WHY GOOGLE? by Charlie Martin
So, why Google?
It’s been a little more than ten years now, and it’s hard to imagine the days before Google. But there were other search engines then: Yahoo and Ask Jeeves (still around, only now it’s just Ask.com) and Alta Vista among others.
Even mentioning them now brings to mind five mile walks on snowy summer mornings. Google has become so dominant in Internet search that I would guess half or more of the people using the Internet aren’t even aware there’s another choice. Google is so dominant that the name is used as a verb. Google is in danger of becoming generic, the trademark death Xerox and Kleenex fight incessantly.
In fact, Google doesn’t dominate just search. It has shaped the Web: search, mapping, JavaScript-and XML (AJAX) interfaces, even plain lightweight page styles and goofy made-up names with unexpected spelling.
In the technological Deadwood of the Internet, you’d think there’s be a new gun, come to beat Google and take over the search space. In fact, there regularly are stories about the latest “Google killer” – most recently, Wolfram|Alpha was mistakenly rumored to be it. (Mistakenly because Wolfram is trying something different: Alpha isn’t a search engine, it’s a calculation engine. See my review on Edgelings for details.) None of them work out, and none of the older competition seems to make any attempt to overcome Google’s lead. You have to wonder why . . .
When I started thinking about this piece, I did a little experimenting. I probably use Google a hundred times a day; so, for a few days, I would try the same searches on other search engines. I could write a research report (you don’t want that) but here’s the anecdotal result: when I tried searches on the various different search engines, they did one of two things – they either delivered me exactly the same results, in nearly the same order, as Google, or what they delivered was wildly wrong.
Oldsters should think back to the first days of Google. Remember when it first appeared, in beta (the style of announcing a “public beta” of a product that goes on for months or years is another Google innovation, come to think of it), with the super-simple interface and two buttons: “search”, and “I feel lucky.” It wasn’t the first search site by any means – that’s how Yahoo started, after all – but it had the magical property that if you typed in a query, it actually showed you something you wanted. You could even hit “I feel lucky” and, by golly, a lot of times Google would deliver something close to what you wanted. On other search engines, you got a bunch of links, and somewhere, maybe on the third or fourth page, you’d find something useful.
Google quickly dominated the search space because it was better: it did what you wanted. Google continues to dominate the search space, I suspect, because it’s still better, or at least because it’s no worse.
In the mean time, Google did another interesting thing. They noticed that to run the search engine, they needed immense computer power, and even more immense storage, and because they needed to keep up with the growth of the Internet they searched, they always needed to add more; that means there’s always spare capacity. So, instead of making a massive investment to become a portal, as companies like MSN and Yahoo were doing, they built their massive infrastructure on search – and then noticed they could become a portal at almost no incremental cost. Do they completely dominate free email, portal content, on-line applications, and so on? Maybe, maybe not – but they did it at very nearly zero cost.
This, I think, is the answer to the question “Why Google?” They started with a good idea, and they learned to make money from it. They continue to make money from it because no one else can do it really – noticeably – better. The other things they do, portals and Google Docs and so on, they can do for free because effectively, at the margin, they are free.
The Google killer, if and when it comes, will have to have the same properties: it will have to be really noticeably better than Google; it’ll have to have a way to make money while being better; and it will have to find a way to do so while giving away the visible service.
Digg This
del.icio.us
PJM Home
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
5 Comments
1. Pajamas Media » Why Google?:[...] Read the rest of the story here. [...]
May 27, 2009 - 10:55 am 2. vivo:Viva Google!
May 28, 2009 - 2:07 am 3. Richard:I wouldn’t use Google were it the ONLY search engine. Aside from traffic “shaping”, filtering and/or limiting information and news articles based on political motivations, Google is far and away too damn big for it’s britches, and the sooner there is real competition in this area the better.
May 28, 2009 - 3:37 am 4. BC:Screw Google.
I tend to think of Google as more a tale of how not to screw up things. Remember Altavista, which was in Google position as a search engine back in the mid 90’s when it was introduced to the public by Digital Equipment Corporation. The Altavista web crawling engine was the huge innovation, but DEC didn’t really have a clue about what to do with it commercially — it was just a cool thing that they had developed in their labs (I don’t think people really understand how important DEC and its PDP “minicomputers” were to the development of the Internet, not to mention UNIX/Linux). Altavista didn’t even have its own domain — it was subpage off of DEC’s website.
When Compaq bought out DEC, they too didn’t have much of a clue about what to do with Altavista other than to finally give it its own Altavista domain. By the time a late 90’s dot-com company CMGI, armed with tons of imaginary stock money, took a majority share in Altavista for $2.3 billion in 1999, for intents and purposes it was game over for Altavista — Google had come onto the scene with an improved search engine and a cleaner interface, and CMGI, as was typical of the buyout companies back then, just let Altavista deteriorate into irrelevance.
Another innovative search engine company, Northern Light, came onto the scene around the same time as Google and was very strong in publication searching, and I personally liked it a lot, but they too ended up being bought up by another bursting dot-com company, Divine. Like CMGI, Divine was funded by imaginary stock values and was buying up stuff without really doing anything with what they bought — they of course went bankrupt during the dot-com bust, and while Northern Light became independent again, they transformed into a much more scaled back, boutique-ish search engine business.
Other notable fumblers in search engine history are Yahoo and Microsoft. Microsoft’s search engine efforts, as typical with them, were always of a “me too” nature, never innovative, and while this worked well for their other products in a captured corporate environment, in the wild blue Internet world, that wasn’t good enough. Yahoo is one of the few early and pioneering web companies still around — it was initially a human-researched directory of the web, sort of like what About.com is like now. But they expanded into all sorts of directions during the dot-com boom. While they almost became another CMGI by making some dopey purchases, including one that made Mark Cuban a billionaire, they didn’t make enough bad mistakes to take them under, and their own self-developed core business was good enough to keep them going. But they too were always more “me too” when it came to web searching and were never innovators.
So Google got to where it is now by never forgetting about good R&D, being cautious in its purchases, and not allowing itself to be bought out in its development stage by some big, obviously clueless company. They simply avoided screwing up big time.
May 28, 2009 - 7:48 am 5. mike:<3 google
May 28, 2009 - 6:20 pm