Are Google's Best Days In the Past? 322
rsmiller510 writes "For a time, everything Google touched turned to gold, but lately a slew of bad press is creating a negative perception about the search giant."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Are Google's Best Days In the Past?
Related Links Top of the: day, week, month.
"Your stupidity, Allen, is simply not up to par." -- Dave Mack (mack@inco.UUCP) "Yours is." -- Allen Gwinn (allen@sulaco.sigma.com), in alt.flame
Just because the "best days" are in the past.. (Score:5, Insightful)
..does not mean they can't still turn a profit.
Re:Just because the "best days" are in the past.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Google is clearly lacking in some key areas, most obviously social.
Google is still untouched in search. A core internet technology.
The glorified RSS feeds that are facebook and twitter have no relevance to that market.
Re:Just because the "best days" are in the past.. (Score:5, Insightful)
but their search is getting useless. link farms are still not being squashed, and they are allowing SEO scumbags to move results up the list for their clients who 9 times out of 11 dont have anything to do with the topic.
Google needs to do the Iron fist thing on search SEO's and put any SEO trickery or linkfarms at the BOTTOM of all search results. My exclude list for Google searching is getting ridiculously long.
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
My [censored] is getting ridiculously long.
All those penis enlargement ads are good for something at last
Re:Just because the "best days" are in the past.. (Score:5, Interesting)
You clearly don't understand the fundamental problem with "SEO trickery".
Allow me to enlighten you.
Google uses an algorithm to determine the relevance of pages. The problem is that SEO firms have reverse engineered that algorithm to the point where they can manufacture site rankings. As such Google's page ranking system can't tell the difference between a super relevant site, and a site that is lying about it's relevance but has the right answers to all the questions Google knows to ask.
It is similar to how a Rorschach test doesn't work on someone trained in evaluating the test (they know how their answers will be interpreted and can therefore give the answers that will lead the tester towards the conclusion they want to get). Another analogy would be a spy attempting to seduce a mark. Assuming they spy has done his/her reaserch they should know what the mark looks for in a partner and since they're lying they can appear to be the perfect date, while an honest person would likley have some flaw that compared with the fictional persona of the spy will seem less desirable.
There is no solution to that problem. At best Google can change their algorithm thus forcing the "SEO scumbags" to start over, but they will start over and they will again succeed. In truth the fact that it's taken this long for it to happen in the first place is rather commendable.
Re: (Score:2)
At best Google can change their algorithm thus forcing the "SEO scumbags" to start over, but they will start over and they will again succeed.
Then Google will become less and less relevant as people move to other search engines with different algorithms, until they are also polluted to death by 'SEO scumbags'.
A few years back I could actually find something useful by searching in Google, now I have to wade through so much crap that it's often easier to go to the closest Wikipedia page and follow some links from there.
Re: (Score:3)
I'd have to disagree. I know how to search. My results from Google have been steadily headed downhill over the last two years.
Yes, the result I want is still in there. But no, it's not usually on the first page of results any more.
Re: (Score:3)
No, Google's results have tended on a downward curve for years now. Composing a search which does not include SEO results involves endless iterations of this process:
bananas, bananas -viagra, bananas -viagra -cialis, bananas -viagra -cialis -prescription, bananas -viagra -cialis -prescription -poker
and so forth. What doesn't help matters is that many of the sites that are clearly SEO spam also have Google-based ads, so why would Google be interested in removing them? They make money every time you click
Re:In the snow, uphill both ways... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Just because the "best days" are in the past.. (Score:4, Insightful)
There is no solution to that problem.
There are solutions to that problem. A human being can spot a link farm within seconds.
And when seo can produce websites that I can't tell are link farms, good, because that means they'll have the useful information that I want on them.
Re: (Score:3)
It may be a nice fantasy to the average Slashdotter, but anyone with half a brain would realize it's simply not cost-effective at any scale whatsoever.
This is the company that drove a van down every street on the continent.
There really aren't that many useful domains, and hundreds of them are registered to the same companies or point at the same sites or are parked, reducing the actual scale of relevant sites by an order of magnitude.
Its a big problem, but its not THAT big, and like the map of the continent
Re: (Score:2)
At best Google can use its billions to employ real humans to identify bad sites. But that's anathema to Google's flawed technocratic ideal and would lose them loads of ad revenue from the squatters and the scrapers.
Remember, if you're searching with Google then you're the product, not the client.
Re:Just because the "best days" are in the past.. (Score:4, Informative)
People need search engines. You can bitch about it all you want, but unless there's a different company that can squash SEOs better than Google, they'll still own the market. And looking at hitslink they have a very stable 85% of the market. Unless you're seriously suggesting it's so bad that people will not search the Internet at all?
Re: (Score:3)
And yet Google still remains my #1 used web site online. Some may only ever browse what others point you at, but I actually go out and find things. farms and SEO and the like may make searching more annoying, but it doesn't reduce my need to do so. Facebook or the like will never supplant that need.
Re: (Score:3)
Apropos, I just this morning heard a commercial on the radio for a company that offers to ensure that positive results for searches for your company name appear in the upper results on Google, and negative information disappears into the nether pages.
This war is on.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
RSS is a broadcast medium.
Twitter and facebook are direct person-to-person communications media. More like glorified email than glorified RSS. Email was core internet technology long before search existed.
And don't underestimate their import. Neither of these companies has really commercialized its operations. Neither is public. Recent news indicates facebook just started a revolution in the middle east. I'm pretty sure search, even instant search, never did that.
just because their best days aren't past (Score:2)
Doesn't mean that their competitors wouldn't want to refer to google as dead or nonexistent.
In the meantime, google has had it's screwups, and had it's successes, and is doing far better than it's competitors because competition is fucking lazy and doing a bad job. Surprise? Not really.
Re: (Score:2)
Speaking as somewhat of an expert on the subject there is no question that Google has changed from the hypergrowth, exciting, quasi utopian place it was. But similar to an adult reaching maturity its best earning years are still before it. Google's vaunted ethical standard has, ahem, issues, but to suggest these problems are on the scale as Microsoft would be deeply wrong. Google's corporate DNA still includes ethics as a driver, unlike some other companies I could mention (Sony, Microsoft, I'm looking at y
Re: (Score:3)
Can we have a show of hands? Who believes this story is a little bit suspicious and might be part of an organized effort to spread FUD about Google?
It could be competitors, it could be a hedge fund manager who just put on a huge spread of put options going out into June, or somebody with an iPad who's bored sitting in a waiting room waiting to get radiation treatments.
Anyone who believes that this handful of stories, out of the ocean of press that comes out daily in the financial and tech media, comprises
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Good products that "Just Work" sell themselves.
if only there was a company that sold those
Re: (Score:3)
Smart phones
Re:Just because the "best days" are in the past.. (Score:5, Interesting)
There is a subset of that thinking in usability (when studied as science). Textbook example is a sport wrist watch. On one hand, you can have one with a lot of features that can be accessed very quickly and a lot of info on the home screen, but requires a lot of buttons to control functions in a usable way.
Other is aimed at "we want something that just works" crowd (usually senior citizens), and has only one big red button and "just works" (and "illumination" button on the side for obvious reasons).
Reality - it "just works" for people who are willing to limit themselves to limited feature set given by the watch. It doesn't replace the one with many "confusing" buttons, and when it does it does it with a lot less efficiency.
Apple's advantage is that hype essentially steamrolls the "but the other features that are clunky/missing?" argument as hype claims that if iphone can't do it, you don't need it. Never mind that USB connectivity to a PC as an external drive, or ability to see email sender's name right from the home screen without having to go through "pretty" menus (to cite two of several obvious examples) have been a default feature in the smart phones for a long time. Apple is that "one button" watch that "just works" - so long as you're willing to accept that to even access and start timer will take you a lot longer that it would on a phone that does it the way "watch with many buttons" does.
And when hype will eventually run it's course and run out, you'll be left out with reality - that apple's version of "one button it just works" usability isn't all that good when you want to step outside those basic boundaries.
Re: (Score:3)
/old person
/not really
/Don't troll mod me, it's just a joke.
Re:Just because the "best days" are in the past.. (Score:5, Interesting)
Perhaps that's the problem. Engineers are designing the devices, and engineers have spent thousands of hours pouring over the features. So, there's a tendency towards feature-creep and complexity as the devices are increasingly aimed at technophiles willing to spend lots of hours learning the device. I worry that Apple will move that direction like every other computer company has a tendency to do, unless there is someone at the helm steering away from the engineer's predisposition. (And, no, I'm not an Apple user. But, I happen to respect what they do and understand why it's a useful approach for them to take. I also don't look down on my friends who have little time or desire to learn the details of their electronic devices.)
Re: (Score:3)
The problem of Apple is that they're designed around a "for dummies" philosophy but are priced as "feature creep" devices. I understand the appeal of a device you only need to read an illustrated pamphlet to understand its workings, but that's a market that the $10 'dumbphones' address far better already than the iPhone ever has.
That's also why I *do* look down on people who claim they don't have time and/or desire to learn the details of their electronic devices yet deliberately spend above the range aimed
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
I've admined hundreds of iMacs, a few Xserves, and dozens of Mac pros. The iMacs suck huge donkey balls. They overheat constantly
Kinda like way too numerous Windows machines? Toshibas were (are) notorious for this, as one for instance.
Nothing like them. The iMacs are having hardware failures of about 2% per month (while still under warranty). Any PCs I've seen do this are usually just past warranty or have dying fans. These iMacs' fans are working, they're just designed poorly.
and there is no way to lock them down.
Kinda like Windows?
Now you're just being trollish. Anyone with half a brain can lock Windows down sufficiently until the week before patch Tuesday.
You can set an nvram password but that is trivially defeated mechanically (in a way that can't be physically locked down).
Kinda like on the PC platform?
Now you're not trolling anymore, you're being stupid. To reset a bios password on a PC platform, you have to open the case and reset
Re:Best Days... for who? (Score:4, Insightful)
exactly. I'd say their best days in terms of users worshipping them are behind them...but their best days in terms of their company's success are still to come.
Fried Potatoes and gravy with garlic and spices (Score:5, Insightful)
My perception:
They are no longer the cool new guys tearing up the internet and being a company for the people. They are big, diversified, making money hand over fist, and have attracted the requisite controversy, criticism, and bad press that comes with being big and diversified and making money hand over fist.
Despite everything, I still see them as one of the good guys. I think there’s always a severe whip back when you suddenly discover something that you thought was awesome is now merely ok. Google looks terrible when compared to what it was, but compare it to everything else and it looks pretty damn good.
And (flamewar time) I continued to be baffled over all the flack they got over the stupid wifi thing. They came clean, admitted everything, co-operated with the investigations and people still tore them 12 new ones. Personally I think they should have been commended for admitting they made a mistake rather than going into full on cover up mode.
To get back to the topic, it really required a definition of “Best”. Are they ever going to be the cool trendy upstart they once were: probably not. Are they going to continue making money hand over fist and growing like a spider until you shave with google razor blades: entirely possible.
As for not innovating I still think they’ve got it in them. They’ve had a string of bad luck, and they’ve failed in the social area but I suspect they’ll pull something killer out in the next little bit.
Re:Fried Potatoes and gravy with garlic and spices (Score:5, Insightful)
And (flamewar time) I continued to be baffled over all the flack they got over the stupid wifi thing. They came clean, admitted everything, co-operated with the investigations and people still tore them 12 new ones. Personally I think they should have been commended for admitting they made a mistake rather than going into full on cover up mode.
Maybe that reaction is why companies tend to go into cover up mode. If they really did make an honest mistake, what do they gain by fessing up and cooperating vs trying to hide it? The answer is nothing, and I think Google probably learned a bad lesson from the whole ordeal.
I hate to say it, but most consumers and voters are short sighted idiots.
Re: (Score:2)
I think Google probably learned a bad lesson from the whole ordeal
Yup. And anyone watching as well. I have a feeling no one is going to be as open as they were about a mistake again for quite some time.
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong; Google announced the accident themselves, then proceeded to be jumped on by every news media agency (who coincidentally all happen to be pissed off that Google News is turning them into a commodity). The German government didn't get involved for months afterward.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I agree with a lot of what you said. Especially the part about Google not being as great as when it was a start up, but still being pretty good. At least for me, I still have positive thoughts when I think of Google as opposed to some other tech companies, like Microsoft. Maybe it's just carry over from older days or because they talk a lot about open source, but I still like Google.
Also I feel like this article was solely written to attract attention. The title and beginning of the article paint Google
Re:Fried Potatoes and gravy with garlic and spices (Score:5, Insightful)
Bad press means, they kick the ass of competitors willing to pay persons to smear them. In the beginning they had no real competitors.
Just look at the Smartphone. For Google that is just a trick. For Nokia it was vital.
If they want an open confrontation with Microsoft they can, just for fun. Put 30 Mio annually on Wine development [winehq.org] and Windows is obsolete within 5 years. Or 50 Mio annually on Libreoffice [libreoffice.org] and the Microsoft Office cash cow would get slaughtered.
Re: (Score:2)
But neither of them are that helpful to Google.
Mucking around with Office was a huge waste for Sun. Google is doing similar, but with a real chance at gaining from it (their docs). Perhaps if they could get truly seamless integration with the desktop app, and their cloud, it could be a win. But, I would think it's unlikely OSS is going to want to do that.
Wine could actually be something for them, as at least for now, Linux tends to default towards google searches (usually through the distro). Still, the mon
Re: (Score:2)
A perfectly working Wine extends the life of Windows by (not) emulating it, and Microsofts biggest customers are still likely to buy the 'official' version, especially when the FUD starts ?
I'd rather spend my millions working towards my customers using my product than an approximation of a rivals.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I could hardly agree more.
In addition, as a heavy Google user (Android and about a dozen non-Android Google services), I've got to say that they're still innovating at a pace that's dizzying at times. Hell, 2-step-verification nearly gave me a nerdgasm... the latest Android version of Google Maps... Honeycomb...
I can't wait for more...
Re: (Score:2)
Google Razor, the fast shave available.
Try new Google Instant Razor (beta), it starts shaving as soon as you pick it up.
Re: (Score:2)
Because what they did was still wrong. If someone admits to robbing a bank and returns the money and says sorry, you don't pat them on the head, tell them how good
Re: (Score:2)
And (flamewar time) I continued to be baffled over all the flack they got over the stupid wifi thing. They came clean, admitted everything, co-operated with the investigations and people still tore them 12 new ones. Personally I think they should have been commended for admitting they made a mistake rather than going into full on cover up mode.
What is there to be baffled about? They broke the laws in literally dozens of countries, laws that send other people to jail. They are supposedly one of the best technical companies out there yet they blundered so incredibly badly from a technical standpoint. Do you let a murderer or thief off just because they came forward and are incredibly sorry for their actions? While intentions do allow a certain amount of lenancy, ignorance has never been an acceptable defense.
Re: (Score:2)
Despite everything, I still see them as one of the good guys.
Do you believe in Santa Claus and The Tooth Fairy too? Companies aren't a force for good. They're a force for making a profit.
Re: (Score:2)
They are no longer the cool new guys tearing up the internet and being a company for the people. They are big, diversified, making money hand over fist, and have attracted the requisite controversy, criticism, and bad press that comes with being big and diversified and making money hand over fist.
Specifically, they're taking fire from all sides these days. It's been revealed that Microsoft is astroturfing against Google by paying "partners" to shill against it; no doubt other companies are doing the same. At the same time, media companies are scared of Google TV, Google News, Google Books, and other initiatives to increase customer choice in the media market and weaken the stranglehold that media conglomerates have over the US media landscape, and so are quickly joining on the anti-Google bandwagon.
Open Standards (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
"Google as the #1 simple search provider is over and in the past"
Oh? Who's the #1 simple search provider? Duckduckgo? Considering I've never heard of them, I doubt that. May be some argument with Bing or Yahoo but I SERIOUSLY doubt they come close to matching Google for searches, much less surpasing them. Duckduckgo sounds like an interesting competitor, and competition is great, but I think your overstating Googles decline in Search. That would be like saying because I use Ubuntu (love Ubuntu btw) Mi
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
but I SERIOUSLY doubt
Whoa...like..SERIOUSLY?
When you put it in all caps like that, the rest of us really sit up and take notice.
I mean, you're not just doubting it, you're SERIOUSLY doubting it.
Whoa.
Re: (Score:2)
Dunno if I'd say they're finished as the #1.
Certainly I think google and bing are going to go at it bare knuckle .. but I think google stands a good chance at staying on top.
That said, I think that #1 is probably going to get a lot smaller. Lots of those no-name search engines are becoming practical, and you are seeing a lot of people saying "I use x for y specialized reason" these days. duckduckgo will probably never get to the top, but it can certainly nibble on it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I agree their regular results are not always the very best, but the box at the top is for 50% of my searches what I need if I type something into the search bar... And I love the !bang syntax!
Re: (Score:2)
Currently my favorite too. Less noise.
Gee! (Score:4, Insightful)
Gee! Some attention-whore journalist/blogger (I think that's redundant) claims google is dead, it MUST BE TRUE!
I won't believe it until Netcraft confirms it.
Re: (Score:2)
Tragedy today, as former leading search engine Google was eaten by wolves.
Re: (Score:2)
Really.
Is this the first time the "Steven King is dead" slashtroll got onto the front page? Seems to me it isn't, but I may have mercifully forgotten specifics.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a troll, and not a particularly clever one.
Google is still untouchably dominant in search (their bread and butter). They're still the number one in online advertising (their juicy, profit making sandwich filling). Their mobile OS is now outselling most of their rivals (er... their sturdy lunchbox? yeah, I'm going to leave this analogy now). One of their executives arguably just triggered the overthrow of the Egyptian dictatorship (how many Silicon Valley firms can say that?). They're incredibly wealthy
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Whatever next? Microsoft sucks? Nah. They know who pays them bar bills.
And man can Microsoft pay a bar bill. Went to Supercomputing06 in Tampa. Microsoft rented an entire (small, but upscale) *mall* for their show party. Everything was free: live music all night, open bar (and not just well stuff, Bombay Sapphire and tonic? Sure!)... It was awesome. Of course, I still didn't want to buy their cluster computing OS, but it was a Hell of a party.
Re:Waiting for that 404 (Score:4, Funny)
Of course, I still didn't want to buy their cluster computing OS, but it was a Hell of a party.
Nobody knows how to give away alcohol without converting anyone to their cause like Microsoft.
oh rly. (Score:3, Funny)
You expect me to take a google critique seriously from someone running asp.net?
Re:oh rly. (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually, it look more like Classic ASP. I don't see much in the source that would indicate otherwise. (ASP.NET tends to be -- isn't required, but tends to be --- .ASPX, not .ASP).
So, not only is the guy running on the Microsoft stack, he isn't even that current in it. I'm not sure I'd put too much creedence in any topic he discusses.
Whats with the google articles today? (Score:5, Insightful)
To answer the summary: No
I'd elaborate, but decided to go with the same depth this "summary" provides.
Re: (Score:3)
I think this was actually more informative than the article. Let alone the summary. "People in Egypt are not naming their babies "Google" therefore it is dying." ?!?
Marketshare (Score:5, Interesting)
Not to rip on an article that's just a bunch of one-sentence summaries of other articles and a saucy eyebrow-raise, but the 1% drop cited in the article is in search marketshare. The total value of search ads went up by about 10% in the same period, meaning that Google's revenues almost certainly grew over that period. It's just that they grew slightly more slowly than the newcomers.
WTF? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you see social networking as being a genuine paradigm shift rather than just a segment of the market, then it's pretty solid logic, actually. It's the same kind of logic that said Microsoft had no choice but to bolster their game when it became apparent they were lacking on the internet side of the game, back when Netscape Navigator was king.
* And yes, I used the word paradigm because it's appropriate in this context. Don't attack the supposed buzzword; respond to the argument I make, please.
Re: (Score:2)
(begin all caps) zomg social networks are going to replace email, search, im, subversion, ssh, and dynamically loadable kernel modules!!! singularity lol! (end all caps)
Social networking is clearly an important and growing field, but let's try to keep things in perspective.
Re: (Score:2)
A pretty large majority of the article went into arguing that just because Google lacks good social networking tools, it is declining. What kind of logic is that?
Especially since Google owns Orkut, a, um, social networking site.
http://www.orkut.com/About.aspx [orkut.com]
And, actually, it was one of the first, and I understand it to be big in India and Brazil. According to the Wikipedia article on Orkut [wikipedia.org], the social networking site that the author of the OP's article is ignoring is flirting with the top 100 most visited sites in the world.
The conclusion? Poor journalism. Again. What is up with Taco these days? He knows better.
even his face seems like the face of the troll (Score:2)
http://img.lightreading.com/internetevolution/RonMiller.gif [lightreading.com]
look at the smugly smile.
What the heck is Google? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
not sure, let me Bing that for you on Google.
Mentality (Score:2)
that is what happens... (Score:5, Insightful)
Then again, it does beg to ask, is this typical media bullsheit with typical negative stories that are solely geared towards making money rather than a balanced approach to news reporting? When does the news cross the line when it starts focusing on areas that it's owners have a vested interest in ensuring their 'enemy' is bashed at every opportunity? Is this really a sponge-worthy story?
Google's Bad Press (Score:2)
Google's bad press? Well, they do want to be like Apple. It comes with the territory.
Not a great article (Score:5, Informative)
I read the article (it's not that long) but let me save you the trouble: it's not a great article. In fact, it's pointless. You don't need to read very far before he presents his conclusion:
Emphasis mine.
So the tech writer (Ron Miller) doesn't know either. He presents both sides, and seems totally unsure about what he's talking about. To summarize the article:
But:
So yeah, this was a pointless article.
"Bad Press" == MS sponsored smear campaign? (Score:4, Informative)
Political Games Against Google [techrights.org]
Re:"Bad Press" == MS sponsored smear campaign? (Score:4, Interesting)
Forgot to include this:
CNET Shows Anti-Google AstroTurf (‘Consumer’ ‘Watchdog’) is Connected to Edelman, “Microsoft Goes on the Offensive” Against Google [techrights.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, don't forget Glenn Beck! I still cringe when I think my Dad just asked me for a new email provider because Glenn said to quit using Google...
Depends on what Google does. (Score:2)
Google's not dead yet, and as long as they continue to dominate search and a few other niches(Maps, email), they'll be alive.
This would be like asking if Apple's best days are in the past when they were going through their revolving door of CxOs. If asked then, the answer would've been overwhelmingly "yes."
Re:Depends on what Google does. (Score:5, Insightful)
Google's not dead yet, and as long as they continue to dominate search and a few other niches(Maps, email), they'll be alive.
The problem is that they're trying to dominate search by making it 'smarter', with the end result that it increasingly sucks. Most times I look for anything out of the ordinary using very clear search terms I end up with 90+% of the results being crap I don't want because it 'intelligently' decided that I wasn't looking for what I was asking it to search for.
So I'm definitely looking for a better alternative for searches which isn't trying so hard. Yeah, I know I can put magic characters in the search thing so it actually searches for the thing I asked it to search for, but I shouldn't have to do that.
Schmidt ? (Score:2)
They're "The Man" in my eyes (Score:2)
The insane privacy violations, hand-to-mouth relationship with the Feds, crappy search results, blah blah blah. There are a lot of corporations run by douche bags that I'm forced to interact with every day. Will I still use Google? Yes? Do I have my Applehead loyalty to them any more? No!
Re: (Score:2)
Will I still use Google? Yes? Do I have my Applehead loyalty to them any more? No!
Well, will you still use Google?
Turned to gold, eh? (Score:3, Interesting)
Chrome and Android (Score:3)
The numbers speak for themselves:
Chrome release: September 2008
Chrome market share; Dec 2009: 4.63%
Chrome market share; Feb 12011: 10.7%
Android release: September 2008
Android smartphone market share; Q1 2010: 9%
Android smartphone market share; Q4 2010: 33%
Once upon a time... (Score:2)
Many year ago, I used to bookmark various search engines. Everyone knew Yahoo, Google was only for the "in the know" crowd. If you didn't find it there, you went to Alta Vista, or Excite, or lycos, or some other engine that I bookmarked because I never used it enough to remember the name. I don't bookmark search engines anymore, I just Google it. Even even if I need a Babelfish translation, I Google "babelfish".
Gmail beats yahoo mail. While yahoo seems to do a pretty good job of filtering spam from my yahoo
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
interesting that none of those things by themselves would generate much money
would you pay to do a google search or would you just use a free alternative instead?
Re: (Score:3)
interesting that none of those things by themselves would generate much money
Google's bottom line suggests otherwise.
My perception (Score:3)
From 0 to Market Leader in the phone industry... (Score:4, Interesting)
in 2 years. Yeah, they're moribund.
Whatever.
No, blogging's best days are in the past (Score:4, Interesting)
The article is from some clueless blogger type, and reads like something from a content mill.
Google does have problems. The biggest one is that most of their "products" lose money. YouTube finally has become ad-heavy enough to make money, the first product other than search to go into the black. Google buys market share by giving stuff away, but revenue usually doesn't follow. Being #1 in giving away mail service isn't a business. Android, as a business, loses money. Google has never had a second killer profitable product, and not for lack of trying.
On the search front, Google's defenses against spam are weak. That's technically fixable, but fixing it would cut into the 30% of revenue that comes from AdSense sites, most of which are junk. Google's recent bad press stems from their addiction to revenue from junk sites.
As for "social", that looks like a bubble. Facebook is way overpriced as a company. Facebook already has so much obnoxious advertising that it's hard to see where they can generate more revenue without becoming even more annoying. Facebook tried a phone once; it was called Helio. Didn't work.
Google does have a "social" system, Orkut, It's #1 in Brazil but nowhere else, much to the annoyance of Google executives.
American culture. (Score:3)
Culturally, Americans seem to have a problem with leaders. They have a strong inclination to rally behind the underdog, or at least whoever manages to continue effectively marketing themselves as such.
The perception is that Google is a leader, so it's inevitable that we're starting to hear that their best days are supposedly behind them. I don't know how the hell Apple pulls it off, but they continue to maintain this perception that they're an anti-establishment underdog.
I can appreciate the desire to root for the small guy, but people sometimes take it to the point of being irrational, especially when people are completely ignorant about the reality behind all the marketing.
BS! (Score:3)
Ok, how much is M$ crapola paying you to come up with these stupid articles, I mean come on, really?
Think to write some stuff to slam google even though there is no credible thing you are saying in your article, just makes you look plain dumb!
And citing a website that is owned by an former M$ employee that is now self employed as a blogger sure amounts to wishwash if you ask me...do you know how to WHOIS? Of course I will get blasted by all those who favor M$ but then again, guess what.....IDC
Comment removed (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
It's a search engine. Who cares?
These days, google is a search engine the same way emacs is a text editor (see this comment [slashdot.org])
--A vi user