7 ms·

> The goals of the advertising business model do not always correspond to providing quality search to users. - Sergey Brin and Lawrence Page, The Anatomy of a

> The goals of the advertising business model do not always correspond to providing quality search to users. - Sergey Brin and Lawrence Page, The Anatomy of a Large-Scale Hypertextual Web Search Engine

crazygringo 3y ago
But fortunately market competition ensures that a higher-quality search engine is only ever a click away. So the bar for quality search is always going to remain pretty high, in order not to simply go out of business.
- throw_awy_1 3y ago
  And here's 20 Billion dollars that disagrees with you. If switching was just a "click away" why would Google pay Apple $20B per year to be the default search for iOS etc. https://macdailynews.com/2023/02/21/google-pays-apple-20-billion-annually-to-be-safaris-default-search-engine/ https://macdailynews.com/2023/02/21/google-pays-apple-20-bil...
  - crazygringo 3y ago
    Competition being a click away is what keeps quality between Google and Bing comparable, and what keeps Google always trying to invest to stay a step ahead. But once quality is close like that, defaults matter, which is why Google pays Apple. If Bing wasn't there (or barely worked) and there was no competition to Google, then Google wouldn't need to pay Apple, because Apple would never consider Bing as a default in the first place. The payment is a sign of how strong competition is, not a sign of a lack of it.
    - throw_awy_1 3y ago
      In this case we have two ad supported search engines that deliver a very similar experience. As you note the differentiation is not great and thus, defaults matter. So in this case they are no longer competing on product quality, but on distribution. A high barrier to entry ($20B is high) but at <10% of Google's revenue it's affordable to them but basically no one else. There is also brand competition and Google has done a fantastic job building very strong brand preference. Honestly no one has even tried to build an alternative search brand for over a decade in any meaningful way (DDG and Bing combined is the closest we could probably come and that's like Fresca competing with Coke). Google Chrome has ~63% market share and that's not up for auction. They pay for ~23% or so at the $20B discussed thus no one is going to be able to out-distribute Google any time soon. Furthermore no one, including Microsoft, is going to risk $20B on overcoming Google's brand preference. It would take years and probably $100B or more to play this game for an uncertain outcome. Better to invest in OpenAI than take that bet. Credit to Google; they have built a very strong business with a strong moat. But no, real competition is not a "click away."
      - crazygringo 3y ago
        > So in this case they are no longer competing on product quality, but on distribution. Incorrect. Quality is a moving target as search gets better. Competition is in quality and distribution. If Google stops improving and lets Bing move ahead on quality, it'll be dead. Witness the recent worries about incorporating LLM's into search. > Furthermore no one, including Microsoft, is going to risk $20B on overcoming Google's brand preference. Earlier this year there were reports that Samsung was considering switching to Bing, and it was suggested there was a similar $3B contract involved. So of course Microsoft is in the same game, and it's quite obvious that Google wouldn't be paying these sums at all if Microsoft weren't willing to offer something as well (but keeps getting outbid). E.g. if Google weren't paying Apple $20B, it's quite likely that Microsoft would be paying Apple $15B instead. One of them would be.
        throw_awy_1 3y ago
        Okay, they complete on quality but they are "close" to use your term. My point was that paying to be the default is not enough. A challenger needs to also overcome the brand preference has built. A one-time investment of $20B (or even $3B) would be wasted. A true competitor would have to be in this for the long haul and willing to outbid Google for many years. Additionally they'd need to invest in building their brand image against Google which would be expensive and risky. > Samsung was considering switching to Bing Great case in point. Samsung (not Bing) backed out of this "over concerns of how it could affect its relationship with Google and the market’s perception of the move" [https://www.theverge.com/2023/5/19/23730368/samsung-google-bing-default-mobile-search-engine https://www.theverge.com/2023/5/19/23730368/samsung-google-b...] Demonstrates that its not just money that is required to compete with Google.
- jeremyjh 3y ago
  I'm not sure if you are using the same internet that I am...
satvikpendem 3y ago
But I'm sure they love being billionaires now. At some point most people will sell out. You see it all the time with companies, mainly consumer product companies, that sell to private equity who then create objectively worse products than before.
- carlosjobim 3y ago
  > At some point most people will sell out. That might be true, but I don't believe people sell out for the money. There is no concrete difference in lifestyle between having a hundred millions and a billion. And no matter how luxuriously you live, there will be an enormous amount of wealth left to your heirs. When you have that kind of money, changing the world and the future becomes more interesting than getting as rich as possible. After all our time on earth is finite. And as a tech giant you have a good possibility of doing just that. So when extremely rich people sell out, I think the reason is rather some other kind of pressure and influence, that they might not be able to talk openly about. If a dog steals a sausage, it's because it was hungry. But if a dog that has just eaten a hundred sausages and has his dog house full does it - then it's not hunger.
  - jjoonathan 3y ago
    If this was about legacy, not money, do you think they would let enshittification proceed at the pace it has? No, it's about money. Always has been. Hence the quote.
    - carlosjobim 3y ago
      You understood the opposite of what I wrote. What I'm saying is that people who are ultra-rich are not selling out because they want more money, but rather because of threats, extortion and such shadowy pressures. Combined with money. The carrot and the stick.
amadeuspagel 3y ago
There's no perfect business model. The alternative they had in mind was running it out of academia, with the growth of the web that was not financially viable. As another comment in this thread points out, when google started it was only available from Standford and Berkely. It could have been another JSTOR. I'm glad it's available to everyone, and that's thanks to ads.
SoftTalker 3y ago
The user demographics changed a lot. When google started, most people didn't even use the internet. Today, most people go online to shop, watch videos, or socialize. Today's Google serves that target pretty well, at the expense of the relatively small number of people who are searching for technical information about programming languages or frameworks. Not coincidentally, a lot of ads target that demograpic as well. So naturally google's top results are also ad-laden.
- amadeuspagel 3y ago
  Google still serves me well when I look for technical information, but do you know a search engine that's even better for that purpose? (I also use ChatGPT, and that's sometimes better, sometimes worse, and always slower.)

crazygringo 3y ago

But fortunately market competition ensures that a higher-quality search engine is only ever a click away. So the bar for quality search is always going to remain pretty high, in order not to simply go out of business.

throw_awy_1 3y ago
And here's 20 Billion dollars that disagrees with you. If switching was just a "click away" why would Google pay Apple $20B per year to be the default search for iOS etc. https://macdailynews.com/2023/02/21/google-pays-apple-20-billion-annually-to-be-safaris-default-search-engine/ https://macdailynews.com/2023/02/21/google-pays-apple-20-bil...
- crazygringo 3y ago
  Competition being a click away is what keeps quality between Google and Bing comparable, and what keeps Google always trying to invest to stay a step ahead. But once quality is close like that, defaults matter, which is why Google pays Apple. If Bing wasn't there (or barely worked) and there was no competition to Google, then Google wouldn't need to pay Apple, because Apple would never consider Bing as a default in the first place. The payment is a sign of how strong competition is, not a sign of a lack of it.
  - throw_awy_1 3y ago
    In this case we have two ad supported search engines that deliver a very similar experience. As you note the differentiation is not great and thus, defaults matter. So in this case they are no longer competing on product quality, but on distribution. A high barrier to entry ($20B is high) but at <10% of Google's revenue it's affordable to them but basically no one else. There is also brand competition and Google has done a fantastic job building very strong brand preference. Honestly no one has even tried to build an alternative search brand for over a decade in any meaningful way (DDG and Bing combined is the closest we could probably come and that's like Fresca competing with Coke). Google Chrome has ~63% market share and that's not up for auction. They pay for ~23% or so at the $20B discussed thus no one is going to be able to out-distribute Google any time soon. Furthermore no one, including Microsoft, is going to risk $20B on overcoming Google's brand preference. It would take years and probably $100B or more to play this game for an uncertain outcome. Better to invest in OpenAI than take that bet. Credit to Google; they have built a very strong business with a strong moat. But no, real competition is not a "click away."
    - crazygringo 3y ago
      > So in this case they are no longer competing on product quality, but on distribution. Incorrect. Quality is a moving target as search gets better. Competition is in quality and distribution. If Google stops improving and lets Bing move ahead on quality, it'll be dead. Witness the recent worries about incorporating LLM's into search. > Furthermore no one, including Microsoft, is going to risk $20B on overcoming Google's brand preference. Earlier this year there were reports that Samsung was considering switching to Bing, and it was suggested there was a similar $3B contract involved. So of course Microsoft is in the same game, and it's quite obvious that Google wouldn't be paying these sums at all if Microsoft weren't willing to offer something as well (but keeps getting outbid). E.g. if Google weren't paying Apple $20B, it's quite likely that Microsoft would be paying Apple $15B instead. One of them would be.
      - throw_awy_1 3y ago
        Okay, they complete on quality but they are "close" to use your term. My point was that paying to be the default is not enough. A challenger needs to also overcome the brand preference has built. A one-time investment of $20B (or even $3B) would be wasted. A true competitor would have to be in this for the long haul and willing to outbid Google for many years. Additionally they'd need to invest in building their brand image against Google which would be expensive and risky. > Samsung was considering switching to Bing Great case in point. Samsung (not Bing) backed out of this "over concerns of how it could affect its relationship with Google and the market’s perception of the move" [https://www.theverge.com/2023/5/19/23730368/samsung-google-bing-default-mobile-search-engine https://www.theverge.com/2023/5/19/23730368/samsung-google-b...] Demonstrates that its not just money that is required to compete with Google.
jeremyjh 3y ago
I'm not sure if you are using the same internet that I am...

satvikpendem 3y ago

But I'm sure they love being billionaires now. At some point most people will sell out. You see it all the time with companies, mainly consumer product companies, that sell to private equity who then create objectively worse products than before.

carlosjobim 3y ago
> At some point most people will sell out. That might be true, but I don't believe people sell out for the money. There is no concrete difference in lifestyle between having a hundred millions and a billion. And no matter how luxuriously you live, there will be an enormous amount of wealth left to your heirs. When you have that kind of money, changing the world and the future becomes more interesting than getting as rich as possible. After all our time on earth is finite. And as a tech giant you have a good possibility of doing just that. So when extremely rich people sell out, I think the reason is rather some other kind of pressure and influence, that they might not be able to talk openly about. If a dog steals a sausage, it's because it was hungry. But if a dog that has just eaten a hundred sausages and has his dog house full does it - then it's not hunger.
- jjoonathan 3y ago
  If this was about legacy, not money, do you think they would let enshittification proceed at the pace it has? No, it's about money. Always has been. Hence the quote.
  - carlosjobim 3y ago
    You understood the opposite of what I wrote. What I'm saying is that people who are ultra-rich are not selling out because they want more money, but rather because of threats, extortion and such shadowy pressures. Combined with money. The carrot and the stick.

amadeuspagel 3y ago

There's no perfect business model. The alternative they had in mind was running it out of academia, with the growth of the web that was not financially viable. As another comment in this thread points out, when google started it was only available from Standford and Berkely. It could have been another JSTOR. I'm glad it's available to everyone, and that's thanks to ads.

SoftTalker 3y ago

The user demographics changed a lot. When google started, most people didn't even use the internet. Today, most people go online to shop, watch videos, or socialize. Today's Google serves that target pretty well, at the expense of the relatively small number of people who are searching for technical information about programming languages or frameworks. Not coincidentally, a lot of ads target that demograpic as well. So naturally google's top results are also ad-laden.

amadeuspagel 3y ago
Google still serves me well when I look for technical information, but do you know a search engine that's even better for that purpose? (I also use ChatGPT, and that's sometimes better, sometimes worse, and always slower.)