Comment by spolsky
17 years ago
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gum), but while they also get attached to technology, it doesn't seem to do the technology much good once it has been superseded (DEC anyone?)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.