| This 113 message thread spans 4 pages: < < 113 ( 1  3 4 ) > > || |
|Is Google Scared? Reactions or Planned Development|
When I look at some of the changes made at Google I wonder if they've changed their mentality from 'market leader', 'standard setter everyone wants to follow', 'simple and friendly' to 'what are we going to do to continue holding our visitors, revenue and market share'?
Many here have pointed out they are mostly garbage. We're these planned to be integrated all along, or were they integrated as a reaction to Bing?
Fading Home Page
Come on... Was this designed and planned well in advance, or was it a reaction to Bing being way 'cooler' than Google... (I have an idea Bing may be 'the choice of a new generation'(or one of them), because I actually didn't use it until a high school student said they tried searching for something on Bing and Google like it was expected for them to use both.)
Search by Submitting a Photo
Sounds like the use of some technology Microsoft developed I read about not too long ago, but don't remember where to cite the source. (Maybe someone else can shed some light on what it is. It had to do with Micorsoft's SilverLight technology.)
Long-term plan, or as Brett says, Bing Envy IOW a knee-jerk reaction?
People are against behavioral ad targeting, do they really think people want what are essentially behavioral search results by default?
Honestly, I think Google's started reacting rather than leading to some degree, because they're are definitely getting 'out cooled' by Bing just about every step of the way...
And what's even more interesting to me is they're not being chased by some start-up or someone they can buy out. They're being hounded and chased for market share by a company that crushes them in annual revenue and already has a worldwide user base, so I think they're going to have to keep doing it to keep up with the revenue pace they've set for themselves, because there's not much room for Google to go anywhere, except down...
Matt Cutts used to say when he asked people what they liked about Google they often said it was simple and easy to use... Maybe he should have been asking what they liked about the competition instead?
2010 could be an interesting year in the search market, me thinks.
Could Google fail? Can a big company really fall? Myspace has lost half of its traffic in the last 12 months. Remember AltaVista? Excite? Gone.
Google has had 10 years to come up with a business plan. It still doesn't have one. Google has 10,000 Ivy League graduates with 4.3 GPAs and NOT A SINGLE ONE OF THEM has figured out how to make money.
98% of Google's revenues comes from Adwords, which they copied from GoTo.com (and they got sued and they paid a billion dollars to settle).
Google has no innovation (their products were invented elsewhere or they're copies of other products), no deep mutually-beneficial relationships with industries, no ecosystem.
Keep your eyes on Facebook. It will soon be #1. Facebook changes the game.
|Sometimes companies shoot themselves in the foot trying for perfection in one development cycle. It's usually better to make your mistakes quickly - and then spot and fix them quickly, too. |
Was this a story about OS2 and MS Windows?
Bing has been around some time now and the latest Comscore figures show that the Bing / Yahoo combined share remains almost static as does the Google share. Microsoft is piling in money and effort to Bing (USA anyway) and moving only fractionally without any corresponding drop in the Google share.
The other minor players are slowly but surely loosing market share, that is with the exception of the social media sites like MySpace, YouTube Facebook etc. I agree with the previous poster that these are where the threat lies to Google, although Google already owns YouTube. When the younger generation want to know how to make / service / review widgets, they are increasingly going to the social media and video sites rather than the established search engines.
It's my opinion that video sites (YouTube is the only real player here) are the area where the battle is slowly moving to. The Microsoft attack on Google's share may well be misplaced, they should be attacking YouTube' share of the video market. YouTube / Google has roughly a 90% share of the video search market, making the cost of YouTube ($1.65 billion) look increasingly good value for money.
Is Microsoft fighting a battle (and not winning) in an area that is declining? Maybe Google is happy that Microsoft pours billions into that particular market whilst Google builds itself up in more relevant areas.
Very interesting debate.
I think Google are trying to do too many things.
I think they should make their search results better.
Eg putting 6 year old forum posts on the top of a search page is not good.
Relying on one income stream (adwords is not good) especially when I don't use it.
Being allowed to offer every other product for free is also not good, how can anyone else compete with that !
Trying to digitise the worlds books is not good either. Let the publishers do that if they want to.
Do no evil ?
Having said that I do admire Larry and Serge for what they created initially, its a great story.
Other products to disappear over night ?
|Other products to disappear over night ? |
|Google has been working on this for years. It's pretty easy to find on the web. Not sure what MS has been doing. |
The same thing the other way around... I read about what Microsoft had been doing with image comparison, but not Google, so this one may not be reactionary at all, but rather pre-planned.
Instead of contradicting me, please just do a search for facts. It's a disservice to people reading these threads to supply opinion stated as facts when the truth is easily obtained. That's what I did. You will see that I was right. ;)
Now if only we could get Applesense for publishers... ;-)
|Actually, I was thinking about search users not the income from those search users. You're talking about the monetizing of the traffic, not the traffic itself, which IMO is a different question... |
I agree however globally advertisers are used to AdWords and will surely have to find a viable alternative like BingWords very quickly to keep up their sales etc.
If BingWords does not appear quickly and with good relevant ads they may find searchers reverting to Google or the user may actually have to search and how many know how to do that properly other than through ebay?
|Instead of contradicting me, please just do a search for facts. It's a disservice to people reading these threads to supply opinion stated as facts when the truth is easily obtained. That's what I did. You will see that I was right. ;) |
I didn't contradict you...
Seriously, I did the same thing the other way around.
There's no disservice in saying I did the same thing the other direction. I read about what Microsoft did, not Google in this area and said you were probably right in what Google was doing not being a reaction.
[edited by: tedster at 8:22 pm (utc) on Jan. 21, 2010]
|I agree however globally advertisers are used to AdWords and will surely have to find a viable alternative like BingWords very quickly to keep up their sales etc. |
The preceding is about advertisers, and I don't see how they directly impact searchers? Maybe indirectly, but I don't see direct impact, or their revenue having anything to do with the search market share, the preceding stated:
|If BingWords does not appear quickly and with good relevant ads they may find searchers reverting to Google or the user may actually have to search and how many know how to do that properly other than through ebay? |
This one's an interesting point to me... And leads me to the question:
If Searchers need the AdSense Ads to find what they are looking for, how good is Google in the first place? Or, IOW: How much better is Google as a search engine for the average searcher than any other search engine if searchers have to have a supply of ads on the results to find the answer they were looking for?
Personally, I've used both, and have been using Bing for quite a while now and still find what I need rather easily, but I'm also fairly good at searching, so my ability to use either may not apply to most users, but I can say I have not changed my queries too much to find similar results. I don't always find the same sites, but I do find the answer I need within the sites presented by Bing as easily as I did with Google.
I dont think Google will die anytime too soon, as generally, they are good planners. I think it might help if they just treated their clients a little better, especially the ones that pay them.
TheMadScientist, I really don't think that Bing out-cooled G in any way. The interface of Bing is cramped, too much graphics for nothing, and impossoble to distinguish ads from SERPS on my screen's color.
The Twitter search thing does look like a reaction to Bing, but it's much better implemented than Bing's. And don't forget that it takes time to do such a thing, so I wouldn't be surprised if G started it before M$. Finally, don't forget either that once something works there is no need to change it (unless there is competition, as when Bing started).
Bing has nothing but the 2 usual M$ arm-twisters, called:
Sorry, but that's the truth. And in reality, that is more than enough to make G sweat, and react.
|TheMadScientist, I really don't think that Bing out-cooled G in any way. The interface of Bing is cramped, too much graphics for nothing, and impossoble to distinguish ads from SERPS on my screen's color. |
Personally, I really like the Bing interface...
And, IMO most searchers don't really care if they clicked on an Ad or organic result if they find what they are looking for on the site they visit, so while WE may know there is a difference, IMO most do not and if they do, they do not care.
Also, Bing's interface took me a bit to get used to, mainly because it's not Google... It's different, and honestly, IMO not so 'geek' and a bit refreshing. To me it says: 'Search is not an operating room and does not need to be conducted in a sterile environment.'
|Bing has nothing but the 2 usual M$ arm-twisters, called: |
And the Windows User Base (not sure if that's what you meant), but more importantly:
Huge Cash Flow coupled with the M$ Marketing...
This is where I'd be most worried if I was at Google, because IMO they're about to see the power of marketing in a way not too many companies except Apple, which IMO had a superior product they could not sell for years, because they didn't have the marketing, and BurgerKing, which just can't compete with the McDonald's advertising, have... I saw a Verizon commercial the other night with two BlackBerries being advertised; Both had Bing on the screen...
|And in reality, that is more than enough to make G sweat, and react. |
And IMO it should be...
The other thing I'd be worried about if I was at G is they've 'stepped on' (p***** off) or are in competition with: Yahoo!, Bing / Microsoft, Apple, FireFox / Mozilla, Webmasters (What Seems Like Many to Me) ... Those are some big players in the online game and when your business is dependent on visitors choosing you over them and their offerings in one way or another it doesn't seem overly prudent to make them not like you any more than is absolutely necessary, to me anyway.
|Bing has been around some time now and the latest Comscore figures show that the Bing / Yahoo combined share remains almost static as does the Google share. |
I don't think it will be a quick shift, and there has not yet been an extended major Bing marketing campaign... We might be in the middle of one, but Bing itself is only 7 months old. If they haven't accomplished anything in 2 or 3 years, then they might be a bit upset, but 7 months is really nothing, IMO. (It took Apple 20 about years to really start to dig into the PC market at all, and the reason Google 'exploded' out of the gate was providing results to Yahoo! if I remember correctly.)
|It's my opinion that video sites (YouTube is the only real player here) are the area where the battle is slowly moving to. The Microsoft attack on Google's share may well be misplaced, they should be attacking YouTube' share of the video market. YouTube / Google has roughly a 90% share of the video search market ... |
And if you only searched on Google, you could think YouTube is the only site with videos on the entire Internet... The Microsoft attack may be misplaced, but it also might be right on target, unless you are suggesting they should go start (or buy) a video site that will never get traffic from Google because it's not YouTube... Honestly, you could be right, but it may also be the path to a viable video site to compete with YouTube is through search engine traffic and results, because then you have the free promotion of a site which will not ever be promoted on Google over YouTube.
Personally, search is right where I would hit Google, because it's their foundation and if / when their search market share declines, so does the rest of what they own. I think it's a good place to attack, because it hits their free marketing. One of the biggest issues I have with Google is it seems they have switched from promoting the Internet to promoting Google and personally, I know about YouTube and Google Maps, etc and if those are the results I want I'll visit YouTube or whatever other 'Google Property' they seem to be trying to shove down my throat. To me, when I search I want variety, not 'The GoogleNet' or even Twitter (I know how to get there too)...
|The other thing I'd be worried about if I was at G is they've 'stepped on' |
I think this is a huge factor. Advertisers and publishers are chomping at the bit to diversify away from G for their total disregard for our businesses. G has spent the past 4 years smacking its paying customers with their SEO 'us vs. them' mentality, and they've made us all fearful in the process....even the people who SHOULD have nothing to fear.
ok well since people still use the "M$" thing like its 1997 im going to start "g$$gle"
And if you only searched on Google, you could think YouTube is the only site with videos on the entire Internet
if you don't want to find, youtube videos, twitter, or endless wikipedia results you shouldn't be using google.
|if you don't want to find, youtube videos, twitter, or endless wikipedia results you shouldn't be using google. |
I don't use Google... ;)
But that's not really the point of the thread or the post you quoted... The point of the post was the best place to start chipping away at their market share and revenue and I think Search is the best place to start, because it gives you access to the people who think YouTube is the only place to post a video on the Internet and makes it easier to create (or buy) a viable video posting site to compete with the GoogleNet.
[edited by: TheMadScientist at 12:59 am (utc) on Jan. 22, 2010]
The odd thing about Google is that search doesn't really matter. People spend less than 5% of their online time at search engines. They search, they find, they click, they're gone. The search engine generally gets nothing out of this.
That's why Google couldn't make any money from 1997 to 2002 (five years). Nobody wanted search. In desperation, they tried to sell the search engine to Yahoo for $1m, but Yahoo turned it down. It would have just undermined Yahoo.
Google isn't a search engine company: it's an ad distribution company.
Bing doesn't have to do better search. Nobody has to be better than Google to beat Google. They only have to undermine Google Adwords revenue.
Each Google data center costs $300-500 million to build. There are perhaps 20. The yearly operations cost of the data centers is another $3 billion per year (and probably a bit more than that).
Someone wrote about Youtube: that cost $700m in 2009 to operate (both hardware plus licenses). Various industry analysts estimate Youtube makes between $100-500m per year (yes, a wide range). Even at the highest number, Youtube loses $200m per year. It probably loses more. Online video currently exists because Google is willing to fund it. If Google has to save money and cuts the online video, it will disappear. Nobody is willing to risk $700m per year (what it takes to run a Youtube). (Enjoy those cat videos while you can!)
All of this rides on Google's trick pony: Adwords.
Bing doesn't have to be better than Google. It only has to pull down some of Google's revenues.
China's ecommerce grew 30% (to $11B) in 2009 and will grow 50% in 2010 (to $16B). Google earns $600m in China. Anyone seriously think that Google will abandon that?
|The odd thing about Google is that search doesn't really matter. People spend less than 5% of their online time at search engines. They search, they find, they click, they're gone. The search engine generally gets nothing out of this. |
I think there's a bit more to it than this, because Google can cite 'big number market share' as a reason to advertise... Look at another view of it: If you're in charge of business advertising and your boss asks where you're advertising online, IMO you better say Google or your boss is probably going to say, 'Why are you avoiding the company with 70% market share? Look at all the views we're losing... You could put our name in front of the search engine 70% of people use to find stuff and you're not... See You Later!' They aren't going to care what the numbers you cited really are and the numbers aren't going to be too much different for Bing, so there's no real argument against advertising with Google ATM IMO, which means: See Below.
|Bing doesn't have to be better than Google. It only has to pull down some of Google's revenues. |
Absolutely, and my point exactly...
All Bing has to do is start chipping into the base and IMO revenue will follow the searchers, so to me it seems getting people to give up the 'sterilized' green, white and blue GoogleNet results is a good place to start at chipping into their income and ultimately their overall market share.
|Personally, search is right where I would hit Google, because it's their foundation and if / when their search market share declines, so does the rest of what they own. |
Yes, and no.
Yes, because search is Google's foundation AND the place where most of the profit is generated. Adsense may generate as much as 31% of the revenue, but since Google has to share a lot of this revenue with publishers, the profit share from Adsense is probably less than 10% (I did not bother to look up the exact figures). So search is the financial foundation, and an attack here is much needed.
No, because competing "just" in search will leave out many many other areas where Google is =really= weak and can not take too many blows. Take news and content for example. If Microsoft were smart they would seek exclusive deals with the most important MSM properties on the web AND MAKE A BIG FUZZ ABOUT IT. While many might deny the importance of MSM today, those media still draw in tremendous amounts of people. Also, if they would sign such deals, you might also see a shift in reporting, away from the "Google love" we are still seeing today towards a more serious reporting.
But even if Microsoft does not attack Google where it would be easier (than in search): there are many companies and interest groups that have an axe to grind with Google. This will ultimately kill Google. They made just too many enemies. It's just a matter of time until the perception in the general public will change. Personally, I believe this will happen in 2010.
G's last quarter results don't seem to indicate any current problems.
|G's last quarter results don't seem to indicate any current problems. |
A black box, an almost infinite combination of display/distribution possibilities, conversion data, and very ambiguous "quality scores" give a company a lot of latitude to drive up revenue and push down costs. But you can only stretch that rubber band so far.
|Personally, I believe this will happen in 2010. |
It already is happening.
I come into contact with clients,people and friends every day who know what I do and respect my opinions.
Guess how many of them don't use Google anymore thanks to me :)
PDivi is right. Without transparency, Google can manage the numbers to produce the needed result.
Adsense has continually lowered the payout and increased the click fee. Efficient Frontier reported that in 2008, Google raised the cost-per-click for Content by 20.4%, while Yahoo's CPC dropped by 4.7%. It had nothing to do with "auction bid competition".
|Google has no innovation (their products were invented elsewhere or they're copies of other products), no deep mutually-beneficial relationships with industries, no ecosystem. |
In Google's defense: I think you're being too harsh. Google does innovate quite a bit. And they didn't quite "copy" GoTo.com - they actually made it much more efficient by using other metrics than simply advertisers' bids.
But forming symbiotic relationships is another matter. Actually, that's where I see the root of the problem. Collectively, they behave like a child suffering from some form of autism. They pursue efficiency and simply don't understand why anyone would object to their grandiose designs on our lives and our data. Real-life words and concepts like "culture", "relationships", "feelings", etc mean absolutely nothing in Mountain View. Their "culture" is what can be measured in bytes, milliseconds or dollars. Everything else is immaterial, irrelevant and unnecessary.
One day, to their big surprise, they'll find out that the world doesn't consist ONLY of data and traffic and speedy algorithms to crunch that data; a strange unknown entity called GOODWILL, as well as such unimportant quality as the ABILITY TO PLAY NICE WITH OTHERS can be crucial to one's success.
Well said Loudspeaker.
Personally, I believe this will happen in 2010.
It already is happening.
I come into contact with clients, people and friends every day who know what I do and respect my opinions.
Guess how many of them don't use Google anymore thanks to me :)
Same here, takes a bit to explain it all to them but in the end, they get it.
My prediction is that Bing will have the majority of search by July 1st. And if they keep up the BS with caffeine and these irrelevant and spurratic rankings and SERPs, it may even happen by March 1st.
IMHO, I think people use Google because it was catchy in the early 2000s.. "Google it!" People followed, and they stick with it simply because they're used to it. I used yahoo for the longest time, and one day I just switched to Google and have never went back. I still have my yahoo mail, but never use yahoo for search.
Think of it this way - aside from SEOs, would the general public have any damn idea if lets say, googles SERPs were replace with Bings'? If it still looked like Google, regardless of what order the listings are in, nobody would know the difference..
Bing does have a few flaws, but they also have some killer features.
I think I am going to use Bing for the next 2 weeks, to search for anything personal (meaning aside from work related/SEO) and see if I decide Bing is better after that 2 weeks. I'm guessing I'll stay on Bing.
Google - as much as I love ya, I think you've reached the end of the line.
|And they didn't quite "copy" GoTo.com... |
So in your eyes, they didn't quite pay a billion dollars to settle the lawsuit? :-)
Just the facts, m'am. Google copied Goto; Goto sued; Google was obligated to pay a billion dollars to settle.
|My prediction is that Bing will have the majority of search by July 1st. |
Based on what?
|My prediction is that Bing will have the majority of search by July 1st. |
I think that's a little ambitious.
But, I'm seeing Bing more and more on TV, Commercials(verizons) and if Apple puts it on the Iphone, the writing is on the wall for Google.
| This 113 message thread spans 4 pages: < < 113 ( 1  3 4 ) > > |