Comment by 10ren
17 years ago
Google's position is very tenuous, because it's very easy for users to switch search engines. Which is one reason Google works so very hard at the competitive advantages it can build, such as PR, patents, tools (gmail, docs, maps), and improving search.
All you need is better search. Is that possible? Google would like you to leave that research to them, with all their money, experience and PhD's, what's the point in trying? Surely there are better prospects anywhere but there? This is one of Google's competitive advantages. (of course, if you did invent better search, they would immediately buy you).
It's easy to switch search engines, but it's hard to build one.
Since Google launched, the Internet has grown considerably. Not only in content, but the types of content that get indexed.
I think Google hit that sweet-spot when they launched -- the Internet was big enough that a good index was really, really needed, but it wasn't too big for them to get into the game.
So yeah. It's possible, but a generalist search engine would be difficult in my view -- Of course, there are loads of opportunities for specialist search engines. But I think these are less of a threat to Google (and you're right, Google would probably just buy them up).
I agree. It's not low-hanging fruit, and I wouldn't recommend a start-up going against them. Google being intimidatingly good deters potential competitors is a competitive advantage (worth remembering for one's own startup...) - but it's also rational for them to be intimidated.
But research, pre-startup, might reveal better search.
However, thinking in terms of Innovator's Dilemma, most search technologies would be "sustaining" technologies, which Google as a well-managed leader could buy, copy, re-discover or invent around and keep their lead. It's so-called "disruptive" technologies that would cause them problems (which aren't dangerous because they're better, but because they're different in their benefits) - but these are a problem for any company. So Google's position is no more tenuous than any other company's.
I keep hearing this meme that "it's very easy for users to switch search engines."
This is true for one user. But BILLIONS of people are using Google. And it's NOT easy for all of them to switch. Google's position is not tenuous at all.
The barrier of switching costs is not a "meme", it's one of the bases of competitive advantage as I'm sure you know. I think there's a much stronger counter-argument in articulating the other competitive advantages that google works on. Market-share just gives you a buffer.
It would take some time for billions to switch, yes; but if there was a search engine that was far superior for what users need, the difficulty of switching would not prevent them. It's the standard pattern of technology adoption.
People get attached to consumer goods (e.g. brands of washing powder, chewing gum), but while they also get attached to technology, it doesn't seem to do the technology much good once it has been superseded (DEC anyone?)
The lack of a "far superior search engine" is the significant barrier, IMHO. And whether such a technology is possible is something I don't claim to know. That's the unpredictable nature of technology/science, and why people like Warren Buffett won't invest in it.
How many of them need to switch before it become tenuous? -- perhaps if the most profitable go, then it might not be nearly that much.
Google relies on a massive network effect to hold their position - this makes them a very stable system in many regards. However, there is also the risk of a collapse scenario.
In the case of Google, it might only be one or two segments (in whatever demographic/dimension) that are key.