So 10 years ago, someone could have written a similar artcile to say that no one (like Google) would ever be able to compete with Micosoft? Get ready to be surprised (over and over again)! Cheers,

I didn't say it's impossible to compete with Google. I simply said it's difficult to do so if all you have is a great search technology. The market's foundation is search, but the market is also interconnected with marketing and advertising now. You can't burst on the scene as effectively any longer. Also note that Google doesn't compete directly with Microsoft's core business, which is desktop software and an operating system. Google doesn't compete directly with MS, they compete around it (and very effectively too).

Google has NEVER competed with microsoft so what are you talking about? There services are completly different. Only recently has microsoft joined in the seach/advertising war and they are losing pretty badly

---------- Sergey and Brin's Plane -- It's a monster, man. ---------- Sergey and Brin? NOT Sergey and Larry???

Ha, fixed. :)

Don't get me wrong, Google is an exceptionally talented company, and I have a ton of respect for them. But can anyone besides me see another Microsoft in the making? One company's solution fits all, if we don't already have it, we'll get it, you want what? Ok, we've got it for you. Good luck to them but I'd like to bet that there are anti-trust and domineering competitive practice issues looming for Google in years to come.

Alright, I know everybody is all excited about Google's stock price and amazing revenue growth. Yes, they will be around a long time. BUT... those facts don't guarantee them anything. First, let's recognize that Google is, for all intents and purposes, still very much a one-trick pony. Their dominance is in search. That's it. They just happen to make a ton of money (98% of their revenue, in fact) because they are able to leverage their search techology to target ads. That's it. Yes, they're great at what they do, but what else do they excel at? So they have 400K+ servers... which handle... you got it, search. They have a lame Web-based word processor, and a swiss-army knife set of other apps and tools that are cool, but don't make them any money. If anybody thinks that Microsoft, Yahoo and others are going to sit on their hands and continue to control the search space, you're wrong. Google has the advantage of a headstart and a big stack of cash, but they do not have any guarantees. Just remember what Netscape did to Microsoft, kids. If MSFT hadn't woken up in time, Netscape would have cleaned its clock and controlled the Web space. All things change.

Just remember what Netscape did to Microsoft, kids. If MSFT hadn't woken up in time, Netscape would have cleaned its clock and controlled the Web space. Netscape has been toast a long time my friend - been stuck in a cave? Even FF as great as it is merely is a blip to the Great Satan MSFT.

This post was written in response to the Powerset announcement, so I think you should take all comparison re: Microsoft, Yahoo, etc. with a grain of salt.

If Microsoft buys Yahoo then they will be a solid #2 in search, #1 in IM, #1 in email, # 2 in social networking...etc etc..I think you get my point. And MSFT/Yahoo is better positioned to sell banner ads/video ads/behavioural to big business as opposed to the quarters and dimes Google gets from small businesses. So lets not count the big dogs out!

I think you've missed out on the biggest competitive advantage Google has...it's loyal (and very large) user base. All things being equal, most people will not switch their search engine overnight. Habits take a significant amount of time to change. We saw this in the dot-com bust of 2000 when companies realized that no matter how interesting your business model was, it would take far longer to build their customer base than the cash they had in the bank to sustain their operations. Google's competitor will need significant capital to weather the 3-5 years it would take to turn the millions of loyal Google users to a new search company. And since Google has significant agility for a big company (70-20-10 rule!), lots of talented programmers, and billions in the bank, I think its safe to say they have a fairly good degree of insulation from competitors. To put it another way, if I was an investor, the last thing I would do is throw millions into a little search engine startup promising to unseat Google.

I agree with Roman on user loyalty... after seeing all the TV ads for Ask.com, I gave it a try: side by side comparisons of Ask and Google hits on several queries proved to me that Google results were much, much more relevant and yielded less obvious 'ads' than Ask. That's the very reason that I remain a loyal Google user. Ask, Yahoo, etc., may have some nifty tools but they do not, in my experience, yield the most relevant hits as Google. And as I'm familiar with Google's preferences for search term sequences as well, it would take a substantially better results yield to give up Google and I simply don't see that coming anytime soon.

A reason that people may go elsewhere for their search needs is politics. The liberal bias that exists in Google News for instance is a constant irritant to me, and I rarely use their News service anymore.

Correct me if I'm wrong but Google doesn't write any of the news articles. They are all syndicated. They have a nifty Personalize button and you can pick whichever bias you prefer to get your news filtered through. Let's not blame Google for liberal news articles. And I always find it interesting when people call it the "liberal media". That media wasn't so liberal/forgiving to Bill Clinton with the Monica Lewinsky scandal. But lets not get into politics here!

Almost Impossible is the same as "Almost Possible". There is no difference, except in the minds of people, and you do not address the considerable talent and drive of the human mind in your equation. History is repleat with examples of "almost impossible" scnearios turning out just the opposite.

Actually "almost impossible" is the same as "possible." It only means a feat is difficult.

No! Almost Impossible is not the same as Possible. That's why we use different words to mean different things. Perhaps what you mean to say is that if something is not impossible, then it still possible. However, possible and probable are two different things. Just because something is possible, does not mean it is likely to happen any time soon. Traveling at the speed of light is possible, but I don't expect to do it anytime soon! Semantics aside, right now Google's competitors (yhoo, msft) have plenty of talent, lots of cash, and a sizeable user base. However, they have all lost market share to Google. I think it is safe to say that a company would have to come out with a search technology that is the next paradigm shift in search efficiency and relevancy for Google to be shaken. I'd love it if I could just type something into a search box and it takes me immediately to a web page with the info I'm looking for without having to deal with search results... and if it did correctly the first time, every time. Is that asking too much? But if I had to bet on one company that is most likely to reach that holy grail...I'd have to say it is Google.

Steve, Mark my words, Baidu.com (China's most popular search engine website) which has far more advanced and better search engine than Google in searching Chinese word is going to be world's biggest search engine in the coming years.

It might be almost impossible to compete with Google but it is not impossible at all. It only takes smart people to come together and to do what it takes to make it happen. Baidu.com is already doing better than Google in China. Baidu.com owns 62.1% of the Chinese market. Coming up search engines like Megaglobe and Powerset will also be a serious competition to Google and I strongly believe it's just a matter of time before a new search engine takes Google's place.

It might be almost impossible to compete with Google but it is not impossible at all. It only takes smart people to come together and to do what it takes to make it happen. Baidu.com is already doing better than Google in China. Baidu.com owns 62.1% of the Chinese market. Coming up search engines like Megaglobe and Powerset will also be a serious competition to Google and I strongly believe it's just a matter of time before a new search engine takes Google's place.

I think the whole Microsoft vs. Google talk is useless. I love both companies in that they represent the heart of America, that is, a few minds get together and create something that changes the world. I hate to over simplify the whole argument, but I have to compare Microsoft to Ben Stiler and Owen Wilson's characters in Zoolander. Zoolander is obviously MS. Keep up the good work both of them. MS makes me a better developer and Google makes my life as a consumer/user a lot better. As far as Yahoo and the rest...Yahoo who? I never saw Yahoo try to empower anyone (unlike Google and MS) only their wallets. Don't get me wrong, there is nothing wrong with suceeding, but I think the argument here goes beyond making money (and partening up with SBC), and more about changing the world. Both Google and MS have, are and will continue to change the world.

Most seem to agree that the Google User base is loyal, but unlike other businesses where loyalty is a factor (such as cell phone operators), there is not contract and no real day to day tie-in. The most likely downfall for a creature like Google is a media campaign against Google that highlights risks or flaws in Google's privacy. If people felt that the information being gathered by Google was going to risk their privacy and perhaps cause their bank account to be attacked, then the media frenzy could kill Google overnight.

We here at SSA switched to using the Google search appliance from another product. The first product was totally useless, but the Google search appliance is insanely great. It always gives good search results. So...their stuff works.

As far as Natural Language Search goes, it will not take off until people can speak their searches... which is another layer of complexity.

The only competition that can kill Google is Google itself, and they're starting to do a good job of it. How? By making alliances with other companies serving up their links versus the natural search links. Can you say Ebay? I for one am fed up with the useless Ebay links when conducting a search.

Hmmm...but what if there were a way for advertisers to reach their most desired customers directly by bidding on the actual traits and characteristics of their targeted customers, instead of indirectly by bidding on the words and numbers they enter in to little search boxes? While such an ad system would threaten paid search in general, might such an approach pose an especially great threat to Google, since some 98%+ of its income comes from paid search? The white paper posted at MatchTo.com presents a strong case for such a scenario...

a couple quick points- 1) google is already doing NLP. if anyone were able to see page's legendary list of problems, i can guarantee you this one would be #1. it's been their stated goal from the beginning. it's not a new idea for anyone. they've been consistently hiring the best people in the field and publishing many papers on it for years. look at this, if you don't believe it. http://labs.google.com/papers.html they are on their way to solving NLP first. 2) it's not ready yet. if it were, you can bet your bottom ad-word that it would already be out there somewhere, in the wild. somebody from CMU or Stanford would have created a startup, put it live, and instantly been assimilated by the big guys. this powerset talk is hype. notice how they're holding out for $10M more. proof positive: they're bluffing. if they really had what they're claiming, they wouldn't have any trouble at all getting that money, or 50 times as much. 3)baidu is going nowhere outside of china. p4p, or "pay for position", their stated modus operandi, is not something that will be accepted outside the great firewall, at least in terms of pure search results. we've already been there, rejected that. that's it for the moment.

cf: joe's google news comment reality does have a well-known liberal bias :)

Yes it's very difficult to compete with Google ... as it used to be to compete with Microsoft. But Google did it when they were the little guy.

I think it can be done with search alone. Search (as great as Google is, it's all I use) has become more of an art form lately. I find it difficult to find what I want because the search engine doesn't understand my natural language query and the context in which my words are used.

It's exciting ... I can't wait for a little guy to come up with some new great technology. Why hasn't Google done this??