Forum Moderators: Robert Charlton & goodroi
Amazon have changed their search provider from google to MS, is this a vote of no confidence in google, or a cheaper option for amazons A9.com search tool?
Google's still living in 2003 when they were a glorified "university project" and didn't have to answer to anyone.
This is big business boys! Time to start acting like it.
confirms that not just blackhat or small-time "webmasters" are either tired of Google's arrogance and/or don't feel Google is headed in the right direction search-wise.
I suspect that it's more of a dollar-and-cents decision on Amazon's part than anything else.
Sure. Amazon is a business, after all.
But it is good news for small time webmasters, in no uncertain terms.
How so?
First Alexa. Now Amazon. Is AOL next?
Not if we're to believe this press release [google.com] from December 20, 2005.
Perhaps Bill Gates explained it better in August of 1991: "You have to know when to hold back. If the takeoff curve in something is very gradual, then the early guys who pay extra money and take extra risk aren't protected."
First Alexa. Now Amazon. Is AOL next?
Not unless Google is planning to sell its 5%, 1 billion dollar stake in AOL...
[edited by: tedster at 8:09 pm (utc) on May 9, 2006]
Google lost Amazon to MS -----> Whipty Doo
honestly folks get real a sec, Amazon is nothing and I mean nothing compared to AOL in terms of search headcount.
What exactly is Google's product again? :)
"Whenever the largest online retailer makes a decision, it's going to be a big deal," said Silicon Valley technology analyst Rob Enderle. "They're the bellwether for their segment. What they do, others will likely do or consider doing."
This really says it all, doesn't it?
Wait, wait! Quite on the contrary! This only confirms how big Google are nowadays. Even Amazon are afraid of getting too dependant on Google monster and try to escape from what is now known as 'Google Ecosystem' - i.e. the community of entirely Google-dependant sites...
That's a joke, right? Amazon isn't part of a "community of sites," it's a business, and it goes with the partner that offers it the best deal, revenue potential, or strategic alliance.
But it is good news for small time webmasters, in no uncertain terms.How so?
I am not impressed, because there is nothing to be impressed! When it comes to searching, there is no point in making parallels between Google+AOL and MS+Amazon! To prove what I mean let me ask you, how many of you get traffic from A9.com?
It's not that Amazon sends traffic, but they've got a consumer, buying type of audience and the more branding for search MSN gets the more eyeballs they'll attract within the target demographic for a lot of individual entrepreneurs who can potentially do very well at MSN - with normal, every-day websites rather than high profile or deep pockets sites.
For now, anyway.
[edited by: Marcia at 11:24 pm (utc) on May 2, 2006]
That's a joke, right?
PS: europeforvisitors no to be disrepectfull but do you work for Google, it seem everytime someone says something bad about google you bring you Google pom poms out :P no offense bro just a observation.
I think it's not big of a deal, but like someone mention amazon is a big site for regular internet users and if they see a big site like amazon using msn they might switch to it
But aren't the results going to be branded as A9 results? That was the impression I got. And even if "Powered by MSN Search" is displayed above the A9 search results, how many users are going to notice or care?
I just don't think this is an earth-shattering announcement. It certainly isn't as newsworthy as Yahoo's defection from Google was (and let's face it: Google's market share has increased, not decreased, since Yahoo went its own way).
PS: europeforvisitors no to be disrepectfull but do you work for Google, it seem everytime someone says something bad about google you bring you Google pom poms out :P no offense bro just a observation.
No, I don't work for Google, and I don't know anyone at Google. I do think it's a mistake to let resentment and other emotions get in the way of rational thought. (When my own Google referrals dropped by 70-90% for two months last year, I didn't let the overnight loss of traffic and revenue color my judgment--just as I'm not letting my current sometimes adequate, sometimes good, and sometimes excellent rankings in Google color my judgment now.)
BTW, I think the current rage for Google-bashing is simply a reflection of human nature: When you're on top, everyone wants to knock you off your perch. I'm sure that, a few years ago, a lot of the people who praise Microsoft on these forums now were ranting about Bill Gates and his attempts to take over the world. Who knows--one of these days, we may even see WW members saying positive things about AOL. :-)
I do think it's a mistake to let resentment and other emotions get in the way of rational thought.
It's those same "emotions" that allow Google to capture a larger share of searches than perhaps logic dictates.
It's those same "emotions" that started Google's rise to glory as "emotional" webmasters recommended Google over other searches.
It will be the same "emotions" that may or may not be Google's downfall.
People do EVERYTHING according to "emotions" and use logic afterwards to justify it.
Any good businessman knows this. :)
Google will either figure this out and continue to thrive or not.
How's the old saying go?
Provide bad service (percieved or reality) and that customer will tell everyone and their mom.
Provide good service and the customer MIGHT tell 1 or 2 people...
[edited by: whitenight at 1:31 am (utc) on May 3, 2006]
