It's equally silly to think that Google forcing Youtube (how much was that acquistion?) and other Universal Search acquisitions down searchers throats isn't about money, either.
Let's take an example for a highly searched word that can be both informational and commercial.
Why the heck is the #3 listing a song by a somewhat popular band?
Is it because of the song's infinite popularity?
Nope, it's one of the bands worse songs and never had national airtime.
Is it because masses of people are searching for the song?
Nope, according to a quick bug in Youtube, not even a handful of people are added to their favorites or visit the page.
Oh yes, it's about "diversity".
Except that the name of the song just happens to be "highly searched widgets".
Nobody is actually having difficulty finding the song, cause no one wants to hear it.
But it's a good way to advertise YOUTUBE which Goog is still figuring out how to make profitable.
Like EVERY company, politician, public figure....
National recorded interview = lots of bs spin that may or probably won't resemble truth.
So let's try to read between the lines, shall we?
Or did I miss the massive write-in campaign insisting that Goog force youtube videos in the top 5 results? Deserving or not?!
Ah yes, this is more sound reasoning. :)
Gimme a break, as p/g points out, who ACTUALLY believes that Goog engineers are allowed to do whatever they want regardless of profit-potential?
That's corporate negligence and every investor should be calling the board of directors to have a very SERIOUS discussion about lost dividends.
No worries tho, cause Udi's statement was corporate spin...
No, actually, it was a corporate gaffe that I'm sure the lawyers will tell him not to "phrase so oddly" about in future interviews. ;)