
There’s No Such Thing As A Google Killer - trs90
http://www.skrenta.com/2009/07/theres_no_such_thing_as_a_goog.html
======
kingsley_20
Two men woke up in their campsite one morning to radio news that a man-eating
tiger was on the prowl. One man promptly started wearing his running shoes,
while the second teased him: "surely, you don't think you're going to outrun
the tiger in those?!". "I don't have to outrun the tiger", replied the first
man. "I only have to outrun you."

They don't have to kill _Google_. Outsurviving Y! Or Bing will do handsomely.

PS: that said, comparing google to coke is an analogy without legs.

Edit: clarified based on reply.

~~~
enomar
So who _do_ they have to kill/outrun/whatever? I'm not sure I understand your
analogy.

~~~
kingsley_20
#2: y! & bing

~~~
enomar
Yahoo and Bing are full service search engines. If they execute well, they
could eventually become "Google killers".

I think the premise of this article was that just because Blekko is in the
search space, doesn't mean it's trying to replace Google (or Yahoo or Bing).
They think they can succeed by being Mt. Dew rather than Pepsi.

------
yan
"X Killer" never meant that in my experience. It is phrased as such because it
generates clicks and ad revenue. That's it. A lot of headlines are hyperbolic
because they are designed to garner attention.

They also serve to introduce concepts to people who aren't familiar with the
field. Saying "web search start up" to a layman isn't going to excite much,
but "google killer" will, regardless of accuracy.

~~~
rimantas
Was there _ever_ a "X killer" that actually killed the X? I cannot think of
one example. If something is branded that way, must be a loser already. True
"X killers" are like ninjas that come unnoticed and unexpected.

~~~
froo
_"Was there ever a "X killer" that actually killed the X?"_

I would think Dell, Amazon and Wikipedia would this idea.

That being said, I would define "X killer" as an organisation that completely
dominates it's field. In all of the above cases, they managed to beat their
competitors in price point and range.

------
michaelfairley
The Google killer isn't going to be a search engine, just as the Microsoft
killer isn't a software company, just as the IBM killer wasn't a computer
manufacturer.

~~~
stanleydrew
And, in fact, none of those companies are dead (or close).

~~~
michaelfairley
It all depends on yor definition of dead.
<http://www.paulgraham.com/microsoft.html>

------
prawn
IMO, on search and presentation of results, Google can be beaten.

I just do not believe that what they have there now is the best that can be
achieved in this field. It's plain, makes limited use of colour to provide
more information about results (is this page for a business, is it a forum, is
it a MFA info site, is it a blog, or a mailing list archive?), gets pretty
messy once the top and side ad positions are full, may rely too much on the
title tag in presenting results, could provide larger targets for paging, etc.

~~~
alain94040
Fully agree. And it's also almost impossible for Google to change their
presentation, because they would immediately confuse millions of users.

This is a weakness that can be exploited by a new competitor. Cuil did some
work in that area, it was promising.

~~~
ErrantX
all the attempts to provide "richer" results have failed pretty badly though.
that should be telling.

I prefer googles "raw" results - it leaves the processing to my brain rather
than a computer :)

------
maxwell
'Tisn't "product killers" but "category killers". Google isn't the Microsoft
killer because they've a better desktop platform, it's that they're making
desktop platforms irrelevant. All we can know of the hypothetical/eventual
Google killer is that they won't be competing _on_ but _with_
search/advertising.

------
vaksel
There is no Google killer, but there are thousands of vultures ready to
exploit any weakness.

At worst Google will end up as Yahoo/Microsoft, a legacy company that did
something important in the past. They just have too much brand equity to fade
into the sunset.

------
mattmcknight
I label Christine Varney as the most likely Google killer.
[http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2009/07/27/varney-getting-
pushback-...](http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2009/07/27/varney-getting-pushback-on-
aggressive-antitrust-agenda/)

~~~
mahmud
I was going to say the exact thing. Government is the real killer.

------
david927
Technology is not Coke. Google is a huge brand, but brand only matters when it
comes to brand loyalty, and in technology _there is no brand loyalty_.

The minute someone comes up with something significantly better (and it will
happen), Google will join Yahoo and many others in the "former king of the
hill, still important, just not very influential" camp.

------
jacquesm
The only company even remotely in a position to kill google is google itself.
If they mess up badly enough in the eyes of their users then there would be a
mass exodus, as long as they keep doing what they're doing now they will
outlast all of us.

------
maurycy
It would be interesting to analyse past articles about IBM and Microsoft and
check at what point of the cycle, now with Google, we are.

Also, one must realize that there is no such thing as search market, as well
as there is no such market as restaurant's market. There is only market of
finding answers, or buying food and social status.

Thus, to get a new Google we have to wait for a paradigm shift. Computers
enabled IBM; personal computers enabled Microsoft; Internet enabled Google,
etc.

------
jpwagner
so...any information on blekko's actual product/service?

------
cdibona
I disagree. There is only one Google Killer.

Google.

~~~
enomar
That's a nice sentiment, but what does it really mean?

Google would only be _completely_ to blame for lost market share if its
competitors were _completely_ stagnant, which they are clearly not.

