Google - The portal is here.

Search is dead. Long live search.

[bakedjake]

In Google Under Siege - Fair or Unfair? [webmasterworld.com], hutcheson said:

I'd like more powerful "reprocess" tools, but Google has so far aimed for simplicity instead.

This comment struck me when I read it. It reminded me of a debate that's been raging for months now on another heralded geek toy - iPod vs. iPod mini.

The cheapest member of the iPod family is $299, and holds 15 GB of music. The mini iPod is $250, and holds 4 GB of music. Most geeks love their iPods - they store up to 40 GB on the expensive models. That's 25 days of music. When the mini was announced, everyone I know said the same thing: "Why in the hell would you pay $250 for 4 GB when you can get 11 GB more for $50 extra?"

Then, Apple sold tons of the minis. So much, in fact, that they can't keep up with production. They sold out two colors on their preorders.

Bottom line: People want a frekkin' music player, not a hard drive.

How does this relate to Google?

When you build a search engine, you have to assume that some users don't really care about ancillary features; that is, they just want a frekkin' search engine. Being a portal is nice, but as the early Google defectors showed, some people just want to search.

Google's starting to add a ton of features. We've got Froogle, Groups, News, etc.. On the horizon, we've got personalized search, local search, and web alerts. And Gmail. Basically, we've got a portal.

Portals are nice if packaged properly - I know technical people that have their homepage set to Yahoo! and MSN. I don't know why, but it seems to make them happy to see today's news, stocks, horoscopes, and other stuff when they boot their computer in the morning.

Portals and minis are sexy and attractive. Websearch and hard drives are not.

Do you think that people want frekkin' portals, and not search engines? And, once Google vacates its place and becomes a portal, will someone else take its place?

[mipapage]

Nice post bakedjake, great points.

But when I go to google, the most prominent thing I see is the search. In my toolbar (be it IE, Opera, or firefox), on my deskbar, google is still the easiest engine for me to access.

They may be adding a lot of features, but to the general public I'm not sure they see portal yet. Could they be doing this differently? <added>I mean to ask: are they 'going portal' differently?</added>

[edited by: mipapage at 11:56 pm (utc) on April 23, 2004]

[rfgdxm1]

>Do you think that people want frekkin' portals, and not search engines? And, once Google vacates its place and becomes a portal, will someone else take its place?

In its incarnation at the moment, the portal aspects of Google are pretty much buried. Only portal aspects are that Google has added links on the home page to "Images", "Groups", "News", "Froogle" (yuck; HOW in the name of Goddess is that an improvement over the old "Directory" link?), and a link to "more", where they list other options. However, easy for anyone to ignore those links, and just use Google as a SE.

[div01]

I *personally* miss the older style tabs, haven't quite gotten used to the current UI.

[bakedjake]

But when I go to google, the most prominent thing I see is the search.

In its incarnation at the moment, the portal aspects of Google are pretty much buried.

You both are, of course, absolutely correct. And when Google was launched, the first thing everyone noticed was how "clean" it looked. Many thumbs up were given to G for its interface. But how many non-techies switched at first? It took many, many news stories before G acquired its base. And then they just lost half of it with the Y! switch.

I mean to ask: are they 'going portal' differently?

My thoughts exactly. My mom made a comment the other day that made me think. I was over at her place reading G News. When she asked what it was, I explained to her (and launched into a monologue about how cool it was).

She then said "Why would you want to get your news there when you can just go to Yahoo! and get everything?"

Most non-techies don't know about G's additional features yet. Someone (I think it was Dealtime) mentioned at SES that their engine was most used by women. 1 GB of space doesn't matter to most people - they've been using Hotmail at 5 MB forever, and using it well. Corporate types won't use it as primary mail, either.

So - who is Google targetting with these new features? And, if it's not SEOers, how do they plan to roll it out to the public?

And, is the current G really that attractive to non-techies?

and a link to "more"

Which is a word you see on the web so much you've been trained to ignore it. Sometimes I wonder if G has two sets of copywriters - the ones that write things like "more" and the other tabs, and the ones that write great things like the Premium AdWords link here: [google.com...]

[dauction]

You guys are forgetting about one thing..the Google ToolBar ..nice clean uncluttered..just pure search ..that's your search tool ..Google.com is going to be your portal ..the scores and stocks at first glance in the morning thats what most "regular folk" want ...

Everything is added value for the surfer and add equates into addedd revenues for goolge..and with the IPO that's what will matter to the investors... a road map to more revenues and growth profitablity

[martinibuster]

Google is a hybrid-portal. Looked at from another angle, Google is a niche search engine. Niche is good because of the user intent issues that we've discussed here before.

• For the user it's a good deal because they don't have to look at flash ads for the latest Hollywood blockbuster.

• For Google it's bad because they can't sell real estate to those advertisers-
  
  
• Unless they shove Hollywood advertising into GMail and avoid the privacy invasion issue altogether AND capitalize on those fabulous branding advertisers currently locked in by Yahoo.

Memo to NYTimes: Your free ride may be over
Google news is a disaster. It's a money loser. It's not paying it's way. Google News is a loss leader. Post IPO the MBA's may ask for monetization solutions- PFI?

Doing it differently
Good for Google for finding a third way to make money when conventional wisdom said there were only two. Not a portal. Something different.

[caveman]

Jake I believe you touch on one of the great dilemmas facing G.

Think branding. (Incredibly important since both G and Y, and MSN for that matter, are consumer businesses at their core, meaing that without the consumer, they're dead).

Google brand = Fast, easy, most accurate (best) search...

Y! = great portal (as noted by your kitchen table research, i.e., mom).

Y! wants to compete with G in search, but is unwilling to leave some corners of basic search unmonetized.

G wants to compete with Y! in some spaces, but the essence of G's brand (and their success) is about simple, fast, easy, stremlined SEARCH.

Two oversized, overachieving youngsters, wanting to rule two overlapping playgrounds. Great fun to watch.

Ah, the formative years. I remember them well. :-)

[CathyM]

You guys are forgetting about one thing..the Google ToolBar ..nice clean uncluttered..just pure search ..that's your search tool ..Google.com is going to be your portal ..the scores and stocks at first glance in the morning thats what most "regular folk" want ...

That's why I have Yahoo as my portal and the google toolbar for search. I rarely go to the main google page. Google is still not, in my mind, a portal.

[Kirby]

Interesting post, Jake.

My reaction - "I dont need no stinkin portal". I agree with mom and CathyM.

[bakedjake]

Not a portal. Something different.

Like a media company? Now, with the Graphical Ads [adwords.google.com] announcement yesterday, they're competiting with DoubleClick, no?

We have Google going public. Their revenue comes from three basic areas at this point:

1. Google Appliance (monetizing the algorithm)
2. Google AdWords (monetizing the search)
3. Google AdSense (monetizing the distribution)

So, I didn't fully read the disclosures, but is the Google Appliance really making any money for them? Let's say no, and move on.

AdWords is obviously making money, but I see two things that could literally destroy it overnight - one, someone smart open-sourcing a clickbot. Two, what ever happened with that lawsuit that Overture filed? Remember that? [clickz.com]

Seems like number three is the smartest bet going forward, no?

[shrirch]

I agree with your conclusion, but do want to point out that there may be a significant conflict of interest with Yahoverture suing Google, given that they're also a fairly significant shareholder of Google.

[kazonik]

My 10 cents..

I like Google coz its uncluttered, pure search.
When I want a portal, I visit Google News.

Thats pretty much enough for me :)

Peace,
Kaz

[Mr Bo Jangles]

I'm with Kaz - I treat it exactly like that. Most searches I initiate from G bar, and I must visit Google News probably 100 times a day, as I'm sitting at my computer. I think Google News is a fantastic interface - there is something about the layout that allows my eye to scan the page and hit on what seems new and interesting, like no other portal/page of the same info density I can think of.

[Chndru]

portals are good for starters. Infact, very good since it allows them to have "wide exposure" to various stuff that's on web. But, internet surfers learn very fast about what they need. And invariably, their needs can't be satisfied by portals and there come, search engines. And once they learn that, with SEs you can navigate pretty much everywhere, their portal-affection is much lost.

[pleeker]

I think the one thing the Google portal will do differently is the interface. They'll always have that ultra-simple Google.com home page ... and if you want to use the portal features, the Gmail, the new Google Groups, the News, the Shopping, all that stuff, you'll have to go to it. Yahoo, on the other hand, shoves it all in your face right on the home page in traditional portal style.

At least I hope Google keeps it ultra-simple. :)