Slashdot Mirror


Talk of an Apple Search Engine To Thwart Google

Hugh Pickens writes "eWeek reports that the data Apple collects about users from its iPhone is so valuable that the company may build its own iPhone-centric search engine just to keep Google from gleaning insight from that data. 'The data generated on the iPhone OS platform must become an increasing priority for Apple and we believe the company has the resources to develop its own products in both maps and search in the next five years,' writes analyst Gene Munster. Google is currently the default search engine on the iPhone, but Google has increasingly encroached on Apple's mobile turf, offering the Android operating system and several mobile applications. As the search provider for the iPhone, Google sees what iPhone users are searching for, which can help it tailor software and services for its own mobile smartphones — a competitive advantage that has not gone unnoticed by Apple. Apple lacks the experience and engineering wherewithal to build a large, scalable search engine, but Munster says Apple could buy a search startup with a Web index, such as Cuil or Taptu, and use its index as the seed for its own search engine. 'Apple is in an inside position to tap into the current pent-up demand for better mobile search, and add a new competitive differentiation from other search providers and device makers,' adds IDC analyst Hadley Reynolds."

12 of 276 comments (clear)

  1. This will fail by selven · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Bing was created mainly as an attack on Google and an attempt to get into the search business, not because Microsoft had something new to offer in search. This is being done in the same spirit, and it will also turn out bad, with many users going to google.com to search just because Google is that much better.

    1. Re:This will fail by sopssa · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You're overestimating the importance of that. All the other aspects of marketing work too. For example, theres one store that imports all kinds of hot and exotic spices, chili, and anything related you don't find on normal stores. I never really search for them on Google and most other people have heard about them by word of mouth, and they seem to be doing just fine. Sure they do have their sites indexed in Google which most likely brings them extra customers, but it's not like it's really needed for a successful company. Only time a company would fail if they were dropped from a search index would be if they were a shit company to begin with.

  2. Re:Balderdash! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What's next, a rumor of Google's new Android based gPad?

    You're two months late with that.

  3. Re:No Way by vux984 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    No way is Apple going to be able to take on Google in search. Bing failed

    Bing hasn't 'failed'. Not taking the top spot is not 'failure'.

    and Microsoft has a lot more power than Apple.

    Good point. I guess Apple should give up on portable music players too. ;)

    People will just end up using the google website instead.

    Sure. A fraction of the user base. Some of the time. Odds are anything apple throws in as the built in search will be good enough most of the time for most users. Who knows... they may even partner up with Microsoft/Yahoo. Of course apple has serious NIH syndrome, so probably not.
     

  4. Disregarding core competencies always ends badly by Angst+Badger · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It probably is possible to build a company that does many widely disparate things well -- and certainly, there are a few successful examples -- but it is very, very hard. Most of the time, when a company wanders outside of its core competencies, the venture crashes and burns, and sometimes takes the company down with it. Microsoft (and yes, I am using the term core "competency" very loosely here) has managed to get a lock on PC operating systems and office software, but its ventures elsewhere have not been very successful: IE is the dominant browser, but the goal of using it to dominate the internet was a failure, and the Xbox, while reasonably popular, is not profitable for Microsoft. Google's ventures outside search and advertising have been ignorable so far. Even IBM's foray into personal computing, historically important though it was, is history. Combine such an expedition with a challenge to a competitor whose dominance borders on monopoly, and the odds definitely don't get any better.

    Now Apple wants to enter a field in which they not only have no experience, but also lack experience in the entire underlying field of large-scale, massively parallel computing? And they think they're going to do this by buying an unknown and unproven startup?

    Well, good luck with that. The odds of it going anywhere are not good, and if it pisses off enough iPhone owners, it might damage the core company as well. (I know, I know, if iPhones crapped every fifteen minutes like parrots, Apple enthusiasts would be the first to boast that Apple had crapping phones way ahead of everyone else, but Apple is no longer operating in a market where the majority of its customers are diehard fanboys.)

    --
    Proud member of the Weirdo-American community.
  5. Change the game! by Lemming+Mark · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Apple does well when they change the game, rather than simply trying to win a race on somebody else's terms. They also seem to have a good understanding of where their own strengths lie. I can't see them trying to compete head-on with Google but if they can find a way to make Google's strengths less relevant then I can see them doing that. That said, it's not like Apple doesn't have a few flops / vanity projects under its belt and it is sometimes seen as a company that would potentially set business decisions based on personal feeling. Their compass on business decisions is fairly good overall though, even though I'm not at all keen on the direction they want to take the industry.

  6. Re:Not a chance in hell by Karlt1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Apple relies entirely on their cult to fund its sales. Unfortunatly for them their cult dose not make up a 10's of %s so they will stand no chance of taking significant market share. Search engines unlike hardware sales require large numbers of customers, not a small number willing to spend big bucks.

    So it's only Apple's "cult" that bought 54 Million iPods last year, 20.5 Million iPhones, and 25% of all music sold in the US?

    Considering that Apple only sold around 13 million Macs last year, I find that unbelievable.

    Besides that, why should Apple care about search engine market share? As the article stated, the prime goal would be to keep Google from being able to data mine information from iPhone/iPod Touch users.

  7. Re:Not a chance in hell by clarkkent09 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Apple relies entirely on their cult to fund its sales.

    Well, decent products too. Not to mention killer marketing. Can any other company manage 8 stories on the front page of http://cnet.com/ as Apple has at the moment as well as front pages of CNN, BBC, New York Times etc etc, just because they released a tablet?

    --
    Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
  8. Re:Disregarding core competencies always ends badl by jo_ham · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I think you'll find that it's some "analyst" who is saying there is a "70% chance" that Apple will do this. Apple themselves have said nothing of the sort, and probably quite rightly have determined that search engines are non of their concern.

    Apple don't want to do anything - some analyst desperate to validate his existence and paycheck decided to make up a wild claim that he cannot possibly prove. What is he basing his 70% figure on? It's not like he has any prior history of a computer maker being suddenly successful with a phone and then deciding to release a search engine. It's just nonsense.

  9. Re:Not a chance in hell by zach_the_lizard · · Score: 4, Insightful

    That's a testament to their marketing powers, not to their products. I'm of the opinion that Apple could market human waste, and we'd all hail it as revolutionary. That said, their products are fairly decent, just not as awesome as they are made out to be.

    --
    SSC
  10. Pay out more "cash back" than ad revenues by symbolset · · Score: 4, Insightful

    That'll build market share and ad revenues. Until you stop paying people to pretend to use your search engine to find stuff to buy. Then they abandon you and you'll find you've flushed a bunch of cash for absolutely nothing.

    --
    Help stamp out iliturcy.
  11. Re:Balderdash! by am+2k · · Score: 3, Insightful

    4. Their business model of focussing on the OS and letting other phone makers worry about the hardware is smart. Phone makers were praying for an opportunity to have a phone with functionality to compete with the iPhone, and google gave them the OS to do just that. You can now get a samsung that is on at least an equal footing with the iPhone in many respects.

    Incidentally, that's also their biggest technical weakness. There are many handsets available now, all with different hardware, different software versions (most aren't upgradable to the latest version, because the manufacturer doesn't care). That's a nightmare for software developers. Over time, this will be a larger and larger issue, just like it already is for mobile Java applications.

    As a contrast, all iPhones ever released are upgradable to the latest OS version, and there are only five different types of hardware (including the iPod Touches).