Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Are Google's Best Days In the Past?

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the they-were-cooler-when-only-we-knew-about-them dept.

rsmiller510 writes "For a time, everything Google touched turned to gold, but lately a slew of bad press is creating a negative perception about the search giant."

58 of 322 comments (clear)

  1. Just because the "best days" are in the past.. by intellitech · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ..does not mean they can't still turn a profit.

    --
    vos nescitis quicquam, nec cogitatis quia expedit nobis ut unus moriatur homo pro populo et non tota gens pereat.
    1. Re:Just because the "best days" are in the past.. by sakdoctor · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Google is clearly lacking in some key areas, most obviously social.

      Google is still untouched in search. A core internet technology.
      The glorified RSS feeds that are facebook and twitter have no relevance to that market.

    2. Re:Just because the "best days" are in the past.. by Lumpy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      but their search is getting useless. link farms are still not being squashed, and they are allowing SEO scumbags to move results up the list for their clients who 9 times out of 11 dont have anything to do with the topic.

      Google needs to do the Iron fist thing on search SEO's and put any SEO trickery or linkfarms at the BOTTOM of all search results. My exclude list for Google searching is getting ridiculously long.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    3. Re:Just because the "best days" are in the past.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Good products that "Just Work" sell themselves.

      if only there was a company that sold those

    4. Re:Just because the "best days" are in the past.. by getNewNickName · · Score: 2

      Sure, Google is still king of search, but it hasn't been able to get much traction in other areas (e.g. social networking). The article was written from an investment point of view not technological. As an investment GOOG has been disappointing for the past few years compared to other tech leaders. So this begs the question whether or not its "best days", as an investment, are past. It still remains to be seen whether Android will be able to contribute significantly to the company's revenue growth. The key word is growth, MS still continues to make tons of money, but their future growth prospects remain dubious which is reflected in their stock price.

    5. Re:Just because the "best days" are in the past.. by Luckyo · · Score: 5, Interesting

      There is a subset of that thinking in usability (when studied as science). Textbook example is a sport wrist watch. On one hand, you can have one with a lot of features that can be accessed very quickly and a lot of info on the home screen, but requires a lot of buttons to control functions in a usable way.
      Other is aimed at "we want something that just works" crowd (usually senior citizens), and has only one big red button and "just works" (and "illumination" button on the side for obvious reasons).

      Reality - it "just works" for people who are willing to limit themselves to limited feature set given by the watch. It doesn't replace the one with many "confusing" buttons, and when it does it does it with a lot less efficiency.

      Apple's advantage is that hype essentially steamrolls the "but the other features that are clunky/missing?" argument as hype claims that if iphone can't do it, you don't need it. Never mind that USB connectivity to a PC as an external drive, or ability to see email sender's name right from the home screen without having to go through "pretty" menus (to cite two of several obvious examples) have been a default feature in the smart phones for a long time. Apple is that "one button" watch that "just works" - so long as you're willing to accept that to even access and start timer will take you a lot longer that it would on a phone that does it the way "watch with many buttons" does.

      And when hype will eventually run it's course and run out, you'll be left out with reality - that apple's version of "one button it just works" usability isn't all that good when you want to step outside those basic boundaries.

    6. Re:Just because the "best days" are in the past.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      You clearly don't understand the fundamental problem with "SEO trickery".

      Allow me to enlighten you.
      Google uses an algorithm to determine the relevance of pages. The problem is that SEO firms have reverse engineered that algorithm to the point where they can manufacture site rankings. As such Google's page ranking system can't tell the difference between a super relevant site, and a site that is lying about it's relevance but has the right answers to all the questions Google knows to ask.

      It is similar to how a Rorschach test doesn't work on someone trained in evaluating the test (they know how their answers will be interpreted and can therefore give the answers that will lead the tester towards the conclusion they want to get). Another analogy would be a spy attempting to seduce a mark. Assuming they spy has done his/her reaserch they should know what the mark looks for in a partner and since they're lying they can appear to be the perfect date, while an honest person would likley have some flaw that compared with the fictional persona of the spy will seem less desirable.

      There is no solution to that problem. At best Google can change their algorithm thus forcing the "SEO scumbags" to start over, but they will start over and they will again succeed. In truth the fact that it's taken this long for it to happen in the first place is rather commendable.

    7. Re:Just because the "best days" are in the past.. by Kjella · · Score: 3, Informative

      People need search engines. You can bitch about it all you want, but unless there's a different company that can squash SEOs better than Google, they'll still own the market. And looking at hitslink they have a very stable 85% of the market. Unless you're seriously suggesting it's so bad that people will not search the Internet at all?

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    8. Re:Just because the "best days" are in the past.. by ADRA · · Score: 2

      And yet Google still remains my #1 used web site online. Some may only ever browse what others point you at, but I actually go out and find things. farms and SEO and the like may make searching more annoying, but it doesn't reduce my need to do so. Facebook or the like will never supplant that need.

      --
      Bye!
    9. Re:Just because the "best days" are in the past.. by blair1q · · Score: 2

      Apropos, I just this morning heard a commercial on the radio for a company that offers to ensure that positive results for searches for your company name appear in the upper results on Google, and negative information disappears into the nether pages.

      This war is on.

    10. Re:Just because the "best days" are in the past.. by vux984 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There is no solution to that problem.

      There are solutions to that problem. A human being can spot a link farm within seconds.

      And when seo can produce websites that I can't tell are link farms, good, because that means they'll have the useful information that I want on them.

    11. Re:Just because the "best days" are in the past.. by symbolset · · Score: 2

      It's a continuous fight. For every system there is, there are a bunch of people trying to game the system. Google has to keep up the good fight, and they are. But this press thing is paid attacks - a PR campaign with low-level astroturfing. There is no reason not to love Google. Their whole job is to search the whole Internet for everything we want.

      --
      Help stamp out iliturcy.
    12. Re:Just because the "best days" are in the past.. by bberens · · Score: 2

      I use Apple because their mouse has one button. I tried a two button mouse once, but I found it too confusing.

      /old person
      /not really
      /Don't troll mod me, it's just a joke.

      --
      Check out my lame java blog at www.javachopshop.com
    13. Re:Just because the "best days" are in the past.. by brit74 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Funny, you could've spun the Apple situation in a lot of different directions. Of course, the slashdot crowd tends towards wanting features and complexity over simplicity and ease of use, so I guess I'm not surprised to see your comment and the upvotes. I think it's silly to suggest some kind of "complexity is better than simplicity" type of argument when society is made up of millions of different consumers with different needs and desires. And let's not forget that it's not just Apple; the Flip camera sells pretty darn well. Reducing it down to "it's just hype" is missing the reality of the market. "I know what all fifty buttons on my TV remote does, I don't know why people are too dumb or lazy to figure it out too. It's obviously superior to the five-button TV remote." isn't the correct answer for all consumers. Somewhere there's a guy who knows what every extra charge on your phone bill is for, and since you don't know, he thinks you're too dumb or lazy to figure out. Is he right? No, we all have a limited amount of time and patience to figure out what this or that thing is for. Technophiles are willing to spend the time. Most people aren't technophiles.

      Perhaps that's the problem. Engineers are designing the devices, and engineers have spent thousands of hours pouring over the features. So, there's a tendency towards feature-creep and complexity as the devices are increasingly aimed at technophiles willing to spend lots of hours learning the device. I worry that Apple will move that direction like every other computer company has a tendency to do, unless there is someone at the helm steering away from the engineer's predisposition. (And, no, I'm not an Apple user. But, I happen to respect what they do and understand why it's a useful approach for them to take. I also don't look down on my friends who have little time or desire to learn the details of their electronic devices.)

    14. Re:Just because the "best days" are in the past.. by Culture20 · · Score: 2

      I've admined hundreds of iMacs, a few Xserves, and dozens of Mac pros. The iMacs suck huge donkey balls. They overheat constantly and there is no way to lock them down. You can set an nvram password but that is trivially defeated mechanically (in a way that can't be physically locked down). The best you can do is use video cameras and restrict physical access to the machine itself with a keycard type system, the review the tapes religiously. The Xserves use cheap sata drives marked up 200%, and the Mac pros don't stack well nor fit sideways in a rack (or have redundant power). The only thing driving apple hardware sales is their software, and they know it.

    15. Re:Just because the "best days" are in the past.. by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2

      Can we have a show of hands? Who believes this story is a little bit suspicious and might be part of an organized effort to spread FUD about Google?

      It could be competitors, it could be a hedge fund manager who just put on a huge spread of put options going out into June, or somebody with an iPad who's bored sitting in a waiting room waiting to get radiation treatments.

      Anyone who believes that this handful of stories, out of the ocean of press that comes out daily in the financial and tech media, comprises a "slew" of bad press really is not paying attention.

      And trust me, the first indication that Google's best days are in the past won't be stories in the news media, it'll be Google losing 30% of it's capitalization and it'll happen before you can even load the web page of your discount broker to try to sell your few shares.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    16. Re:Just because the "best days" are in the past.. by Draek · · Score: 2

      The problem of Apple is that they're designed around a "for dummies" philosophy but are priced as "feature creep" devices. I understand the appeal of a device you only need to read an illustrated pamphlet to understand its workings, but that's a market that the $10 'dumbphones' address far better already than the iPhone ever has.

      That's also why I *do* look down on people who claim they don't have time and/or desire to learn the details of their electronic devices yet deliberately spend above the range aimed at them for its 'coolness' factor. I'm far nicer to folks that don't know how to operate their $100 point-n-shoot camera than morons that ask me where's the Auto mode on their $3000 dSLRs.

      --
      No problem is insoluble in all conceivable circumstances.
    17. Re:Just because the "best days" are in the past.. by Culture20 · · Score: 2

      I've admined hundreds of iMacs, a few Xserves, and dozens of Mac pros. The iMacs suck huge donkey balls. They overheat constantly

      Kinda like way too numerous Windows machines? Toshibas were (are) notorious for this, as one for instance.

      Nothing like them. The iMacs are having hardware failures of about 2% per month (while still under warranty). Any PCs I've seen do this are usually just past warranty or have dying fans. These iMacs' fans are working, they're just designed poorly.

      and there is no way to lock them down.

      Kinda like Windows?

      Now you're just being trollish. Anyone with half a brain can lock Windows down sufficiently until the week before patch Tuesday.

      You can set an nvram password but that is trivially defeated mechanically (in a way that can't be physically locked down).

      Kinda like on the PC platform?

      Now you're not trolling anymore, you're being stupid. To reset a bios password on a PC platform, you have to open the case and reset a jumper on the motherboard. The case can be locked. On an iMac, you just have to access the [censored]. The [censored] can NOT be locked (you can lock the iMac to a desk, but the [censored] is still easily accessible with a screwdriver).

      The Xserves use cheap sata drives marked up 200%,

      Wow, much like much of the "professional" cheapo servers from... Dell, HP and others?

      No, more like the "professional" servers from no-name companies, except they charge only half as much as Dell, and only a third of what Apple used to charge. Dell and HP tend to use SCSI/SAS in their professional servers.

      and the Mac pros don't stack well nor fit sideways in a rack (or have redundant power). The only thing driving apple hardware sales is their software, and they know it.

      Wow, much like most of the machines out there in the PC world until you go into the 5 digit range (or mid to high 4 digit if you are lucky) or custom build?

      What are you smoking? The only computer cases less stackable or rack-capable than mac pros are SGI machines. The only windows box I've seen that wouldn't stack and isn't some custom gaming rig also happened to be an SGI: the 320 abomination. To make a mac pro as stack/rack-friendly as any workstation offering from any PC company, you have to use a hacksaw and a metal file to remove those stupid handles/legs.

      I'm not slamming the WinPC world... I am pointing out that what you are posting is irrelevant since it's a relatively even playing field in the areas you mention.

      Quite relevant since I have actual experience in both worlds, and it's not an even playing field by a long shot. Even our end users are complaining about the iMacs compared to the 'doze PCs, and they're almost all Apple-heads.

      Thus, you should be comparing Apples to WinPCs in OTHER areas... you know... the ones where the end results aren't the same for the comparison.

      I am.

      Then, perhaps you can troll one side or the other.

      Enjoy your check from Apple this month, you shill.

    18. Re:Just because the "best days" are in the past.. by Belial6 · · Score: 2

      Yes, they were being funny, but that doesn't make it any less true. Thinking that Mac "Just Works" any more than windows, or Linux for that matter is a myth. If you buy hardware that the OS knows about, all three will automatically install them. If you don't, they will all be a pain to set up. Yes, even OSX. As for day to day use, they all use the same basic paradigm. Yes, they may look slightly different, but nothing that will thow anyone that isn't willfully trying not to understand.

      Smart phones are not a lot different. Dumping every application's icon on the desktop vs. having a home button that shows the applications that you don't see on the desktop is not a huge difference. Having a permenent back button vs. having the developers put a back button on every screen programatically again isn't a material difference.

      "Just works" always was PR, and it still is.

    19. Re:Just because the "best days" are in the past.. by vux984 · · Score: 2

      It may be a nice fantasy to the average Slashdotter, but anyone with half a brain would realize it's simply not cost-effective at any scale whatsoever.

      This is the company that drove a van down every street on the continent.

      There really aren't that many useful domains, and hundreds of them are registered to the same companies or point at the same sites or are parked, reducing the actual scale of relevant sites by an order of magnitude.

      Its a big problem, but its not THAT big, and like the map of the continent ... its always changing, but most of it still stays the same for long periods of time.

  2. Fried Potatoes and gravy with garlic and spices by Anrego · · Score: 5, Insightful

    My perception:

    They are no longer the cool new guys tearing up the internet and being a company for the people. They are big, diversified, making money hand over fist, and have attracted the requisite controversy, criticism, and bad press that comes with being big and diversified and making money hand over fist.

    Despite everything, I still see them as one of the good guys. I think there’s always a severe whip back when you suddenly discover something that you thought was awesome is now merely ok. Google looks terrible when compared to what it was, but compare it to everything else and it looks pretty damn good.

    And (flamewar time) I continued to be baffled over all the flack they got over the stupid wifi thing. They came clean, admitted everything, co-operated with the investigations and people still tore them 12 new ones. Personally I think they should have been commended for admitting they made a mistake rather than going into full on cover up mode.

    To get back to the topic, it really required a definition of “Best”. Are they ever going to be the cool trendy upstart they once were: probably not. Are they going to continue making money hand over fist and growing like a spider until you shave with google razor blades: entirely possible.

    As for not innovating I still think they’ve got it in them. They’ve had a string of bad luck, and they’ve failed in the social area but I suspect they’ll pull something killer out in the next little bit.

    1. Re:Fried Potatoes and gravy with garlic and spices by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And (flamewar time) I continued to be baffled over all the flack they got over the stupid wifi thing. They came clean, admitted everything, co-operated with the investigations and people still tore them 12 new ones. Personally I think they should have been commended for admitting they made a mistake rather than going into full on cover up mode.

      Maybe that reaction is why companies tend to go into cover up mode. If they really did make an honest mistake, what do they gain by fessing up and cooperating vs trying to hide it? The answer is nothing, and I think Google probably learned a bad lesson from the whole ordeal.

      I hate to say it, but most consumers and voters are short sighted idiots.

    2. Re:Fried Potatoes and gravy with garlic and spices by dstyle5 · · Score: 2

      You had me at fried potatoes...

    3. Re:Fried Potatoes and gravy with garlic and spices by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I agree with a lot of what you said. Especially the part about Google not being as great as when it was a start up, but still being pretty good. At least for me, I still have positive thoughts when I think of Google as opposed to some other tech companies, like Microsoft. Maybe it's just carry over from older days or because they talk a lot about open source, but I still like Google.

      Also I feel like this article was solely written to attract attention. The title and beginning of the article paint Google to look like it might be crumbling and at the very end he goes back on himself and says that they are still an amazing company. It felt like he was writing a sensationalist article to get page views and I didn't really appreciate it.

    4. Re:Fried Potatoes and gravy with garlic and spices by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Bad press means, they kick the ass of competitors willing to pay persons to smear them. In the beginning they had no real competitors.
      Just look at the Smartphone. For Google that is just a trick. For Nokia it was vital.

      If they want an open confrontation with Microsoft they can, just for fun. Put 30 Mio annually on Wine development and Windows is obsolete within 5 years. Or 50 Mio annually on Libreoffice and the Microsoft Office cash cow would get slaughtered.

    5. Re:Fried Potatoes and gravy with garlic and spices by AvitarX · · Score: 2

      But neither of them are that helpful to Google.

      Mucking around with Office was a huge waste for Sun. Google is doing similar, but with a real chance at gaining from it (their docs). Perhaps if they could get truly seamless integration with the desktop app, and their cloud, it could be a win. But, I would think it's unlikely OSS is going to want to do that.

      Wine could actually be something for them, as at least for now, Linux tends to default towards google searches (usually through the distro). Still, the money gained by people getting Google default - the money paid to the distro could be less than losing some to MS, but what they get comes fully to them.

      I will say, it was the sponsorship money paid to Firefox that spawned Chrome more than anything else. Google was paying Mozilla lots of money every year (Mozilla gets 100 Million in search royalties). I don't know what Chrome costs, but it appears pretty reasonable they the reduced search royalty could fund the developement. At least for a while Chrome was primarily eating Firefox's market.

      With an improved Wine, unless they make a real solid distro too, there won't be the reduced royalty that come with Chrome.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
  3. Gee! by hjf · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Gee! Some attention-whore journalist/blogger (I think that's redundant) claims google is dead, it MUST BE TRUE!

    I won't believe it until Netcraft confirms it.

    1. Re:Gee! by Anne_Nonymous · · Score: 2

      Tragedy today, as former leading search engine Google was eaten by wolves.

  4. oh rly. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    You expect me to take a google critique seriously from someone running asp.net?

    1. Re:oh rly. by SQLGuru · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Actually, it look more like Classic ASP. I don't see much in the source that would indicate otherwise. (ASP.NET tends to be -- isn't required, but tends to be --- .ASPX, not .ASP).

      So, not only is the guy running on the Microsoft stack, he isn't even that current in it. I'm not sure I'd put too much creedence in any topic he discusses.

  5. Whats with the google articles today? by Reapman · · Score: 4, Insightful

    To answer the summary: No

    I'd elaborate, but decided to go with the same depth this "summary" provides.

    1. Re:Whats with the google articles today? by DrgnDancer · · Score: 2

      I think this was actually more informative than the article. Let alone the summary. "People in Egypt are not naming their babies "Google" therefore it is dying." ?!?

      --
      I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.
  6. Marketshare by Sockatume · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Not to rip on an article that's just a bunch of one-sentence summaries of other articles and a saucy eyebrow-raise, but the 1% drop cited in the article is in search marketshare. The total value of search ads went up by about 10% in the same period, meaning that Google's revenues almost certainly grew over that period. It's just that they grew slightly more slowly than the newcomers.

    --
    No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
  7. WTF? by doubleplusungodly · · Score: 4, Insightful

    A pretty large majority of the article went into arguing that just because Google lacks good social networking tools, it is declining. What kind of logic is that?

    --
    ---
  8. What the heck is Google? by aplusjimages · · Score: 5, Funny

    Never mind I'll just Yahoo it.

    --
    Can I bum a sig?
  9. that is what happens... by Mr.Fork · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...when you have the best search engine, tied to the best internet ad support, tied to great free thought-provoking-industry changing office products, map tools, tool bars for your browser, chat tools, phone tools, and it all comes from ONE company. What else can you do when everyone is watching every move, ever senior management comment, every action?

    Then again, it does beg to ask, is this typical media bullsheit with typical negative stories that are solely geared towards making money rather than a balanced approach to news reporting? When does the news cross the line when it starts focusing on areas that it's owners have a vested interest in ensuring their 'enemy' is bashed at every opportunity? Is this really a sponge-worthy story?

    --
    Management is doing things right; leadership is doing the right things. - Peter F. Drucker
  10. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 3, Funny

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  11. Not a great article by Jim+Hall · · Score: 5, Informative

    I read the article (it's not that long) but let me save you the trouble: it's not a great article. In fact, it's pointless. You don't need to read very far before he presents his conclusion:

    While Google is still clearly riding high in the general consumer market, it seems to have lost its innovative edge, the one variable that always seemed to help it stay ahead of the market. But whether the company has peaked or not is still an open question.

    Emphasis mine.

    So the tech writer (Ron Miller) doesn't know either. He presents both sides, and seems totally unsure about what he's talking about. To summarize the article:

    • Facebook and Twitter got the tech attention during the Egypt riots, not Google. [Not sure what his point is, here.]
    • JC Penney's tampering with their search results
    • Google might lose ground to vertical search in the future
    • Google dropped 1% in comScore

    But:

    • Google still controls 2/3 of the market, and 1% not a trend.
    • Google doing well with Android
    • Bing not a threat
    • It's all about perception, anyway.

    So yeah, this was a pointless article.

  12. "Bad Press" == MS sponsored smear campaign? by walterbyrd · · Score: 3, Informative

    Political Games Against Google

    1. Re:"Bad Press" == MS sponsored smear campaign? by walterbyrd · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Forgot to include this:

      CNET Shows Anti-Google AstroTurf (‘Consumer’ ‘Watchdog’) is Connected to Edelman, “Microsoft Goes on the Offensive” Against Google

  13. Re:Depends on what Google does. by 0123456 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Google's not dead yet, and as long as they continue to dominate search and a few other niches(Maps, email), they'll be alive.

    The problem is that they're trying to dominate search by making it 'smarter', with the end result that it increasingly sucks. Most times I look for anything out of the ordinary using very clear search terms I end up with 90+% of the results being crap I don't want because it 'intelligently' decided that I wasn't looking for what I was asking it to search for.

    So I'm definitely looking for a better alternative for searches which isn't trying so hard. Yeah, I know I can put magic characters in the search thing so it actually searches for the thing I asked it to search for, but I shouldn't have to do that.

  14. Re:They're "The Man" in my eyes by Tuan121 · · Score: 2

    Will I still use Google? Yes? Do I have my Applehead loyalty to them any more? No!

    Well, will you still use Google?

  15. Turned to gold, eh? by LeoZ · · Score: 3, Interesting

    So everything that Google's touched has turned to gold? Like Gmail where you can't sort emails by sender or by subject? Where emails whose subject lines match existing label filters still end up in the Spam folder? Where searching doesn't always work in the spam folder? Or Google Groups where (last time I checked about a year ago) you couldn't integrate a Google Calendar into your Google Group and, instead, had to use an external link? Or Google Documents where you can't create columns in a text document? Or Google Maps where, up until this year, you couldn't clear your search results without having to refresh the page? My point is that Google starts projects but doesn't finish them. When Google actually decides to focus on completing existing projects then they'll start turning things to gold. Until then....

  16. Chrome and Android by kwishot · · Score: 2

    The numbers speak for themselves:

    Chrome release: September 2008
    Chrome market share; Dec 2009: 4.63%
    Chrome market share; Feb 12011: 10.7%

    Android release: September 2008
    Android smartphone market share; Q1 2010: 9%
    Android smartphone market share; Q4 2010: 33%

  17. My perception by thePowerOfGrayskull · · Score: 2

    A site that has an article telling us how "nosql databases go mobile" isn't one that I take too seriously.

  18. From 0 to Market Leader in the phone industry... by PinchDuck · · Score: 3, Interesting

    in 2 years. Yeah, they're moribund.
    Whatever.

  19. Re:Whoopdeedoo by geminidomino · · Score: 2

    It's a search engine. Who cares?

    These days, google is a search engine the same way emacs is a text editor (see this comment)

    --A vi user

  20. No, blogging's best days are in the past by Animats · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The article is from some clueless blogger type, and reads like something from a content mill.

    Google does have problems. The biggest one is that most of their "products" lose money. YouTube finally has become ad-heavy enough to make money, the first product other than search to go into the black. Google buys market share by giving stuff away, but revenue usually doesn't follow. Being #1 in giving away mail service isn't a business. Android, as a business, loses money. Google has never had a second killer profitable product, and not for lack of trying.

    On the search front, Google's defenses against spam are weak. That's technically fixable, but fixing it would cut into the 30% of revenue that comes from AdSense sites, most of which are junk. Google's recent bad press stems from their addiction to revenue from junk sites.

    As for "social", that looks like a bubble. Facebook is way overpriced as a company. Facebook already has so much obnoxious advertising that it's hard to see where they can generate more revenue without becoming even more annoying. Facebook tried a phone once; it was called Helio. Didn't work.

    Google does have a "social" system, Orkut, It's #1 in Brazil but nowhere else, much to the annoyance of Google executives.

  21. Re:Once upon a time... by EpsCylonB · · Score: 2

    interesting that none of those things by themselves would generate much money

    would you pay to do a google search or would you just use a free alternative instead?

  22. Open Standards by Lorien_the_first_one · · Score: 2

    I agree with you but wanted to add and maybe emphasize a point: open standards. I can't think of another big company that is pushing open standards in the same way with the same enthusiasm as Google is. They are helping to foster diversity in the browser market in a way that no other for profit company has done before (if you can think of a better example, let me know, really). Whether or not Chrome takes the lead in browser market share doesn't matter to them. What mattered to them, and me, is that they made open standards an important part of the debate over internet standards. I consider their actions regarding open standards to be an offering of goodwill that tends to get overlooked.

    I think that attitude will extend the life of the company and very likely point the way towards better days ahead.

    --
    The diversity and expression of human opinion is essential to human survival.
  23. Re:Once upon a time... by gstrickler · · Score: 2

    interesting that none of those things by themselves would generate much money

    Google's bottom line suggests otherwise.

    --
    make imaginary.friends COUNT=100 VISIBLE=false
  24. American culture. by MaWeiTao · · Score: 2

    Culturally, Americans seem to have a problem with leaders. They have a strong inclination to rally behind the underdog, or at least whoever manages to continue effectively marketing themselves as such.

    The perception is that Google is a leader, so it's inevitable that we're starting to hear that their best days are supposedly behind them. I don't know how the hell Apple pulls it off, but they continue to maintain this perception that they're an anti-establishment underdog.

    I can appreciate the desire to root for the small guy, but people sometimes take it to the point of being irrational, especially when people are completely ignorant about the reality behind all the marketing.

  25. BS! by hesaigo999ca · · Score: 2

    Ok, how much is M$ crapola paying you to come up with these stupid articles, I mean come on, really?
    Think to write some stuff to slam google even though there is no credible thing you are saying in your article, just makes you look plain dumb!
    And citing a website that is owned by an former M$ employee that is now self employed as a blogger sure amounts to wishwash if you ask me...do you know how to WHOIS? Of course I will get blasted by all those who favor M$ but then again, guess what.....IDC

  26. Re:In the snow, uphill both ways... by Surt · · Score: 2

    I'd have to disagree. I know how to search. My results from Google have been steadily headed downhill over the last two years.
    Yes, the result I want is still in there. But no, it's not usually on the first page of results any more.

    --
    "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
  27. Re:In the snow, uphill both ways... by RocketRabbit · · Score: 2

    No, Google's results have tended on a downward curve for years now. Composing a search which does not include SEO results involves endless iterations of this process:

    bananas, bananas -viagra, bananas -viagra -cialis, bananas -viagra -cialis -prescription, bananas -viagra -cialis -prescription -poker

    and so forth. What doesn't help matters is that many of the sites that are clearly SEO spam also have Google-based ads, so why would Google be interested in removing them? They make money every time you click on one of their pathetic results whether or not the result is topical to the search.

  28. Re:Waiting for that 404 by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Funny

    Of course, I still didn't want to buy their cluster computing OS, but it was a Hell of a party.

    Nobody knows how to give away alcohol without converting anyone to their cause like Microsoft.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  29. Re:In the snow, uphill both ways... by symbolset · · Score: 4, Funny

    This is because Google searches are personalized now. Stop searching for male enhancement drugs and online casinos and it will change. You have managed to convince Google that's what you're interested in.

    --
    Help stamp out iliturcy.
  30. Re:Best Days... for who? by dudpixel · · Score: 3, Insightful

    exactly. I'd say their best days in terms of users worshipping them are behind them...but their best days in terms of their company's success are still to come.

    --
    This seemed like a reasonable sig at the time.