Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 8th Sep 2010 18:53 UTC
Google Hold on to your security blanket, people, because Google is rolling out a pretty big change to its search engine. Not too long ago the internet was in a shock because Google rolled out a new feature that allowed you to pick a background image for the Google home page, just like Microsoft's Bing. Google went a lot further today, and has launched Google Instant, adding search-before-you-type results to the Google home page.
Permalink for comment 439991
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Comment by Tony Swash
by Neolander on Thu 9th Sep 2010 07:44 UTC in reply to "Comment by Tony Swash"
Neolander
Member since:
2010-03-08

Instant may be a cool thing but that is a daft thing to say.

Of course Google have to innovate, if they didn't they will be dead in a few short years, just like any other player in the tech game/info/media game.

In order to see how daft that is just insert another company's name (ooh - lets be provocative and say Apple and its market lead with iPod or even iPhone as an example) and then make that comment. Do you see how silly it is?

Up to this point, we agree. This sentence is just crap, it looks like it's from a google marketting guy (like the whole article, in fact, in my opinion. Heavily disliked it). But then you say this...

Not only do Google have to innovate but their existing business model is actually very vulnerable in the medium term because it is a one trick pony. If online advertising accessed from the desktop goes down the pan (and it could with the spread of ad blockers, curated computing and the new mobile platforms) then Google goes with it.

And then, I think you don't understand what the strength of a monopoly like Google's or Apple's really is. Be it only because you overestimate the market share of ad blockers and mobile devices.

Google are everywhere. And, what's important, almost everyone on the Internet relies on them for something. Because of that, if they went in financial trouble, it's the whole internet that risks going ten years backwards, and through donations alone they could get enough money to come back on the saddle. That is, if they managed to find a bank who's not ready to lend them some money. Though one.

Example of things which rely on Google :
-All websites which rely on advertising as their main funding, since Google bought most of the ad market (be it for desktop or mobile web, since they are now both the same).
-A lot of open-source projects which rely on Google Code and the GSoC. All businesses and individuals which rely on those open-source solutions to get some work done.
-All individuals who neglect their bookmark collection "thanks" to google search. Due to its popularity, it has yet-to-be-matched result relevance.
-All GMail users (critical role), all Youtube users (compulsive behavior). Youtube user base goes well beyond its main page and covers a lot of websites who can't afford video storage themselves.
-And think about all those handsets makers who don't have enough development resources to code everything on their platform and rely on Google for some development work (OS or apps).

They know this at Google hence their rather spastic decision to break their alliance with Apple because of fear of a super dominant Apple shutting them out of the mobile ad market and to embark on the ill-thought out (from point of view of Google's best interest) Android adventure.

Again, this looks like a simplistic interpretation. As far as I know, Google Maps is still in the main menu of any brand new iPhone, I wonder if users can even delete it. And with Google Voice, the company showed that they can even beat the App Store's infamous policy. Managing to create an actually useful application from crappy web standard that offer inexistent support for developers in an impressive demonstration of raw firepower.

Google are doing two things in parallel in the mobile space. First trying to be present on the highest possible amount of mobile platforms (as a default home page or search engine, as a GMail app, as a YouTube app...). Second by preventing Apple from getting a market share that's too high. Because as I already stated before, market share is firepower, and Google want to have the biggest guns in negotiations. With a large enough market share, Apple could impose a much higher control on their platform, and this is what google wants to avoid.

This is, in my opinion, the goal of Google Android : keeping the iPhone market share small enough, no matter the price.

All they may do with Android is create another stick to beat themselves - see this for example:

http://www.asymco.com/2010/09/08/google-vs-android-part-iv/

and this comment

http://daringfireball.net/linked/2010/09/07/buchanan-bing

Again, are you sure of it ? In the end, it's market share that matters. Every single Android handset still included a GMail and a Maps app, last time I checked. And though carriers can get in Google's way a bit, if they're paid to do so, it's their market interest not to do so extensively, because...

- The more they reduce Android's abilities, the less Android handset sell, the less money they get. Except, of course, if they want to favor another manufacturer.
- Carriers know that it's not in their best interest to favor Apple too much. Here in France, in the early iPhone years, they just turned every single mobile phone ad into an iPhone ad, but now there isn't any iPhone ad anymore on the roads. If I wasn't a geek, I wouldn't even have known that the iPhone 4 is out. Carriers are now quiet because they know that Apple's philosophy of control means less income and less control for them, and they don't want that.
- So carriers try to favor the BlackBerry and Symbian platforms. But in the end, they know that the sheep wants a smartphone with a large touchscreen, facebook integration, and silly apps on it. They must advertise such phones if they want all those customers that have a lot of money and no brain. Hence Android becomes the logical choice...

Geopolitics of the mobile space are complex, so I may be misunderstood, but I think that Google aren't in such a bad shape as you think.

Edited 2010-09-09 07:47 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3