<div style="display:inline;float:right;margin-left:1em"><g:plusone href="https://www.searchenginegenie.com/blog-seo/google-as-web-king-an-interesting-thread-discussion-in-webmasterworld/"></g:plusone></div>
<div style="display:inline;float:right;margin-left:1em"><g:plusone href="https://www.searchenginegenie.com/blog-seo/google-as-web-king-an-interesting-thread-discussion-in-webmasterworld/"></g:plusone></div>
{"id":112,"date":"2004-12-21T13:50:00","date_gmt":"2004-12-21T17:50:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.searchenginegenie.com\/blog-seo\/google-as-web-king-an-interesting-thread-discussion-in-webmasterworld\/"},"modified":"2012-09-20T06:13:35","modified_gmt":"2012-09-20T10:13:35","slug":"google-as-web-king-an-interesting-thread-discussion-in-webmasterworld","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.searchenginegenie.com\/blog-seo\/google-as-web-king-an-interesting-thread-discussion-in-webmasterworld\/","title":{"rendered":"Google as Web King &#8211; An interesting thread discussion in webmasterworld"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>A interesting thread in webmasterworld discusses an article written by Charles H. Ferguson at Technology Review,<\/p>\n<p>This article neatly describes the future of google and how they can improve them selves from their current standings,<\/p>\n<p>2 significant posts in this thread are from 2 regular users, they had a very good insight into the article,  Source of the article; www.technologyreview.com\/articles\/05\/01\/issue\/ferguson0105.asp?p=1<\/p>\n<p>Iguana says,<\/p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>I think I understand what Charles H. Ferguson is saying. He seems to be<br \/>saying that Google needs to develop commercial APIs to their search &#8211; because<br \/>this is what Microsoft has done before with windows and their applications and<br \/>made (nearly) all the facilities available to developers.<br \/>But I don&#8217;t regard<br \/>&#8216;Web Search&#8217; as that important a function to require APIs. I still regard it as<br \/>a way to quickly access the statically delivered content on the web. Obviously<br \/>Google already have a developers API (with very limited usage) and Adsense<br \/>websearch. Amazon have their new e-commerce webservice that allows you access to<br \/>their search results (Google-derived and Alexa enhanced) that is in beta and may<br \/>be subject to a charge in the future. Both of these seem to be allowing websites<br \/>to incorporate their own websearch facilities. I don&#8217;t think they will be taken<br \/>up in large enough numbers to have a big impact on searches done.<br \/>What he is<br \/>talking about is the next generation of search &#8211; the one that includes the<br \/>&#8216;hidden web&#8217; desktop PC file systems, emails, handhelds, and Linux. To provide a<br \/>cross-platform access to all of this would be nice &#8211; but hardly a &#8216;killer app&#8217;.<br \/>I haven&#8217;t bothered to download Google or MS desktop search &#8211; I know where my<br \/>files are and what they contain and can use windows explorer to check them. I<br \/>only need a deep search of previous web pages\/emails\/files about every 2 weeks.<br \/>If you said I could search and access the text of any book ever written, any<br \/>software, any album details (cover\/real lyrics\/ track listing\/sample), access<br \/>MP3s of my music and the music collections of any friends (wishing all my vinyl<br \/>was converted to MP3) &#8211; then I would be excited both in my working and home<br \/>life. But copyright prevents a lot of this and I couldn&#8217;t afford to actually<br \/>purchase these as products.<br \/>I just fail to make that jump from search being<br \/>a quick, sometimes frustrating, way to access web content to being the nervous<br \/>system that unifies my informational world. In the long term (10-20 years?) it<br \/>will be that. But for the next few years, when the Google\/MS competition will<br \/>take place, it is the web search that will be the battleground. I used to think<br \/>the real crux could be how you access the search &#8211; when the browser disappears<br \/>from Windows and becomes part of the desktop then Microsoft can make it awkward<br \/>for people to change the default search from MSN to Google. It didn&#8217;t work last<br \/>time with the built-in IE search but maybe will work better this time. Luckily<br \/>enough Google should have the financial clout to quickly stop Microsoft using<br \/>any unfair tactics, unlike some other companies in the past who have had to wait<br \/>5 years for their multi-million dollar settlements that are just loose change<br \/>for Mr Gates.<br \/>I realise that I am holding up my hand and saying I just don&#8217;t<br \/>have the imagination\/foresight to see how APIs and extending the search content<br \/>is the next step. Given that Microsoft won&#8217;t be able to just leverage control of<br \/>the major operating system to eliminate Google, I keep on coming back to the<br \/>thought that for the next 5 years it&#8217;s the same old, same old thing &#8211; quality of<br \/>the search results. All the pain of the Florida update, the obfuscations that<br \/>have reduced the power of Pagerank, the &#8216;filters\/sandbox\/hilltop\/ anchor text\/<br \/>over-optimisation penalties&#8217; &#8211; has failed to produce better Google search<br \/>results. Google needed to move from a keyword-based search with Pagerank to<br \/>something else (now that Pagerank was understood and spammed rather than natural<br \/>web linking). I really believed that Google was going to move to the next stage<br \/>and figure out what a page was about before serving it as a result as opposed to<br \/>ever more elaborate counts\/weighting of keywords in the document. But they have<br \/>failed. I think that Yahoo and Teoma may now be its equal and that Microsoft may<br \/>catch up in a year. Google could become a minor player long before the big<br \/>battle over control of access to digital content is fought &#8211; if one of the other<br \/>players comes up with a search engine that actually understands something about<br \/>what the user is searching for.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<p>Namaste says,<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>Web search is a service, and in a service, the quality of service matters. MS<br \/>has never won a service war, only a product war.<br \/>From what I have seen of<br \/>Google&#8217;s strategy so far, it seems to be sound:<br \/>1. Index deep. 2. Go beyond<br \/>the web 3. Earn revenue from increased distribution 4. Make search convenient:<br \/>fast, desktop, etc. 5. Build a WebOS 6. Don&#8217;t be evil<br \/>These 6 are common<br \/>sense strategies and if they stick to them, they should have a sound future.<br \/>For all that is said, MS also sticks to some common sense strategies that<br \/>have seen it win many battles: 1. Make everything easy to use 2. Provide<br \/>reasonably good quality 3. Provide it cheap 4. Push it to the max 5. Get<br \/>developers on your side<br \/>It beat Netscape, Apple, Novell, IBM, etc. using<br \/>just these five strategies. But these strategies are blunt against Google,<br \/>because Google is already doing the first four, and there isn&#8217;t much scope for<br \/>the fifth in search.<br \/>The big question is what will happen when MS provides<br \/>integrated desktop search? The answer is that Google still wins if it follows<br \/>it&#8217;s own 1 and 2 and stays ahead of MS. People who are searching will goto<br \/>Google.<br \/>Further, we are moving to the high bandwidth era, where we are using<br \/>more web applications than ever before. If Google can successfully engineer some<br \/>key applications (such as Gmail) to be equivalent to desktop software (such as<br \/>Outlook), people will automatically migrate to web apps as they are completely<br \/>portable.<br \/>I am also surprised that the author hasn&#8217;t spoken about patent<br \/>acquisition as a strategic advantage. We have seen many tech wars won as a<br \/>result of patents (Minolta vs Carl Zeiss for example). This important factor<br \/>could decide the MS vs Google battle. Both players realize the importance of<br \/>patents and must be amassing them in hordes. Google ofcourse has a head start in<br \/>this as far as search and WebOS goes.<br \/>As far as APIs are concerned, I<br \/>believe, Google will provide full fledged APIs when it can successfully offer a<br \/>WebOS. Possibly just before Longhorn.<br \/>Let us not underestimate the Linux<br \/>factor in all this. In one or two years, Linux will be as friendly to use as<br \/>Windows (still some issues with fonts, installations, etc.). When the time comes<br \/>for people to discard Windows XP, the big question is will they go for Longhorn<br \/>or the new Linux. In my opinion, it will be the new Linux.<br \/>The future:<br \/>People will &#8220;upgrade&#8221; from Windows to Linux; and use more web apps as compared<br \/>to desktop apps.<br \/>Has MS considered building a WebOS? No news there so far.<br \/>If they do, then we are talking serious competition to Google in a few years. <\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p> Source: of the thread, www.webmasterworld.com\/forum3\/27178.htm<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>A interesting thread in webmasterworld discusses an article written by Charles H. Ferguson at Technology Review, This article neatly describes the future of google and how they can improve them selves from their current standings, 2 significant posts in this thread are from 2 regular users, they had a very good insight into the article, [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[31],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-112","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-webmaster-news"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.searchenginegenie.com\/blog-seo\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/112","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.searchenginegenie.com\/blog-seo\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.searchenginegenie.com\/blog-seo\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.searchenginegenie.com\/blog-seo\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.searchenginegenie.com\/blog-seo\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=112"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.searchenginegenie.com\/blog-seo\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/112\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1626,"href":"https:\/\/www.searchenginegenie.com\/blog-seo\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/112\/revisions\/1626"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.searchenginegenie.com\/blog-seo\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=112"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.searchenginegenie.com\/blog-seo\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=112"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.searchenginegenie.com\/blog-seo\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=112"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}