TheOptimizationIdiot - 6:51 pm on Apr 15, 2013 (gmt 0)
But ponder this - one of the biggest threats to Google - perhaps THE biggest - is not Bing or Yahoo! It's accusations of being too monopolistic and controlling, and subsequent legislation being made against it. This isn't even a conspiracy theory. Google have - even with 70%-odd share - been dealing with this accusation for years. There's no way they can simply shoot for such a high market share without seriously jeopardising their no.1 position.
Market share is based on number of queries conducted.
To lower or just maintain their market share % Google can either lose visitors (and ad click revenue) as a percentage of searchers or people have to find the answer they're looking for with less queries on Google, meaning Google's results must get better, not worse, for them to lower or not grow market share and maintain profitability.
What they need to do to keep from having too much market share while retaining profitability is the exact opposite of what you are suggesting they're doing. The worse their results, the more queries people have to make to find what they're looking for and the more queries people make on average the higher their market share becomes.
See AT & T's sudden ability to offer gigabit connectivity as a reference to the "good enough" mentality.
As I said previously, the "good enough" mentality is what gets you passed by when others don't do things that way. ATT is a perfect example of what I said.
They lost market share to a company they shouldn't have, because they worked with a "good enough" mentality. If they had just done what they're doing now initially it would have been much tougher for Google to "get in the game" while ATT would have set the standard and retained their market share much more easily.
The "good enough" mentality isn't as profitable as you seem to think.