launched our site roughly 45 days ago. I’m not a Google fanboy and I think Search does need an overhaul but people are mostly definitely using Google Search. Another client of mine gets 8-12 new customers per month all from Google searches and she doesn’t spend a dime on Google.
- jedwhite 5y ago
  In many ways I think that supports my comment. People use Google search because it's the default and a monopoly, and it has a total monopoly on search ads as a result. But that is not a choice that consumers consciously make to go and use it. It's pre-installed as the only easily accessible default on their phones and computers, and no one ever thinks about what search engine they use or has chosen to use it. If you buy an Apple or Android phone, your search engine is Google, and you just assume it is the only search engine. It's great that it gets good results for your ad spend for you. That's why Google continues to set new records for revenue. Advertisers like you are their true customers. And the people searching are the product being sold.
- Jweb_Guru 5y ago
  They were not saying "nobody uses Google search" but rather that people were not consciously choosing to use it over other services, but using it because it is the default on virtually every device and browser, despite the fact that the majority of the results were ads. The fact that people are clicking on your ads doesn't exactly disprove that hypothesis.
blairanderson 5y ago
Distribution will come if the product is better, but it is a hard problem. I try every new search engine I can and they are always worse/slower than google.
blakeinate 5y ago
Just tried andisearch and am extremely impressed. It has so far handled all queries I have thrown at it better than brave search and DDG. Will continue to experiment, best of luck and awesome work!
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- jedwhite 5y ago
  Thank you! I really do sincerely appreciate that. If you'd like to, please reach out to us there because we'd love to chat more. It wasn't my intention to take the discussion off-topic here because this thread is so incredibly interesting, but at the same time it's super encouraging to see the unprompted feedback and questions, and we'll share what we're doing properly on HN soon so we can address questions properly.
sriram_malhar 5y ago
"almost no consumer consciously chooses to use Google search anymore" May I ask how you arrived at this observation? This is the first time I am hearing this. I know of NO ONE who uses any other search engine. The term "Googled" is not yet a proxy for other search sites.
- jedwhite 5y ago
  People use Google because it's what comes installed on their phones and computers when they first turn them on, and they never actively choose it. So while everyone uses it, few consumers make an active choice to use it. From talking to users a lot, many just assume it's the only option - as you say, Google has become synonymous with search in the same way Xerox became a word for photocopying. Consumers use Google because it's the default and the only visible option when they turn their phones on. Unfortunately, that's what a monopoly on distribution looks like. People no longer make a choice and don't even realize they have one.
1vuio0pswjnm7 5y ago
"Let's be blunt here - almost no consumer consciously chooses to use Google search anymore." This bluntness does not go far enough. People do not change defaults, no matter how "easy" it may be to do so. A default is a pre-made choice by someone other than the consumer. There is no set-up process where the consumer makes a choice. The choice has already been made. Consumers do not make this choice. Even if they could, in practice they don't. That fact may seem insignificant but it is worth billions of dollars. If I am not mistaken, the current CEO of Google spent most of his time working on "default search engine" (or "default web browser") deals before taking the CEO job. In probably the most important one, Google pays Apple a hefty sum to be the default search engine. It was estimated at $10 billion in 2020 and $15 billion in 2021.[1] Defaults are effectively permanent settings. It does not matter how easy it is to change a default setting if practically no one ever does it. $15 billion is too much to pay for something that may or may not change. It does not change. It is money in the bank. 1. https://9to5mac.com/2021/08/25/analysts-google-to-pay-apple-15-billion-to-remain-default-safari-search-engine-in-2021/ https://9to5mac.com/2021/08/25/analysts-google-to-pay-apple-...
- magicalist 5y ago
  > If I am not mistaken, the current CEO of Google spent most of his time working on "default search engine" (or "default web browser") deals before taking the CEO job. I mean you could spend two seconds to search and realize you were in fact mistaken before bothering to write "If I am not mistaken..."
  - forgotmyoldacc 5y ago
    If anyone else was curious, Sundar Pichai had not worked on Search prior to becoming CEO, it seems: > Pichai joined Google in 2004,[8] where he led the product management and innovation efforts for a suite of Google's client software products, including Google Chrome and Chrome OS, as well as being largely responsible for Google Drive. In addition, he went on to oversee the development of other applications such as Gmail and Google Maps. In 2010, Pichai also announced the open-sourcing of the new video codec VP8 by Google and introduced the new video format, WebM. The Chromebook was released in 2012. In 2013, Pichai added Android to the list of Google products that he oversaw.
majormajor 5y ago
Firefox on Linux Mint was pointing at something else for a while (DDG I think? Bing? I don't recall). I gave up after a few weeks and had to switch it back to Google. Google's not perfect - it's never been perfect, it was just better than the alternatives - but it's still less bad than others.
accountofme 5y ago
I might be wrong, but they also have a moat I'm the sheer amount of compute required to trawl through the internet? I mean maybe they was true and now they don't... But yeah good luck!
uxcolumbo 5y ago
Is there a reason why you've chosen the chat style interface vs the standard search box at the top and results at the bottom layout? This is not a comment on the search results itself - always appreciate the efforts to break out of the standard google results and surface other sources, but I found the interface confusing and the previews were also taking up a lot of space. A compact view would be better - or giving the option to turn the previews on / off.
- jedwhite 5y ago
  Thanks for trying it out. I don't want to take to discussion too off topic, but if I can try to answer in general terms, I think that it is not just that the search results on Google have been getting worse, the user experience has been too. There has been very little real innovation in how search works in the last 20 years, so it is good to try new approaches. With different views like compact vs visual, our feeling is that it's good to give people choices. If you get chance on desktop with Andi, try a search and then under Search Results, click "Change View", and try some of the other views. List view gives straight compact text results, and there is a Hacker view that presents results in the same information dense view as HN. That's my favorite. There is even a view Goggles that has a similar format to Google circa 2000 :) I'd love to chat more with you about this, and it is a great topic for when we share what we're building in its own thread here. Just based on feedback, we have two fairly passionate groups of early users on this topic - some love the conversational interface and others just want it to look like Google. So the approach we're taking is to give people choice.

eldaisfish 5y ago

>Let's be blunt here - almost no consumer consciously chooses to use Google search anymore Do you have anything substantive to support this? I highly doubt it is true given the fact that the verb "to google" literally means "to search the internet".

kahmeal 5y ago
I think you missed the point here -- people synonymize googling with searching and therefore aren't choosing to google -- they're choosing to search but ending up using google despite having made no conscious effort to do so (it's just there).
jedwhite 5y ago
Google is the default search on the vast majority of phones and desktop browsers by default. People don't change their search engine from something else to Google, because it is already the default search engine on the devices they buy and the web browsers they use. So people do not make a conscious choice to use Google. The vast majority make no choice at all. Google is synonymous with search because it is already the search engine on their phones and computers. They are simply never asked which search engine they want to use. Most consumers have no idea that you can even change your search engine. After talking with hundreds of users, they find it's either impossible to change (iPhone/MacOS) or too hard (Chrome). If you're Duck Duck Go or Bing, at least you're in a very limited dropdown list if someone does want to try something else. If you're a new search engine startup, you're not an option at all.
cco 5y ago
Your argument supports the original poster. It is no longer a conscious choice, "Do I search for this via Google? Maybe I should use Bing? What about DuckDuckGo?", it is, "Oh, lemme Google that".
- genewitch 5y ago
  the other day, on HN i mentioned i was trying to find some relevant meme on DDG, and someone said "try googling 'foo bar baz'" and i thought it was funny. I don't use google search if i can avoid it. I'll try 3 others first, and generally just give up. Google doesn't deserve any money.

dwighteb 5y ago

> It is in all practical senses impossible for an iPhone or Mac user to change their search engine to a new search engine on Safari or at the iOS level. On my IOS device, under Settings -> Safari -> Search Engine, I have a drop down with options, including Bing and DuckDuckgo, but defaulted to google. On Macos, with Safari running, Safari -> Preferences… -> Search, Search Engine I have a drop down, defaulted to google, with Bing and DuckDuckgo amongst other choices. Agreed on google”s effort to get their search engine as the default. However I just don’t understand how changing search engine is impossible given what I’m seeing on my devices? Nor does it seem over the top onerous to my eyes.

jedwhite 5y ago
Yes, but you can't add a new search engine at all! So if a search engine isn't one of the tiny number of options in that dropdown, you can't change to it. That applies on both iOS and MacOS. And that option is used for the entire system-wide search, not just Safari. So here's a challenge, try adding a search engine not on that list. You can see the search engine I'm working on in my profile if you're interested (I don't want to hijack this thread with self-promotion). I challenge you to change to a new competitive option like it. You simply can't. That is a clear monopoly over distribution. On desktop in Chrome, as noted it is not something any typical consumer can do easily. But even if they could, Google does not allow you to set the New Tab to another search engine, even by setting the homepage to one. So every new tab opened on Chrome takes you back to Google search, even if a consumer figures out how to change their homepage. As for changing the nav bar search, no ordinary consumer is going to be able to work out how to change a search URL pattern. That is clearly intended to prevent consumers changing. So I stand by my point, especially on an iPhone, you simply cannot change your search engine to a new search engine like us. It is impossible.
- dwighteb 5y ago
  I see your point. I would have sworn that DuckDuckGo was added as a search entry when I installed that app on my ios device, however my memory is hazy from that long ago, so perhaps that search engine was added at a different point, like when it became big enough for Apple to notice them.

null_object 5y ago

> It is in all practical senses impossible for an iPhone or Mac user to change their search engine to a new search engine on Safari or at the iOS level. There are five (very simply accessible) different choices for Safari on iOS. But if you switch to iCabMobile on iOS there are TWENTY-FIVE search engines to choose from.

jedwhite 5y ago
I think it's reasonable to point out that is not something most consumers are going to be able to do. The only meaningful search engine choice is that available within Safari. And you did install another App, they still aren't used from the system search on iOS, or from Safari itself. I think you might as well be asking regular consumers to root their device so they can use whatever Apps from outside the App Store, or whatever search engine they want. Also, even for a technical user, there is simply no way on an iPhone to change to a new search engine not already on a tiny list, and from talking with hundreds of consumers, I have not talked with a single non-technical person who could work out themselves how to change their Safari search engine to even one of the 5 limited choices, let alone a new option.
- Angostura 5y ago
  I don’t think installing an app and rooting a device are fair comparisons
  - jedwhite 5y ago
    Unfortunately, installing an App doesn't let you change the system-wide search on iOS (or Safari browser), so rooting the device would be the only real way. My intended point is that if you're a consumer trying to change your search engine to a new option on an iPhone, there is no way to do it.
samb1729 5y ago
Do you have a stake in this iCabMobile project? You were spamming its name 35 days ago and you're doing so again here.

joe_the_user 5y ago

There's a reason why it seems shocking that Google has been able to balance the ads well enough that people still use it. They haven't! Google has orchestrated a monopoly over search engine distribution that allows them to get away with search results that are dominated by ads and spam, without losing most consumers. I disagree. Two to three years ago I could get more what I wanted in a complex search once I tuned it properly. So Google had a twenty year run of good and useful searches. Google also worked to strong arm their monopoly, yes. But I claim they still served some quality after that. It's not that unusual for a monopoly built on quality to maintain their quality for a period of time after it achieves that monopoly status - institutional standards die but they can die over time.

WalterBright 5y ago

I would think that there'd be an online opportunity for a search engine that only searches humanly curated sites. Those sites would be ones that have quality information rather than spam. Some obvious examples - wikipedia, reddit, hackernews, public domain books, etc. It's easy to game an algorithm, but hard to game a human - humans know garbage when they see it. As an aside, whenever I get a prescription, included with it is a dense two page sheet of detailed information about the drug. I see nothing like that online with a search. Why is this sort of thing not online?

scarface74 5y ago
I would have gotten so excited about something like that 20 years ago, I would have yelled “Yahoo!” from the top of my lungs.
- WalterBright 5y ago
  Maybe Yahoo's time has come again! Maybe Google's decline started when they no longer had competition from Yahoo? The interesting thing would be coming up with a sustainable business model for it. One way might be the users pay for it, either per-search or per-month. This way the incentives to provide good search results align with the interests of the people doing the searching, not the people being searched. The people who want to be searched would have an incentive to make a quality site that the search service would believe would please their customers. I can think of people willing to pay for quality searches - professionals looking for things they need, like programmers, lawyers, researchers, etc.
  - Mezzie 5y ago
    Honestly, if we're going to go old school, I vote Dogpile. Let's start pitting the searches against each other again.
  - wintermutestwin 5y ago
    >The interesting thing would be coming up with a sustainable business model for it. Even though I loathe ads, I wouldn't mind one simple, clearly designated ad spawned from keywords in the search. No tracking and no cross site linking. No result promoting, etc... And yes, I believe that the current iteration of the web requires human moderation to be usefully searched.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

oconnor663 5y ago

> almost no consumer consciously chooses to use Google search anymore...Their monopoly over distribution - not search result quality - is what keeps consumers searching Google I don't disagree with this as a fact, but I think there are a lot of things that work this way that aren't actually monopolies in the competition-preventing sense. If I wanted to launch a new breakfast cereal, getting my product into grocery stores would be one of the major challenges of starting that business. Competition for shelf space is a core concern of a lot of consumables. This definitely creates a lot of stickiness and barriers, and that comes with its share of downsides, but there are also good reasons that distribution systems work the way they do. Transaction costs are important.

jedwhite 5y ago
I don't think competition for shelf space is the right analogy here. Perhaps for Apps within the App Store you could argue that. But when there are only two mobile operating systems with meaningful market share, and when they make it impossible to change to a new search engine at all, and the results all come from only two sources (Google or Bing) that's a straight monopoly over distribution. It's a similar situation with the App Stores also. They are monopolies. We've gone from a world of personal computing where software was a free market with open choices, to a closed and proprietary world where there is only one available source of software.
- criddell 5y ago
  > We've gone from a world of personal computing where software was a free market with open choices, to a closed and proprietary world where there is only one available source of software. That’s true but at the same time I think most people are pretty happy with it. HN readers aren’t typical in this regard. I’ve been writing software as my job since the mid-80’s and it’s only been in the past 4 or 5 years where I realized that I’m finally pretty happy with the tech I use day-to-day. If I had any complaint it would be that app stores have made software too inexpensive. When I look at something like Procreate which I think cost something like $10, I’m blown away. This can’t be sustainable.
ColinHayhurst 5y ago

rhubarbcustard 5y ago

Just tried https://andisearch.com/ https://andisearch.com/ and I like it. Felt like a fresh look on results instead of the same old SEO ones. For example, searched for a few Java queries and found very informative website/results that weren't dominated by Bealdung. Searched for "soccer scores", "chelsea FC", "prince andrew", "WP export" and found things that would never have been on Google's first page, but were excellent returns. Nice work.

jedwhite 5y ago
Thank you. While I don't want to distract from the topic here, I do really appreciate your feedback and you trying it out, and would love to talk more if you'd like to reach out! Speaking generally, the world needs more people working on search, and I think there is a lot of room for completely new approaches.
- jamiek88 5y ago
  I’m impressed! I did a search for ‘Oregon coast gardening’ and bunch of indie sites I’d not see before popped up. Some blogs too!!!!!! Old school. Why don’t you do a show hn so we can have a proper thread I’d love to learn more about the decision making of the AI.
  - jedwhite 5y ago
    Hey thank you. Seriously I appreciate the feedback and encouragement to share Andi with HN. I know there have been a few comments and questions, even though I'm trying to not get off-topic because this is such an interesting thread. You're absolutely right that this needs it's own thread where we can answer questions properly. So we're definitely planning to share what we're building with the community here soon. Andi's very much an alpha and a few things are broken, but we're working on a new release that fixes them, and then we're going to share it and learn as much as we can from the feedback and wisdom here.
    - girvo 5y ago

chillfox 5y ago

I have tried using DuckDuckGo as my default search engine, but Firefox changed it back to Google with every update, so eventually I just gave up on that endeavor.

CountHackulus 5y ago
That's really strange, I've got it set as the default in Firefox on 3 different computers (2 mac 1 windows) and it's stayed the default over several updates. I think something might be wrong with your computer?
- chillfox 5y ago
  I guess. With the current Mozilla leadership it never even occurred to me that it could be a bug. I just assumed that it was something they do on purpose to get more money from Google.
  - HWR_14 5y ago
    I'll echo that what you are experiencing isn't normal. I've had DDG as my default for a while and it's been preserved throughout updates.

_HMCB_ 5y ago

“…almost no consumer consciously chooses to use Google search anymore”? 6-8 quality leads in the last 14 days (ave. sale at $3,200) on less than $220 spent on ads begs to differ with you. We’ve only started advertising the last two weeks. We’ve had calls and form submissions _all_ from Google and we only launched our site roughly 45 days ago. I’m not a Google fanboy and I think Search does need an overhaul but people are mostly definitely using Google Search. Another client of mine gets 8-12 new customers per month all from Google searches and she doesn’t spend a dime on Google.

jedwhite 5y ago
In many ways I think that supports my comment. People use Google search because it's the default and a monopoly, and it has a total monopoly on search ads as a result. But that is not a choice that consumers consciously make to go and use it. It's pre-installed as the only easily accessible default on their phones and computers, and no one ever thinks about what search engine they use or has chosen to use it. If you buy an Apple or Android phone, your search engine is Google, and you just assume it is the only search engine. It's great that it gets good results for your ad spend for you. That's why Google continues to set new records for revenue. Advertisers like you are their true customers. And the people searching are the product being sold.
Jweb_Guru 5y ago
They were not saying "nobody uses Google search" but rather that people were not consciously choosing to use it over other services, but using it because it is the default on virtually every device and browser, despite the fact that the majority of the results were ads. The fact that people are clicking on your ads doesn't exactly disprove that hypothesis.

blairanderson 5y ago

Distribution will come if the product is better, but it is a hard problem. I try every new search engine I can and they are always worse/slower than google.

blakeinate 5y ago

Just tried andisearch and am extremely impressed. It has so far handled all queries I have thrown at it better than brave search and DDG. Will continue to experiment, best of luck and awesome work!

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
jedwhite 5y ago
Thank you! I really do sincerely appreciate that. If you'd like to, please reach out to us there because we'd love to chat more. It wasn't my intention to take the discussion off-topic here because this thread is so incredibly interesting, but at the same time it's super encouraging to see the unprompted feedback and questions, and we'll share what we're doing properly on HN soon so we can address questions properly.

sriram_malhar 5y ago

"almost no consumer consciously chooses to use Google search anymore" May I ask how you arrived at this observation? This is the first time I am hearing this. I know of NO ONE who uses any other search engine. The term "Googled" is not yet a proxy for other search sites.

jedwhite 5y ago
People use Google because it's what comes installed on their phones and computers when they first turn them on, and they never actively choose it. So while everyone uses it, few consumers make an active choice to use it. From talking to users a lot, many just assume it's the only option - as you say, Google has become synonymous with search in the same way Xerox became a word for photocopying. Consumers use Google because it's the default and the only visible option when they turn their phones on. Unfortunately, that's what a monopoly on distribution looks like. People no longer make a choice and don't even realize they have one.

1vuio0pswjnm7 5y ago

"Let's be blunt here - almost no consumer consciously chooses to use Google search anymore." This bluntness does not go far enough. People do not change defaults, no matter how "easy" it may be to do so. A default is a pre-made choice by someone other than the consumer. There is no set-up process where the consumer makes a choice. The choice has already been made. Consumers do not make this choice. Even if they could, in practice they don't. That fact may seem insignificant but it is worth billions of dollars. If I am not mistaken, the current CEO of Google spent most of his time working on "default search engine" (or "default web browser") deals before taking the CEO job. In probably the most important one, Google pays Apple a hefty sum to be the default search engine. It was estimated at $10 billion in 2020 and $15 billion in 2021.[1] Defaults are effectively permanent settings. It does not matter how easy it is to change a default setting if practically no one ever does it. $15 billion is too much to pay for something that may or may not change. It does not change. It is money in the bank. 1. https://9to5mac.com/2021/08/25/analysts-google-to-pay-apple-15-billion-to-remain-default-safari-search-engine-in-2021/ https://9to5mac.com/2021/08/25/analysts-google-to-pay-apple-...

magicalist 5y ago
> If I am not mistaken, the current CEO of Google spent most of his time working on "default search engine" (or "default web browser") deals before taking the CEO job. I mean you could spend two seconds to search and realize you were in fact mistaken before bothering to write "If I am not mistaken..."
- forgotmyoldacc 5y ago
  If anyone else was curious, Sundar Pichai had not worked on Search prior to becoming CEO, it seems: > Pichai joined Google in 2004,[8] where he led the product management and innovation efforts for a suite of Google's client software products, including Google Chrome and Chrome OS, as well as being largely responsible for Google Drive. In addition, he went on to oversee the development of other applications such as Gmail and Google Maps. In 2010, Pichai also announced the open-sourcing of the new video codec VP8 by Google and introduced the new video format, WebM. The Chromebook was released in 2012. In 2013, Pichai added Android to the list of Google products that he oversaw.

majormajor 5y ago

Firefox on Linux Mint was pointing at something else for a while (DDG I think? Bing? I don't recall). I gave up after a few weeks and had to switch it back to Google. Google's not perfect - it's never been perfect, it was just better than the alternatives - but it's still less bad than others.

accountofme 5y ago

I might be wrong, but they also have a moat I'm the sheer amount of compute required to trawl through the internet? I mean maybe they was true and now they don't... But yeah good luck!

uxcolumbo 5y ago

Is there a reason why you've chosen the chat style interface vs the standard search box at the top and results at the bottom layout? This is not a comment on the search results itself - always appreciate the efforts to break out of the standard google results and surface other sources, but I found the interface confusing and the previews were also taking up a lot of space. A compact view would be better - or giving the option to turn the previews on / off.

jedwhite 5y ago
Thanks for trying it out. I don't want to take to discussion too off topic, but if I can try to answer in general terms, I think that it is not just that the search results on Google have been getting worse, the user experience has been too. There has been very little real innovation in how search works in the last 20 years, so it is good to try new approaches. With different views like compact vs visual, our feeling is that it's good to give people choices. If you get chance on desktop with Andi, try a search and then under Search Results, click "Change View", and try some of the other views. List view gives straight compact text results, and there is a Hacker view that presents results in the same information dense view as HN. That's my favorite. There is even a view Goggles that has a similar format to Google circa 2000 :) I'd love to chat more with you about this, and it is a great topic for when we share what we're building in its own thread here. Just based on feedback, we have two fairly passionate groups of early users on this topic - some love the conversational interface and others just want it to look like Google. So the approach we're taking is to give people choice.