Forbes on Google

Let's face it, Google has entrenched itself. Why is that? When it first came to my notice - I guess around 1999? - they were just a cute name with a reputation for good search results. That reputation was a cult, underground groundswell much like that which had driven Altavista to be the previous search tool of choice - or arguably Yahoo!? Google entered the fray with a new idea - results based on the popularity of links to each site. That seemed to work, and they grew. They also innovated with AdWords and derived income from searches in a new way. The rest is history. Yahoo! also has a cute name, revenue and massive success - but Google, despite arriving later, has innovated in a way that has kept it ahead.

Forbes now asks,'Can anybody overtake Google?'. Well of course anything can happen.

Forbes suggests that both Microsoft and Yahoo! plan to claw back more ground by improving the ad-selling platform that surrounds their search engine. The idea: Offer advertisers a better way to target their ad campaigns. They also suggest that improved search results will back that up. It seems possible. Comparable or better search results plus a revenue stream drawn to a 'better' ad-selling platform may crack the nut that is Google. But is it enough to just match Google?

Unless it can be made more compelling for the searcher, by introducing an entirely new paradigm, by staggeringly improving the result relevance or by introducing some side benefit that draws repeated traffic - why change habits? In fact the web is full of examples of 'fads' but Google has transcended a fad. It may be different. However if it's not so different after all then it could simply tire and we'll all move on. It's a website and the web is pretty frictionless, even with all the toolbars hooking in....

I know I'd change pretty quickly and easily but doubt I'd go to either MS or Yahoo! I'd look for the cool tool from somewhere new and obscure ;-)