4 ms·
It's not there because at this point, it's self-evident. There may be a path to profitability for niche engines, or engines which do something quite different f
by iron_ball 17y ago
It's not there because at this point, it's self-evident. There may be a path to profitability for niche engines, or engines which do something quite different from the big players, but it seems ever more unlikely that a new direct rival to Google/Microsoft/Yahoo will arise.
I mean, I get your point. But there's a difference between the pre-Google world and now: before Google, search sucked, and everyone knew it. Now, search is awesome. It's not really a pain point.
- rfreytag 17y agoPeople were not aware of the potential for search before Google. They thought the market for search was over-supplied with options. Evidence is in some 10-year-old Red Herrings that mention: Alta Vista, Lycos, Web Crawler, DogPile, mySimon, etc., etc.. I was hard-pressed to make Google find anything 10-years-old+ from the web. And advanced search was no apparent help. Perhaps fodder for a rival? Clayton Christiansen might say that out of the niche of a rival which undermines Google's business model rises the Google-killer, or at least -queller.
- gridspy 17y agoGoogle themselves have identified ways to make search better. Why text based search? Why not explore searches in a more interactive way? How about searching based on your existing thoughts and ideas? How can we make search work if you don't have a browser? You don't need to compete with all of Google to succeed in the search arena. It is sufficient to capture 0.01% of their market to make a couple of startup founders successful.