We're piloting a new feature on Read/WriteWeb, called Point/Counterpoint. It's where two authors (John Milan and Alex Iskold in this case) argue two sides of an intriguing question. We'd also like you, the reader, to contribute YOUR thoughts in the comments section. Who do you agree with the most - John or Alex - and why?
John Milan: Can Google take over the internet? By many indications, they have already taken over the access point: search. Just like stepping on the gas in your car, Google search is making the Internet go for most of the 1.1 billion internet users in the world. However, unlike automotive manufacturers, Google has found a way to get revenue - every time you look at a billboard on the information superhighway. As such, Google's network effect is monetizing the world's largest network.
Alex Iskold: Google has certainly got a huge head start in the search/ad game and there is no challenger on the horizon. But that does not mean Google can take over and own the entire Internet. It is no longer the Microsoft/PC era where customers have no choice. Today's environment is far more agile, allowing customers to be highly selective and receive different services from different sites. Just because Google search is great and Gmail is good, does not mean that people will use Froogle.
The Web is a huge creative playground and far wider than the PC world, so Google is not going to be the best in all major market segments.
John Milan: Yes but Google's incredible feedback loop is being fed not so much by consumers on the net, but by businesses pouring dollars into the world's most efficient marketing machine. Just to underscore how important Google's AdWords system is to business today, I recently paused my company's Google AdWords program in order to perform an experiment. As a result, our traffic immediately went down 33%. This tells me three things:
1) Smaller businesses rely on Google to draw traffic to their
products;
2) Traditional media and traditional partner programs are under severe pressure;
3) My experiment won't last very long!
I can only assume Google search and AdWords are as effective for other businesses.
Alex Iskold: AdWords is very strong, but the Retail market is difficult to break into and in that market Google does not have a big play. The only seemingly realistic entry is via Froogle and Checkout - where goods from many sites are aggregated onto one page. But that can never result in the complete user experience like Amazon. So catching up in the retail space is a difficult exercise.
John Milan: I think Google is shooting much higher than retail margins. And unless Microsoft quickly shows that its Live initiative is in fact alive (where is Live in the Microsoft cloud?), businesses will more and more eschew traditional media for Google's online empire. Just as Windows provided Microsoft with virtually limitless capital to create applications, Google's search and AdWords cash engine will create more interesting internet properties for even more users to explore.
Alex Iskold: I am not convinced, because the basic UIs of Google have limited application. Google is known for its ascetic approach to UI and it works well at times, but certainly not in all cases. For example, a music or movie website needs to be content-rich and have bells and whistles. A lot of people do not like the bare look of Google and want more powerful, perhaps even an Apple-like, experience online. Whether or not Google can deliver such experiences is a big question.
John Milan: I agree Google's spartan approach is an issue. However, they have done rich desktop apps like Google Desktop and Google Talk. There's certainly nothing preventing them from creating more rich apps, both on the web and on the desktop. So can Google take over the Internet? Which is more powerful: 250 million new PCs per year running browsers, or 1.1 billion users per day performing searches?
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.readwriteweb.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1899
Comments
Subscribe to comments for this post OR Subscribe to comments for all Read/WriteWeb posts
Well, probably yes but not soon, this is going to prolong for sure and might be a possiblity that may become the only search engines available.
Posted by: Dedicated hosting | January 23, 2007 2:55 AM
I don't agree that video/audio sites needs to content rich. Earlier IM also supposed to be an app with rich UI, but see Goggle Talk can work without much bells and whistles. Same will be the case, if google thinks of entering this arena
Posted by: Varun | January 23, 2007 4:59 AM
Can you tone it down with the black on red and white on black dialog markers? They're brutal and very distracting. What's wrong with
John Milan etc?
Posted by: Terry Jones | January 23, 2007 5:46 AM
I liked this concept, it's good to see the issue broadly.
Posted by: Emre Sokullu | January 23, 2007 5:47 AM
I touched on this right before Halloween:
http://billy-girlardo.com/Google/2006/10/25/is-this-firsthand-experience-of-google-taking-over-the-internet/
It's already happening and there is no turning back now IMO.
Posted by: BillyG | January 23, 2007 6:30 AM
We're in trouble when Google merges with the Federal Government.
Posted by: John Wesley | January 23, 2007 6:46 AM
Funny you should bring up the federal government. I have a feeling Google might get a chance to meet them in the same way Microsoft has spent quality time with them the last few years.
Posted by: John Milan | January 23, 2007 6:53 AM
"Just because Google search is great and Gmail is good, does not mean that people will use Froogle"
Search is so important that Google doesn't need people to use Froogle. Instead, Froogle and the other ancillary businesses Google is in feeds people back to their search engine.
Think of search as the operating system for the web. Every site on the web needs to optimize itself for Google, or it will fail. That's a huge deal. And that's why, in my mind, Google already owns the web.
Posted by: Hashim | January 23, 2007 7:29 AM
I can't believe how everyone is so blinded by Google's success to overlook how easily they can be toppled. I wrote a long explanation a while back the I re-posted to my blog here -
http://www.gobignetwork.com/wil/2007/1/23/why-google-will-fail/10090/view.aspx
The short version
- switching costs are "zero"
- adwords bids are out of control (we need cheaper $)
- they don't "own" my life in any way
Posted by: Wil Schroter | January 23, 2007 8:01 AM
Luke: I am liking the Point/Counterpoint set up.
Luke: No, you're loving it!
Posted by: Luke Gunderson | January 23, 2007 10:01 AM
Google is working very hard to beat the zero switching cost. It's already not zero - Google is not only an access to search; they also hold your mails, your news reader, your documents, your ads. It's already hard to switch, it will get even harder.
Posted by: franticindustries | January 23, 2007 10:39 AM
Well, they both have good points but I believe that Google is strong. Domination? Perhaps, in the long run, IF there's another Google-like entity.
@#6: They've engaged in China, why not homeland? Possible. It also shows there's a growing concern on the free flow information to be controlled?
My two-cents.
Posted by: ipanema | January 23, 2007 11:08 AM
You gotta think way beyond the browser to fully debate this question...
http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2007/pulpit_20070119_001510.html
Posted by: Charles | January 23, 2007 12:16 PM
I think people conveniently ignore the fact that the whole reason Google won the search business was because the switching costs of going from previous searches was zero.
The Lord giveth, and the Lord taketh away.
I'm consistently amazed at how many tech veterans don't seem to realize the volatile and short-lived positions of number one companies.
Posted by: Wil Schroter | January 23, 2007 2:12 PM
I gave a presentation last night, and the Question for the evening was: "Can Google be Defeated"? We then spent the next hour looking at example after example of how existing Search Engines are superior to Google in their respective niches.
Ms. Dewey (www.msdewey.com) is a (lot) more interesting User Interface than Google's home page (www.google.com).
ChaCha (www.chacha.com) answers real questions with an experienced Guide - for Free; Google's Answers didn't work.
TheFind.com (www.thefind.com) is a superior shopping experience compared to Froogle's (and many others).
Quintura (www.quintura.com) and KartOO (www.kartoo.com) are 2-D cluster Search Engines; Google still provides its results in a (very) long LIST. The World Wide Web is, of course, a 3-D globe; nothing could be more misleading or difficult to navigate than a 1-D list!
Like (www.like.com) is a true visual Search Engine, but Google's Image Search is actually just text-keywords matched to text-tags. Then try the Mobot (www.mobot.com)Demo!! I have rarely seen anything like it.
Reommendation Engines like Music Map (www.music-map.com) and Live Plasma (www.liveplasma.com) do a better job than Google's "similar pages". Google really just helps you find what you're already looking for.
Take the Slifter (www.slifter.com) Mobile Demo for a ride, and then try Google's Mobile Search Engine. See the difference?
Google searches, well, Google! There are too many MetaCrawlers to list here, but the new one to watch is GoshMe (www.goshme.com). GoshMe claims to not just search a huge numer of Web pages - it searches a huge number of Search Engines - each one of which is searching a huge number of web pages! You do the math.
Google is silent. At least Speeglebot (http://bot.speegle.co.uk)talks to you, and Nayio (www.nayio.com) listens!
But, good as they may be, aren't these Alternative Search Engines just gnats fying around the Google elephant? How can they possibly do any harm? Won't Google just ignore them (they certainly seem to be) or, if they do take notice, buy them?
Well, I can't give you all of the answers, can I?
For a list of the Top 100 Alternative Search Engines, just
email your request to Charles@CharlesKnightSEO.com. Ciao!
Posted by: Charles Knight | January 23, 2007 4:30 PM
Great idea...but when will this discussion end? Are we going to include the Mobile Web? Are we considering ideas such as creating other virtual worlds in the existing virtual world...
They certainly control today's web based on what we know but I guarantee you not tomorrow's web given our limited perpective of what is possible.
Posted by: Adrian keys | January 23, 2007 5:20 PM
I'm surprised that no one has mentioned that the web is used for other things besides disseminating information (i.e., finding things). Alex touched on shopping, but perhaps more importantly: communication. Google lags far behind Yahoo!, MSN, and AOL in the areas of email and instant messaging. Those are access points to the Internet that are just as important as search and shouldn't be ignored.
Posted by: Josh | January 23, 2007 8:35 PM
Looking at it from an advertiser perspective, I think Google's search play has an upper bound because of three factors:
-the price issue that Wil Shroter mentioned,
-limited inventory for specific keywords, and
-limited format options.
In our local sector, prices have climbed as much as 100% for some keywords in the past year. I've read general studies that say prices are rising on average 40%-60% a year. Doesn't take long at inflation rates like that before people start looking en masse at alternatives.
In terms of inventory, google only has 6-8 slots to sell per keyword. Anything beyond page 1 placement is utterly useless. In many sectors, there are a lot more than 6-8 people/firms that want visibility. I think that many firms will seek other venues rather than pay top dollar to capture those few slots.
And lastly there is a big problem with format. Many firms and products don't show well in 10 words of black and white text. If the entire universe of advertising was easily and fully represented by small text ads, we wouldn't see companies spending tens or hundreds of thousands on big display advertisements in print or flashy ads on TV. Point being, advertisers will not continue to settle for this format as they become more versed in interactive marketing and as strong primary source alternatives emerge.
So, bottom line: I agree with Alex Iskold.
Posted by: John Kenney | January 24, 2007 5:58 AM