*
programming and human factors
by Jeff Atwood
*
I was browsing the sessions at an upcoming Search Conference, which describes itself thusly:
The way to online success is through being easily found in search engines such as Google, Yahoo!, and Microsoft Live Search. While developers have historically thought of search as a marketing activity, technical architecture has now become critical for search success.
Anyone else see the elephant in the room, there? No?
Just two weeks after we launched Stack Overflow, I mentioned that search engines already made up 50% of our traffic. Well, not so much search engines as search engine:
I try to be politically correct in discussing web search, avoiding the g-word whenever possible, desperately attempting to preserve the illusion that web search is actually a competitive market. But it's becoming a transparent and cruel joke at this point. When we say "web search" we mean one thing, and one thing only: Google. Rich Skrenta explains:
I'm not a professional analyst, and my approach here is pretty back-of-the-napkin. Still, it confirms what those of us in the search industry have known for a long time.The New York Times, for instance, gets nearly 6 times as much traffic from Google as it does from Yahoo. Tripadvisor gets 8 times as much traffic from Google vs. Yahoo.
Even Yahoo's own sites are no different. While it receives a greater fraction of Yahoo search traffic than average, Yahoo's own flickr service gets 2.4 times as much traffic from Google as it does from Yahoo.
My favorite example: According to Hitwise, [ex] Yahoo blogger Jeremy Zawodny gets 92% of his inbound search traffic from Google, and only 2.7% from Yahoo.
That was written almost two years ago. Guess which way those numbers have gone since then?
Now that Stack Overflow has been chugging right along for almost six months, allow me to share the last month of our own data. Currently, 83% of our total traffic is from search engines, or rather, one particular search engine:
| Search Engine | Visits |
| 3,417,919 | |
| Yahoo | 9,779 |
| Live | 5,638 |
| Search | 2,961 |
| AOL | 1,274 |
| Ask | 1,186 |
| MSN | 1,177 |
| Altavista | 202 |
| Yandex | 191 |
| Seznam | 103 |
Those 6x and 8x numbers that Rich quoted two years ago seem awfully quaint now. Google delivers 350x the traffic to Stack Overflow that the next best so-called "search engine" does. Three hundred and fifty times!
Now, I don't claim that Stack Overflow is representative of every site on the internet -- obviously it isn't. It's a site for programmers. And let me be absolutely crystal clear that I have no problem at all with Google. That said, I find it profoundly disturbing that if every other search engine in the world shut down tomorrow, our website's traffic would be effectively unchanged. That's downright scary.
Yes, I like Google. Yes, Google works great and has been my homepage for about eight years now. Google nailed search, and they deserve the leadership position they've earned. But where's the healthy competition? Where's the incentive for Google to improve? All I see is a large and growing monoculture that acts as the start page for the internet.
I'm a little surprised all the people who were so up in arms about the Microsoft "monopoly" ten years ago aren't out in the streets today lighting torches and sharpening their pitchforks to go after Google. Does the fact that Google's products are mostly free and ad-supported somehow exempt it from the same scrutiny? Isn't anyone else concerned that Google, even with the best of "don't be evil" intentions, has become more master than servant?
Calling the current state of search engine competition a horse race is an insult to horse races. No, what we have here is a one horse race where all the other horses were shipped off to glue factories years ago. Forget "search conference", you should be throwing a "Google conference", because there's no difference.
I don't know. Maybe that's OK. But it does mean that if Google, for whatever reason, decided to remove you from its search results, your website no longer exists. At least not as a viable business, anyway.
Perhaps we should all use ask.com for 1 week and see if we can break the habit of being part of the Matrix...
Steve on February 9, 2009 1:12 AMThe reason why people aren't in the uproar that you say they should be in is because Google's products work, and work very well. Microsofts products began to suck, really bad and deploying an alternative became (still is) very difficult.
So, the day Google's products suck, the users will leave and use something else, the same thing happened to Yahoo.
The question shouldn't by why isn't everyone in an uproar, but rather, will the day come when Google's products turn south?
Marc on February 9, 2009 1:12 AM10 years ago, Microsoft wouldn't send lobbyists to Washington to buy congressional influence. Google, Google's CEO and 4 other executives pumped a lot of money into the Obama campaign.
Google wants control over your medical records. The pending stimulus bill has a provision to digitize your medical records into a vast national database.
No need to worry about Google.
But in this case, Google _IS_ the best. We dont use the others because they are not as good. Why should Google be punished for that?
That sounds like dumbing down testing to be fair to more kids....Oh wait....we do that too....
VoiceLessHeard on February 9, 2009 1:27 AMquote:
I'm a little surprised all the people who were so up in arms about the Microsoft monopoly ten years ago aren't out in the streets today lighting torches and sharpening their pitchforks to go after Google. Does the fact that Google's products are mostly free and ad-supported somehow exempt it from the same scrutiny? Isn't anyone else concerned that Google, even with the best of don't be evil intentions, has become more master than servant?
/quote
I think the disparate level of rage has to do with the fact that mostly Google hasn't used their monopoly power to crush people. There are surely some examples, but nothing like what Microsoft did and would continue to do if they were able.
It's also the case that Google has won by making the best product. A lot of people thought that Windows sucked, but couldn't switch off it because the MS monopoly kept them there. It's not that there's a better search engine out there that Google keeps us from using with business practices of dubious legality, it's that the other search engines suck.
I don't like that Google's the only game in town, particularly because as businesses optimize their sites for Google, it's harder to find certain non-commercial content. But it's no easier in Live Search or Yahoo.
TW Andrews on February 9, 2009 1:40 AMNot really stating anything new, but Google has become Google because there is no overhead for consumers. Whether that overhead be money, effort, time...it doesn't really matter because Google hit the sweet spot with all of them.
And quite possibly Google's being out there makes a difference? Microsoft was putting stuff IN our homes, whereas maybe Google makes us want to BRING it in to our homes...sounds kinda weak, but just thinking out loud.
Morning Toast on February 9, 2009 1:46 AMStrange to see people say that Google's monopoly is good because their product is the best. I agree that there's nothing specifically scary about Google now, but it's too much power for any one party to wield.
Case in point: Google's censorship of its Chinese search engine had a lot of people up in arms at the time, but strangely, healthy competition didn't produce another search engine to turn to in righteous indignation.
I was just thinking out loud at work today (prior to reading this post)... what if Google started charging $0.001 for each of its searches? Hard core internetters would probably balk at this, but the majority of Google users wouldn't mind paying a few pennies per week for what is an excellent search service, bar none. Google would rake in even bigger billions than they do now, to the point where they could effectively call the shots on the Net. That is not something I would look forward to.
for my website it is more like
Google 5700
yahoo 120
and live 80
per month at the moment
Google is not a monopoly and ms windows is. I choose to use google because it works very well and I like using it I use windows because I have to despite it being a big pile of shit and I hate it. I wonder how a smart person can miss such a clear and simple distinction
grrr on February 9, 2009 2:07 AMStack overflow this blah blah blah blah stack overflow that blah blah blah blah stack overflow blah blah blah blah. Did I mention stack overflow?
LGS on February 9, 2009 2:53 AMJeff writes: Does the fact that Google's products are mostly free and ad-supported somehow exempt it from the same scrutiny?
No, of course not, but it is worth remembering that any user can switch to another search engine permanently in about 20 seconds. There is no barrier to customer exit, you might say.
Monocultures are dangerous when there are no alternatives - when you're unavoidably dependent on just one thing. The alternatives for search exist, and they work.
James on February 9, 2009 3:01 AMif it were microsoft, it would be all right tho, wouldn't it
jnak on February 9, 2009 3:05 AMAt no point in the MS virtual monopoly, has MS controlled anyone's access to opinion, thought, or knowledge. Google does, every day, albeit with their oft stated noble intention of not being evil.
The fact is, at the point that MS gained the ascendancy, and developed their monopoly, the market was ready for a monopoly, if it wasn't MS, it would have been IBM, Apple, Sun, Larry and Sergei if they were old enough, or anyone else who could have got it together well enough. The market was ready to explode, and they were in the right place, at the right time, and any of the others would have done the same thing.
It is the legal reponsibility of the directors of any corporation to place profit above any personal ethical qualms that they may personally hold. Go read corporations law. Google is a corporation now...
For all those who say windows is a pile of shit, but continue to use it... why? If you feel so strongly about it, prove that you have a spine, and are capable of independent thought, go use something else.
Yes, google make the best search product, at one time, MS made the best OS product, many people here may not actually remember what how shitty the other options were back then. At the time, MS was seen as our saviour from the evil of the big blue IBM.
Yes, google is my most used search engine by a factor of at least 20:1, but it does still worry me, much more than any monopoly that MS ever had.
MS had a monopoly on operating systems and office software, google has a monopoly on the flow and visibility on the largest collection of human knowledge ever assembled. They can influence sales in markets that have nothing to do with IT, their influence is far greater than MS ever achieved. If you do business online, and get blocked by google, you will go broke, no ifs no buts.
They make a great product, I don't consider it shitty, so will continue to use it, carefully and mindfully, for the moment....
hell, it even finds my old answers on SO when I have forgotten the answers myself - how cool is that?
But how easy will it be to move away when all your mail is in gmail, all your files are stored on your gdrive, all your work is in your google apps, 80% of your ad budget goes through google, and all your clients find you through google? One click away, I don't think so.
The MS monopoly will just be a blip in history, google will be of far greater significance, good or bad, who knows...
What are *we* going to do about it? NFI.
But at least be aware that it is happening and don't be so naively black and white.
baaaaa. MS are evil. baaaaa. Google are not.
Say hello world to your robotic overlords.
Don't Worry - they make the best products, they're free (kinda), and... They're not evil TM
...and mysteriously one night codinghorror is removed from google searches....
LOL
doublethink on February 9, 2009 3:54 AMYes Google has great products and has been pretty consistant with their don't be evil philosophy... BUT the scary thing is:
While Microsoft wants to take your money, Google silently creeps under your underwear.
Mr. Brownstone on February 9, 2009 4:01 AMWell, speaking only for myself, my hatred of Microsoft was not due to dominant market position per se. Rather, it was because (1) some of their dominant products just weren't very good; (2) they were using dominant positions in some markets to establish or maintain dominant positions (often of sub-par products) in other markets; (3) they were doing this using tactics that were often unfair, anti-competitive, harmful to customers, and occasionally illegal.
Google just doesn't come off that way. They are dominant, but in a highly merit-based way, promoting rather than quashing openness, embracing a cross-platform approach (at least as far as OS and HW). Many of their products are fabulous, and near as I can tell, they aren't using some products as a club to force the industry to adopt other less meritorious products, and I haven't seen any evidence that they're doing anything illegal.
That doesn't mean they don't have too much power (I think that's inevitable when companies get to a certain size), but I think there's a good explanation why people's reactions to Google having market power is very different from their reactions to Microsoft.
Larry Gritz on February 9, 2009 4:33 AMWe are in a society where search engines and social networking sites are either efficient or fun, yet they catalog our every move -- for whom, or what what agency?
The Matfix on February 9, 2009 4:34 AMYes, the search engine market is a joke term. However, show me a better search engine than Google, and I'll jump ship at once. But where's the healthy competition? you ask? Nobody can compete because they haven't figured out how. Google rules the search market because they focused (hard core) on the SEARCH and not the MARKET. Anyone who tries to take a run at them, but allows themselves to be controlled by the MARKET can never create a better SEARCH. And it's the SEARCH that gave Google the MARKET.
Chris on February 9, 2009 4:49 AMI'm a little surprised all the people who were so up in arms about the Microsoft monopoly ten years ago aren't out in the streets today lighting torches and sharpening their pitchforks to go after Google.
I think monopoly deserves bolding, not suspicious looking quotes...
Mike on February 9, 2009 5:01 AMHere is what Google needs to do before people will be lighting torches and sharpening their pitchforks.
1. Chrome will need to get 99% market share.
2. With each release of Chrome, Yahoo and Microsoft will need to tweak their sites to make it render correctly in Chrome.
3. Google web sites will work better in Chrome, because Google will use undocumented APIs.
Sounds crazy doesn't it - but that what we had to put up with the Microsoft ecosystem.
I wouldn't put Google anywhere near the level of the Microsoft monopoly - yet.
Steve on February 9, 2009 5:08 AMThe Google monopoly isn't on search. It's on contextual advertising. The fact that you can switch to Yahoo is immaterial because it is the consumers of advertising (that is, the companies that advertise) who cannot switch, because you are not switching even though you could.
It's as though people were arguing whether Microsoft has a monopoly on notepad, calc, solitaire, and minesweeper (which probably are among the most used applications of all time), since all of them have many alternatives that you can very easily switch to. Especially calc where it's generally easier (IMO) to just type your math into a search engine. In actual fact, those switching costs don't matter because that's not the real monopoly, that's just a support for the monopoly.
Ens on February 9, 2009 5:25 AMMost of what I know about life has been cached by Google; this comment too!
Emanuel Cunt on February 9, 2009 5:42 AMComparing Google to Microsoft is like comparing Apples to Oranges.
Like a previous posted mentioned, moving from Google to simply typing 'yahoo.com' in a web browser and making the switch, is not even close to the complexity from switching to Linux or MAC from Microsoft Windows. By LEAPS AND BOUNDS...
Yes, we all know JEFF ATWOOD is a Microsoft VB programmer, so it a bit in defense of Microsoft technology. Jeff as loads of years invented in Microsoft technology. Understandable.
But, this creates bias comments. Bipartisanship to Microsoft.
Google, is just a 'cloud' product. They sell very little, if anything at all that is sold in a BOX on a self. There is ZERO vendor lockin. all one does is goto a different web site to do their search AND advertising.
Good services deserves majority usage.
The problem with bringing Microsoft into the picture, and even attempting to defend them with, 'Oh Google is so huge, why don't they get slapped around too?', is that Microsoft has a 'ninja sale force' that use shrewed and ILLEGAL tactics, to use their monopoly in FEAR of competition. This is WRONG and unethical. Yes, even USA business should have ethics, or at least go by the anti-monopoly rules that were passed by US Congress, which Microsoft continues to ignore.
Also, Microsoft has been getting a beating by Vista bad reviews, the netbook running linux and general open free software alternatives, they are now EXTORTIONISTS. (http://boycottnovell.com/ or groklaw.net)
Microsoft, has not been convicted of extortion, but they will in due time, my friends. Then they will be a convicted monopolist and extortionist corporation. Not good.
Yes, I follow and Use Open source Linux, I do like Macs, and I use Vista all the time to play EVE Online. I was raised on MS Visual Studio, VB and their technologies. I have even had two 1 year contracts at MS. So, It's not like I am some fan boy of alternatives to MS.
What I am a fan boy of is CHOICE.
If people CHOOSE Google, cuz they rock. Good! I think yahoo mail is AWESOME with all the UI and Ajax going on. Gmail is good too... Point is I use both, not because I am FORCED to, or it is a pain to make any kind of switch.
However, I HAVE no choices, when it comes to running many games and apps on alternative OSs besides Microsoft. This is called vendor Lock in. This is were things become a problem. Windows XP was leaps and bounds better then Windows 98. But, Vista is sad to say, bloated compared to XP and a down grade. Windows 7 is just going to be Vista SP2 in my view.
So, morale of the story is. ALL technology is good. (So, long as malware and viruses don't infest your computer and loss you Identify to theives.) Oh and did I mention, 80% of the spam in the world comes from zombie Microsoft Windows computers?
Anyways, I digress. Pick what you want to use. Just be careful what society TELLS you, what you should use. be intelligent and don't be biased. (As much as you can, anyways).
Love,
Matt
Did I mention stack overflow?
Well, that is what I spend all day doing, so naturally I'm going to mention it. It's not really the focus of the article, though.
Jeff Atwood on February 9, 2009 7:02 AMif it were microsoft, it would be all right tho, wouldn't it
My point is that a monopoly is dangerous stuff, no matter how or why it came about.
The same reason why we have an Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches in the US government. Without realistic competition, how can there be viable checks and balances? Even the fake competition of Coke vs. Pepsi (and even factoring in the way these guys collude on pricing some of the time) is clearly better than Coke alone.
Jeff Atwood on February 9, 2009 7:10 AMWhat can *we* do?
Andrew on February 9, 2009 7:13 AMFrom the searcher's point of view, the Google monopoly is much less scary because it takes very little effort to switch. Compare it to trying to move from Windows to Linux, let alone Windows to Mac.
The others may not be delivering traffic, but they're delivering competition simply by existing. The second Google gets a reputation for not returning good results for whatever reason (especially nefarious reasons), one of the others will become the standard. Microsoft has had almost 30 years of providing second-best-at-best operating systems, and the lock-in is only now being challenged.
Google also shows a lower propensity for using the monopoly in one area to eliminate competition in other areas. Tons of people still use Yahoo and Hotmail email, for example. That also makes it less scary.
Sandy on February 9, 2009 7:20 AMAlso on a political/idea sharing perspective, doesn't it scare you to think about people all over the world searching for democracy and what they will find on the first page?
Does Google, in the end, polarizes everything, reducing the scope (to the first two pages of results) of all queries to results that are consistent to all users?
I know they are doing localization efforts and that's obvious but to what extend? On what criteria? What/who decided when a query must returned localized results Vs global results?
Mathieu Dumais-Savard on February 9, 2009 7:26 AMI agree that the comparison to Microsoft is unfair. Microsoft didn't get into legal trouble because they were large and successful like Google. The got slapped around in the courts because they *deliberately abused their position*. Read Microsoft's own internal (leaked) memos from the 1990's stifling open source competitors to their products by intentionally locking consumers into their platforms and de-commoditizing protocols (their own words).
By contrast, Google's products (most of which are free from a consumer standpoint) are very open and interoperable.
Matt on February 9, 2009 7:30 AMSimple: Google isn't included on my PC by default, and it doesn't threaten OEMs over disloyalty. Also, they make an effort to be compatible with many services and devices beside their own, so there's less danger of long-term lock-in.
sep332 on February 9, 2009 7:31 AMjeff - on so podcast number 15 or 16 i thought you said about:blank was your homepage?
theman on February 9, 2009 7:34 AMI think we will see more and more pitchforks as the economy continues to degrade. Investors will demand that google behave more like every other corporation and the honeymoon will end. The DOJ is already throwing around the M word.
BrianE on February 9, 2009 7:36 AMWhatever you point of view, let's give a big round of applause to Jeff for daring to bite the hand that feeds him (and most of us).
Mor on February 9, 2009 7:40 AMI think Sandy's got it right. The Google monopoly seems a lot less scary than it's marketshare would suggest because a new search engine is only a click away. Unlike Microsoft, which went to considerable lengths to lock people in to Windows and Office, Google's dominance is entirely based on mindshare. People who decide they don't like Google don't have to buy expensive hardware or install an operating system maintained by altruistic hippies, they just have to type Live or Yahoo into their address bar.
Chris on February 9, 2009 7:42 AMWhat can we do? Use Yahoo or Live as your default search engine.
I've been doing this about a week, and I kind of like the new view. I just took my Firefox search bar and had it use another search engine by default.
The reason there are no pitchforks like there were with Microsoft is people have the illusion of choice. Sure, you can do like I did and switch search engines. But you cannot make a huge impact on your own.
Microsoft tried to control the individual (bad idea) AND company (normal business practice) and Google is trying to control only the company (websites). That's why no one is up in arms about that.
cubanx on February 9, 2009 7:44 AMI thought it was just me, most of the domains I have search engine referal statistics for also show that google utterly dominates the set.
Stephen Taylor on February 9, 2009 7:52 AMI guess the only reason Google gets its way is because it is still the best. Look at Microsoft even though people had been complaining about it for years it still won all the time because there was no competitor, It was only recently that Linux became enough user friendly to give MS a run for its money.
So the problem is not with Google, it is that we have stopped developing. We have cut short our reaches. I mean try yahoo, MSN, Google and various other search engines, you are bound to get the best results from Google. Plus Google offers the most integrated environment to work as well. You get a streamlined RSS reader, A calander, an email account and great sear capabilities.
While there are many other websites that offer the same functionality but Google still wins over them.
And as far as competition goes i think google still needs to improve. Like i prefer to use Zoho office rather than Google Docs. Also chrome is a great alternative to Internet Explorer but i Still use FF.
So like always Google at the end is a Company that will work for profit, even if it wants to make a better internet then too it will not be pushed till its full potential untill there is someone better than it!
As most everyone else has said, you have your pick of search engines without constraining your pick of websites. That's key.
If i wake up tomorrow and drop Windows for say, FreeBSD, then i have to go get all new desktop apps. I have to get a new job, since my employer expects me to write and test software for Windows.
If i wake up tomorrow and decide to use Y! for search, it takes... two clicks, and affects only the part of my life that i want it to, the results i'm given when i search the web.
That's quite a difference...
Shog9 on February 9, 2009 7:58 AMI love the photo! Where's it from?
Andy Lee on February 9, 2009 8:07 AMThe reason why Google having a monopoly doesn't scare me as much as Microsoft having one is because Microsoft created their monopoly more through marketing and legal means and less on good products. Google's monopoly on search came around entirely because they simply created the best search engine.
In short, Microsoft's monopoly was *created*, Google's was *earned*.
Its 350x probably because most techies prefer Google to Yahoo.
Vishal on February 9, 2009 8:14 AMNo doubt, it's the free aspect. When something is free, you don't feel like you're being forced to choose.
There is a limit to the free aspect though, Google's strength is that it's free and it's perfectly adequate. Google has done extremely well at making their products, maybe not as feature-filled, but definitely high-quality. Sure I can get better capabilities using Outlook, but who here has lost a corrupted .pst file? So far gmail has never failed me in quite the same momentous way. The only google related product that's crashed on me is Google Desktop. I've never lost the internet because of a corrupted registry, like I have an OS install.
It's interesting where free takes us though. I'm a professional software engineer getting paid to deliver a product. However I hate paying for software, mostly because there's rarely a money back guarantee. Once I gained the ability to build huge applications that do complicated things, I understand why certain problems are hard, but I find it difficult to pay out for things that I could do better. It's like a carpenter buying a dresser from Ikea. But once your competitor makes a free product, he wins my choice. Free beats out any time investment I could put in, and as long as it's adequate, I won't reinvent the wheel.
SteveJ on February 9, 2009 8:15 AMI think the more interesting bit is that you have no meta data associated with your pages. Death of metadata is on it's way.
Justin Yost on February 9, 2009 8:17 AMGoogle improved yesterday.
Silvercode on February 9, 2009 8:18 AMI seriously fear Google monopoly more than Microsoft. The extend of knowledge that they have about 'us' and with future plans like GDrive, its getting scarier.
Ali on February 9, 2009 8:19 AM
In short, Microsoft's monopoly was *created*, Google's was *earned*.
Microsoft Word, Excel, and C++ (to name three apps) all had to compete against products that dominated the existing market. And the Microsoft products became the new market leader by being better and cheaper.
Gunther on February 9, 2009 8:20 AMThe problem is that Microsoft acted in a belligerent and bullying manner, whereas google has not. An no one feels locked in, because they can switch in an instant.
Advertisers, however, are not happy at all, which is why the FTC or whoever got involved and blocked the yahoo/google search deal
Chad Okere on February 9, 2009 8:21 AMThe list at, http://www.google-watch.org/bigbro.html , is pretty interesting.
The last point being very close to truth:
9. Google is a privacy time bomb
Daniel on February 9, 2009 8:22 AMDoes anyone have concerns about Google quietly collecting and retaining your search data and potentially using it for behavioral targeting or turning it over for use in legal disputes? That may be an area where other search engines can gain a competitive edge.
Google for analytics and the top paid ad is for Google's own product. The first 5 of 6 results point back to their product. Omniture - a competitor - is the 7th link, below the fold.
A search for webmail, web mail, web-based email and even just email return no results for gmail - paid or otherwise.
Now, this isn't proof of abuse of market share (what triggers the M word in the US), but it does call for some discussion. What would happen if a search for office returned sponsored links to google docs? What about a search for microsoft office?
It's that fuzzy line, like when your cable provider claims hulu is eating up all bandwidth, while offering a competing steaming service.
As for the it's free argument - IE was free as well, didn't seem to matter much. Company vs. Company is a bad way to look at things anyway, it should be the interests of the consumer and what effect a company will have for the long term good of the consumer.
To be honest, I've tried to use the other search engines, but the results suck. Unless that changes, I'm not changing.
Michael C. Neel on February 9, 2009 8:29 AMI don't care that Google is so dominant because its services are free (to me). Google has the best start page with their iGoogle. Other services like Google Reader, Gmail, and Gcalendar are amazing and well integrated. If they wanted to charge me money to search I would be up in arms and a fervent supporter of a tiny underdog like MSN Live search or something.
Jim on February 9, 2009 8:31 AMThere's a difference between the monopolies.
Back in the days, the Microsoft Monopoly provided software that were readily available on the OS, (sometimes it was the only product available) not necessarily good products.
Google just makes better products and they have earned it.
I think Google isn't subjected to the same scrutiny as MS because its products usually work.
jmags on February 9, 2009 8:33 AMPeople whining about Microsoft do so because they use some evil techniques to squash down their competitors, as opposed to Google, which invests in research and nice working environment.
Nicol·s Miyasato (miya) on February 9, 2009 8:33 AMWhen you've only ever dealt with Google as a searcher, I agree, they seem very nice and most of the time return reasonable results. However, if you've ever actually published anything to the web and then done a search, you will see some things that will really scare you.
I've had a love-hate relationship with Google for a while now. I was an early adopter of Google for exactly the same reasons everyone else started using them -- clean, quick interface with good results. I really do believe Google does abuse their position as a search provider. When I first Googled wireless broadband over a year ago, I got Google TiSP back as the first link. I had never heard of Google TiSP and was extremely surprised by this result. I wrote a blog post about this and when I checked again a few months later, Verizon was the first link (which is actually what prompted me to notice this start with).
I find that very scary.
I do think Google is definitely playing fast and loose with the page ranks. They try to tilt things their way when they can get away with it. I also have a friend that got Google-slapped. In his case, this was just some supplemental income he lost but I'm sure there were many people who's main source of income was abruptly halted.
This is exactly the same kind of heavy-handed garbage that got MS in hot water and will get Google in the same pot if they keep it up.
JohnOpincar on February 9, 2009 8:37 AMI'm a little surprised all the people who were so up in arms about the Microsoft monopoly ten years ago aren't out in the streets today lighting torches and sharpening their pitchforks to go after Google.
Jeff, It's all due to bias and playa hatin' (TM), I'm afraid. These are the same folks who also say nothing about the *extreme* proprietary nature of a Mac environment but decry the much more open Microsoft alternatives.
o.s. on February 9, 2009 8:38 AMEasy to switch? Yes, if you're just searching. Not if you're an advertiser. Try not advertising via Google and see where that gets you. Right now, because of its market share, Google has advertisers by the throat.
As Jeff said, if Google suddenly decides you don't exist...
Maxam on February 9, 2009 8:40 AMyahoo == altavista?
http://www.altavista.com/web/results?itag=odyq=michael+birenbachkgs=1kls=0
http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=michael+birenbachfr=yfp-t-501toggle=1cop=mssei=UTF-8
Google does it different...
http://www.google.com/search?hl=enq=michael+birenbachbtnG=Google+Searchaq=foq=
widipedia says:
In February 2003, AltaVista was bought by Overture Services, Inc.[12] In July 2003, Overture itself was taken over by Yahoo!.
I wonder what the search results for the other look like. Interesting...to me anyway.
I would be interested to know how many programmers and techies don't have Google as their homepage. I imagine not many especially with iGoogle.
The reason people don't complain about Google monopoly like they do Microsoft is Google aren't charging you.
pete on February 9, 2009 8:45 AMNothing from Cuil?
Just kidding, it's only a problem if Google stops following its motto. As long as they play nice it'll be fine, otherwise people will start migrating to other search engines and a more balanced competition will emerge.
They deserved their place at the top, I'm ok with the virtual-monopoly they have.
M. Billard on February 9, 2009 8:48 AMHas anyone noticed that google seems to be quite tech oriented? try googling for the word Factor on both google, Live, and yahoo. What would you expect the results to be? The O'Rilley factor? Factoring prime numbers? Factor on wikipedia or a dictionary? On google #1 is the factor programming language. On live factor on wikipedia followed by factor.com and the o'rilley factor, then the programming language. Yahoo some how comes up with the X-factor comic over the word factor on wikipeida.
So what do you have? Yahoo which just sucks, Live that is a little better if you are looking for non technical terms (but still pretty good for tech terms as well) but owned by the evil empire and Google.
Brian on February 9, 2009 8:56 AMLack of competition don't always mean lack of innovation. And the reverse is also true, lots of competition don't always result in innovation. Google is still improving their search engine and doing lots of innovations in the area (custom searches, etc).
Hoffmann on February 9, 2009 8:59 AMI think it is because the search engine market has already been shown to be amenable to entirely new players taking over the market. Google itself showed that a new search engined could come in without any sort of OS support and completely take over the market. There's no reason to think that this couldn't happen again.
As far as I know, the only leverage Google has over other search engines today is being the default search engine for Firefox. Given that that browser is still no where near the dominant browser, that is not much.
High market share is not the same as a monopoly. High market share is only bad when it is achieved through some means other than having the best product.
sburnap on February 9, 2009 9:02 AMI sometimes use the MSN live search bar at the top right of my browser and curse when I realise what i've done. The results are apauling, even Cuil.com provided better results.
Just to make myself feel better, I become a litte devil may care. Instead of hitting 'Home' to get to google I search for it using msn live search and get it that way.
Dan on February 9, 2009 9:03 AMMaxam brings up a great point about advertising. I have heard many stories about Google being quite shady when it comes to sponsored click through advertising. A common practice seems to be that the day before they owe you your first cheque that they cancel your contract stating that you've artificially upped the number of click throughs.
There's no defense for it since the way the contract is written is entirely in Googles favor.
It's easy to hate on Microsoft because they've done some bad things, but anyone who thinks that they are the only one playing dirty pool is fooling themselves.
Andrew on February 9, 2009 9:07 AMThe last three paragraphs are vintage Atwood. I almost stood up and clapped. Google is the T-Rex in the room in a bunny suit.
Hell, I'm standing up now. Clap..clap..clap.
Not being sarcastic, either!
Googlophobia on February 9, 2009 9:09 AMNot to mention that google is a jewish business. Sergey Brin is jew.
Anonymous on February 9, 2009 9:16 AMYe, what can *we* do.
Jan on February 9, 2009 9:16 AMI saw an example of this a few days ago.
I keep a personal blog on blogspot and mentioned a family ancestral surname that had about three Google hits.
As a goof, about five minutes later I googled the name, and Holy Web Traffic, Batman! there was my post at the top of the results. Five minutes!
Timmy The Programmer on February 9, 2009 9:17 AMWow. AOL and Altavista are still around? Who knew?
jeffH on February 9, 2009 9:22 AMJeff, I would love to see a point counterpoint with Robert Scoble:
http://scobleizer.com/2009/02/09/is-the-real-time-web-a-threat-to-google-search/
You guys are like ships passing in the night.
For those who asked about the image I found a link to the origin by doing a quick google image search. See http://www.newyorker.com/online/2007/05/14/slideshow_070514_banksy?slide=10
People who worry about Google forget about altavista. Back in its day altavista was the same as google is now with everyone worrying that it was taking over the internet. Then altavista starting doing stupid stuff, like filling up its page with ads, and people started switching to google because it was faster. When google messes up, and does not fix it, people will switch; the problem is would you switch to?
Google works, is quick, allows me to customize stuff to how I want it, and return links that are good and unless it is something really obscure has the information I need on the top page. All of those are things other search engine have problems doing.
will on February 9, 2009 9:26 AMI'll google a solution to this problem
Billkamm on February 9, 2009 9:39 AMI'm a little surprised all the people who were so up in arms about the Microsoft monopoly ten years ago aren't out in the streets today lighting torches and sharpening their pitchforks to go after Google.
Clearly, that's because most of the people who had a problem with Microsoft then, and the vast majority who have a problem with Microsoft now, don't care about monopoly but simply DON'T LIKE MICROSOFT. I would wager if it was Red Hat, or Suse/Novell or Google or anybody else having a monopoly there wouldn't have been half as much complaints.
Wayne on February 9, 2009 9:41 AMGoogle is not only the only relevant search engine, it also starts to effect what media i want to write for. I recently wrote a blog post concluding As far as iím concerned, if you canít find it through google, it doesnít exist. And if it doesn't exist, why write it?
(More here: http://www.andrejkoelewijn.com/wp/2009/01/31/why-are-you-still-writing-articles-for-magazines/)
ako on February 9, 2009 9:42 AMI see a number of differences between Google and Microsoft:
1) I opt to use Google. Windows comes bundled.
2) Google doesn't go out of their way to prevent me from using alternatives.
3) I don't have to pay extra charges if I decide to use Yahoo! instead of Google. If I decide to use Linux, I'll still pay for the bundled Windows.
4) Windows has lousy stability (at the time of the monopoly charges), Google doesn't.
Privacy on the internet is the next big thing, and Google will loose, badly, when people start realizing.
Found a pretty neat site for the privacy addicts:
a href=http://www.scroogle.org/http://www.scroogle.org//a">http://www.scroogle.org//a">http://www.scroogle.org/http://www.scroogle.org//a
Daniel on February 9, 2009 9:56 AMI'm a little surprised all the people who were so up in arms about the Microsoft 'monopoly' ten years ago aren't out in the streets today lighting torches and sharpening their pitchforks to go after Google.
Google isn't forcing out competitors like Microsoft was, they're just winning by being better. Plus, people are a little wiser now and realize that technical advantage isn't forever. Google doesn't have video search nailed. Their other products aren't winning that big. The biggest problem with the Microsoft monopoly was that it was really difficult to change away from their desktop OS, even though it wasn't that stable until Windows XP came along. When XP turned out to be really good, and when Firefox came along to make IE look bad, people started complaining somewhat less about the monopoly.
I am not surprised that you are pretending to be surprised.
Matt McKnight on February 9, 2009 9:57 AMLooking at just your site's referrer logs doesn't give you the full picture. According to at least one source, only 20% of the world uses Google exclusively. It's still nearly 3 times the loyalty Yahoo gets (8%), but 55% of internet users make use of multiple search engines.
Yeah, one study doesn't make the whole thing either, but a wider perspective is important.
That Blair Guy on February 9, 2009 9:57 AMthanks to daniel for the link to google-watch. linking google to 9/11 is a bit of a stretch...
a nominmouss on February 9, 2009 10:03 AMGoogle's monopoly is scary because it *could* abuse it.
Microsoft's monopolies are more than scary because they *have* *been* abusing it for 20 years.
Google enjoys 95%+ market share in their core market because they are the best.
Microsoft enjoys 95% market share in their core market because of a positive feedback loop, not because it's better. See: VHS vs Beta (although admittedly there is a case to be made that VHS was actually technically superior in some respects, but you get the point).
Look at the state of the browser. IE is clearly inferior to all the alternatives[*], yet it still commands ~70% market share due to it being bundled with Windows. Microsoft let IE6 rot for 5 years. If Google did that with their search engine, they'd be out of business.
That's not to say Google's position is not a cause for concern; just keep things in perspective.
nixar on February 9, 2009 10:10 AMI have a friend who Google's for words within a word document, but he does this using ctrl-F
Nathan on February 9, 2009 10:10 AMWayne: ´ I would wager if it was Red Hat, or Suse/Novell or Google or anybody else having a monopoly there wouldn't have been half as much complaints.†ª
You'd have to explain to me how Red Hat or Suse could have a monopoly, as they sell Free/Open Source Software ... you don't have to give them a kopek to use their product, just download the source, ./configure and make install. Or alternatively download one of the 100 other distributions out there.
nixar on February 9, 2009 10:13 AMI remember when Google snatched up dejanews. At the time, Google was an up and comer and Deja.com was struggling along, but with a brilliant search engine tied to archived Usenet postings. Google was very smart in skirting the outside edges of search and became almost a silent monopoly overnight.
Until someone else can make a quantum jump in search technology and make it stick in the same way, Google will continue to dominate.
Steve on February 9, 2009 10:20 AMoops... forgot the website:
http://news.cnet.com/2100-1023-252449.html
Steve on February 9, 2009 10:21 AMIt gets even more interesting when you consider their diving into California's Prop 8 debate. If you google for 'Mormon' the first paid link is from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I wonder what happens if I google for 'irony'.
Rich on February 9, 2009 10:21 AMAs a company becomes dominant, it slowly marches toward the lead dog.
For my Dad generation: IBM
For my generatio: Microsoft
For my kids: Google. this is only inevitable
for what its worth I saw the Firefox is worried as to what would happen should it become the lead dog in browser...
I want Google to have a monopoly. There's a reason people use it. They do things right.
Alex on February 9, 2009 10:23 AMIt's well documented that Microsoft used to charge PC makers for a Windows licence for every PC shipped --- even those that shipped without Windows. It was called the Microsoft tax. There is no equivalent Google tax that I know of. Microsoft spent many years playing hardball in the computer industry, and there's now a lot of ill will built up around the brand. So far, Google has managed to avoid building up such ill will. Google doesn't only seem less threatening: compared to Microsoft, it really is less threatening.
Manni Wood on February 9, 2009 10:28 AMI'm a little surprised all the people who were so up in arms about the Microsoft 'monopoly' ten years ago aren't out in the streets today lighting torches and sharpening their pitchforks to go after Google.
Google has done much to build good will among its users so that may be why there's less venom thrown their way. They give back to the open source community. They do their best to not act like bullies. Their philosophy is do no evil. Their product is a quality product miles ahead of the competition that also happens to be free. Because they have competition, they aren't a monopoly. If I don't like them, it costs next to nothing to switch to a competitor(as opposed to changing your OS). They got to number 1 because their product is tops not because of anticompetitive practices or gaming the system type behavior. Google generally respects and works with, as opposed to being hostile to, the rest of the tech industry (for example, Google maps on Apple's Iphone). Their top guys are all nerds, not bullies. Generally speaking, they do the right thing. See, there's really no need to bite the hand that feeds you. Its just poor taste.
DNH on February 9, 2009 10:29 AMYou basically just said that Google is the most popular search engine. I rewrote the article for you. Thanks for that analytical view point.
If you're worried about privacy, doesn't keep *any* personal info and aggregates across many engines. Seems pretty good too, but personally very conflicted - I like Google web history - it's saved me a few times....
If ixquick allowed me to keep a local history that was as easy to search I'd switch tomorrow. FF history sucks for searching, imo.
Francis Fish on February 9, 2009 10:40 AMI used to use Yahoo! and resisted to switch to Google at first. But Google was way better than Yahoo!. Now, show me a search engine much better than Google and I'll change. That's all...
Adam on February 9, 2009 10:43 AMixquick . They don't save so much
Artor on February 9, 2009 10:45 AMMaybe we are angry and annoyed about it. Perhaps we just aren't as vocal (or possibly or words aren't coming through because your using google to try and find our anti-googleness? (j/k but wouldn't that be interesting)).
I know that I'm working on moving away from google as my primary search engine. I started to move my email away from gmail to my personal domain, granted last week I moved my personal domain back to google but that changes in my life are making it so I can't host my own mail server at the moment.
I refuse to use google calendars, notes, wiki, knol, so forth and so on.
I will use Open Source code that google helps but thats only if it runs local on my own machine.
Dobbs on February 9, 2009 10:51 AMi really belive google try not to be evil, but that's just impossible to be well meaning 100% for everyone. add up the fact that google is a huge company , and there's no way to keep that philosophy for long...
i belive the essential diference between google and microsoft is that it's free for people.
last weekend i was reading clicky's blog: (http://getclicky.com/blog/150/googles-new-ajax-powered-search-results-breaks-search-keyword-tracking-for-everyone), which made me really worried, because of the way it could just crush any chance of competition on google analytics.
I cannot speak for everyone, but at least for me, source code search engines (such as Koderz and Krugle) are becoming more and more important when looking for code examples. I am convinced that source code search will become more and more important in the future. The technologie for that is on the way. Imagine for example that you would just write in interface and some tests, and then search the intertubes from an implementation. Already today, there are research prototypes that (within limits) can get this done.
Adrian Kuhn on February 9, 2009 11:04 AMRE Google - maybe we aren't up in arms because they aren't evil.
That is - their tactics to be No. 1 were to create brilliant software that out-competed on its own merits.
Another company (whom Mu$t remain nameless) ensured that versions of its operating system would not be released without first ensuring a competetor's application wouldn't run. Sorry - but that's evil.
Packaging up and integrating a product nobody wants with a product everyone else has just to gain market share.... sorry - but that's evil. This was done over and over... not a one-off.
On the other hand, Google created a brilliant search engine which does more than I would have ever thought I would want. That's it. They didn't stop on anyone. They didn't ensure you couldn't search for their competitors. They didn't try to force gmail or igoogle account in order to use their search engine.
No - I think when all is said and done we don't hate the search engine monopoly because it isn't evil.
Philip on February 9, 2009 11:17 AMGoogle is part of the jewish mind control conspiration.
Lincoln McAlistair on February 9, 2009 11:19 AMI'm OK with Google's success. They have the best product, they work constantly to keep it the best product, they never engaged in any unfair or illegal business practices, and they use their success to do good things, like the REC project.
-Max
Max Kanat-Alexander on February 9, 2009 11:20 AMThe comments to this entry are closed.
| Content (c) 2012 Jeff Atwood. Logo image used with permission of the author. (c) 1993 Steven C. McConnell. All Rights Reserved. |
Subscribe in a reader
Subscribe via email