Re:There’s No Such Thing As A Google Killer
by kingsley_20 on Tuesday July 28, 2009 @08:39PM
(#729198)
Two men woke up in their campsite one morning to radio news that a man-eating tiger was on the prowl. One man promptly started wearing his running shoes, while the second teased him: "surely, you don't think you're going to outrun the tiger in those?!". "I don't have to outrun the tiger", replied the first man. "I only have to outrun you."
They don't have to kill _Google_. Outsurviving Y! Or Bing will do handsomely.
PS: that said, comparing google to coke is an analogy without legs.
Re:There’s No Such Thing As A Google Killer
by enomar on Tuesday July 28, 2009 @09:07PM
(#729227)
Yahoo and Bing are full service search engines. If they execute well, they could eventually become "Google killers".
I think the premise of this article was that just because Blekko is in the search space, doesn't mean it's trying to replace Google (or Yahoo or Bing). They think they can succeed by being Mt. Dew rather than Pepsi.
Re:There’s No Such Thing As A Google Killer
by yan on Tuesday July 28, 2009 @08:30PM
(#729195)
"X Killer" never meant that in my experience. It is phrased as such because it generates clicks and ad revenue. That's it. A lot of headlines are hyperbolic because they are designed to garner attention.
They also serve to introduce concepts to people who aren't familiar with the field. Saying "web search start up" to a layman isn't going to excite much, but "google killer" will, regardless of accuracy.
Re:There’s No Such Thing As A Google Killer
by rimantas on Wednesday July 29, 2009 @02:11AM
(#729538)
Was there ever a "X killer" that actually killed the X? I cannot think of one example. If something is branded that way, must be a loser already. True "X killers" are like ninjas that come unnoticed and unexpected.
Re:There’s No Such Thing As A Google Killer
by froo on Wednesday July 29, 2009 @04:42AM
(#729700)
"Was there ever a "X killer" that actually killed the X?"
I would think Dell, Amazon and Wikipedia would this idea.
That being said, I would define "X killer" as an organisation that completely dominates it's field. In all of the above cases, they managed to beat their competitors in price point and range.
Re:There’s No Such Thing As A Google Killer
by michaelfairley on Tuesday July 28, 2009 @11:29PM
(#729382)
The Google killer isn't going to be a search engine, just as the Microsoft killer isn't a software company, just as the IBM killer wasn't a computer manufacturer.
Re:There’s No Such Thing As A Google Killer
by prawn on Tuesday July 28, 2009 @09:16PM
(#729235)
IMO, on search and presentation of results, Google can be beaten.
I just do not believe that what they have there now is the best that can be achieved in this field. It's plain, makes limited use of colour to provide more information about results (is this page for a business, is it a forum, is it a MFA info site, is it a blog, or a mailing list archive?), gets pretty messy once the top and side ad positions are full, may rely too much on the title tag in presenting results, could provide larger targets for paging, etc.
Re:There’s No Such Thing As A Google Killer
by maxwell on Tuesday July 28, 2009 @09:13PM
(#729232)
'Tisn't "product killers" but "category killers". Google isn't the Microsoft killer because they've a better desktop platform, it's that they're making desktop platforms irrelevant. All we can know of the hypothetical/eventual Google killer is that they won't be competing on but with search/advertising.
Re:There’s No Such Thing As A Google Killer
by vaksel on Tuesday July 28, 2009 @09:35PM
(#729252)
There is no Google killer, but there are thousands of vultures ready to exploit any weakness.
At worst Google will end up as Yahoo/Microsoft, a legacy company that did something important in the past. They just have too much brand equity to fade into the sunset.
Re:There’s No Such Thing As A Google Killer
by david927 on Tuesday July 28, 2009 @11:03PM
(#729359)
Technology is not Coke. Google is a huge brand, but brand only matters when it comes to brand loyalty, and in technology there is no brand loyalty.
The minute someone comes up with something significantly better (and it will happen), Google will join Yahoo and many others in the "former king of the hill, still important, just not very influential" camp.
Re:There’s No Such Thing As A Google Killer
by jacquesm on Wednesday July 29, 2009 @07:40AM
(#729804)
The only company even remotely in a position to kill google is google itself. If they mess up badly enough in the eyes of their users then there would be a mass exodus, as long as they keep doing what they're doing now they will outlast all of us.
Re:There’s No Such Thing As A Google Killer
by maurycy on Tuesday July 28, 2009 @11:37PM
(#729392)
It would be interesting to analyse past articles about IBM and Microsoft and check at what point of the cycle, now with Google, we are.
Also, one must realize that there is no such thing as search market, as well as there is no such market as restaurant's market. There is only market of finding answers, or buying food and social status.
Thus, to get a new Google we have to wait for a paradigm shift. Computers enabled IBM; personal computers enabled Microsoft; Internet enabled Google, etc.
They don't have to kill _Google_. Outsurviving Y! Or Bing will do handsomely.
PS: that said, comparing google to coke is an analogy without legs.
Edit: clarified based on reply.
I think the premise of this article was that just because Blekko is in the search space, doesn't mean it's trying to replace Google (or Yahoo or Bing). They think they can succeed by being Mt. Dew rather than Pepsi.
They also serve to introduce concepts to people who aren't familiar with the field. Saying "web search start up" to a layman isn't going to excite much, but "google killer" will, regardless of accuracy.
I would think Dell, Amazon and Wikipedia would this idea.
That being said, I would define "X killer" as an organisation that completely dominates it's field. In all of the above cases, they managed to beat their competitors in price point and range.
I just do not believe that what they have there now is the best that can be achieved in this field. It's plain, makes limited use of colour to provide more information about results (is this page for a business, is it a forum, is it a MFA info site, is it a blog, or a mailing list archive?), gets pretty messy once the top and side ad positions are full, may rely too much on the title tag in presenting results, could provide larger targets for paging, etc.
This is a weakness that can be exploited by a new competitor. Cuil did some work in that area, it was promising.
I prefer googles "raw" results - it leaves the processing to my brain rather than a computer :)
At worst Google will end up as Yahoo/Microsoft, a legacy company that did something important in the past. They just have too much brand equity to fade into the sunset.
The minute someone comes up with something significantly better (and it will happen), Google will join Yahoo and many others in the "former king of the hill, still important, just not very influential" camp.
Also, one must realize that there is no such thing as search market, as well as there is no such market as restaurant's market. There is only market of finding answers, or buying food and social status.
Thus, to get a new Google we have to wait for a paradigm shift. Computers enabled IBM; personal computers enabled Microsoft; Internet enabled Google, etc.
Google.
Google would only be completely to blame for lost market share if its competitors were completely stagnant, which they are clearly not.