Google Gently Encroaches on Microsoft's Turf with Desktop Search Bar
Very clever, Google: announcing a way for users to search without using a browser. That's one step ahead, even, of the Google Toolbar, a time-saver packed with features (like a pop-up killer) that many mainstream users remain unaware of.
So what's next? A Google Browser? How about a Google PDA? A Google OS?
Well, let's not get ahead of ourselves. Recall previous brave attempts to hit Microsoft where it lives. Corel Corp. has been one of the most famous. Not only did they make the mistake of trying to unseat Microsoft Office, but later, for spite, they teamed up with anyone else who was aiming to take away Microsoft's OS-based advantage (Sun, Linux). Remember the office suite written all in Java? How about the Corel Linux box?
Presumably, Google will compete vigorously with Microsoft, since the latter have clearly thrown down the gauntlet by entering web search in a bigger way, but Google is unlikely to make indiscriminate counterattacks in the near future. Sleeping dogs and all that. It's worth remembering the lessons learned from Corel and the enthusiasms of its mercurial CEO, Michael Cowpland.
Posted by Andrew
| | Permalink
 
Monday, November 03, 2003MS-Google Talk Likely Overblown, But Then Again...
Kevin Lee is justifiably astounded at the media frenzy around some ill-defined communications between Google and Microsoft. The Simpsons episode where Gates instructs his henchmen to "buy him out, boys," and they march into Homer's office and bust up his desk and snap his pencils may be as close to factual reporting at the widely-cited New York Times story Microsoft and Google: Partners or Rivals?
My first clue that this wasn't first-rate journalism was the paragraph that alluded to Google "wheedling [sic] down a long list of investment banks." Where is that legendary New York Times quality control?
Maybe they're trying to compete with the New York Post, which has been known to run items by noted dot-com-rumor-purveyor Ben Silverman. Rumors aren't always so far off, though. Silverman was wrong when he said Yahoo! wanted Espotting (it wound up being FindWhat-Espotting and Yahoo-Overture), but the Overture-Yahoo deal was relentlessly rumored for months on the Yahoo Finance message board.
Posted by Andrew
| | Permalink
 
Yahoo Winding Down Enterprise Software Division (Finally)
Yahoo! is giving up on the idea of selling portal technologies to the enterprise, writes Jim Hu of CNET News.com. It's now backing away from this money-losing concept to focus on its core consumer-oriented strengths.
Traffick parsed Yahoo's potential scenarios more than two years ago, and then, we didn't think much of Yahoo's potential to become a serious, sober provider of technology to the corporate sector:
Yahoo can't credibly exit the dot com world by hunkering down as an IT provider. As one industry CEO commented to me, a foray into the enterprise space will be difficult because Yahoo doesn't understand, as companies like Microsoft do, how to build Cost of Switching into their products. As my correspondent wrote, "this gives Yahoo the staying power of the latest summer blockbuster."
So where is the "out" for Yahoo? Instead of torturing itself with a low-risk, low-reward process of buckling down, Yahoo will probably try to escape "upwards" (as AOL did) through a portal to potential greatness in the high-stakes game of Big Media.
What really took the world by surprise, though, was that Google came to the same conclusions about its own business -- only it did so much more quickly after seeing the divergence in revenues from the two branches of its business. Even six months into its massively successful foray into advertising, many rank-and-file techies believed that Google's main revenue source would be something to do with corporate licensing. I'll admit that the concept of a big box with smart Google stuff inside is pretty cool. But if they had relied on the long sales cycles and rational decision-making processes of corporate IT, Google would still be bleeding cash instead of printing the stuff.
And don't forget the publicity that Ask Jeeves used to put out about its own enterprise products and services. They seemed like good products, but at the end of the day, they found it difficult to penetrate the IT market, and the whole division was sold off for next to nothing. Meanwhile, with only 3% or less of the search market today, Jeeves finds itself sitting on positive cash flow and a bloated market valuation (based, perhaps, on a 10% probability that Microsoft will acquire Ask Jeeves to accelerate its search product development).
It's funny how the real world always confounds the expectations of "analysts." It's cool how responding to the needs of markets eventually trumps the image-conscious impulse to conduct "serious business with serious companies." Too many analysts were too eager to throw out the baby with the bubbly dot-com bathwater. Some still haven't stopped using "B2C" like it's a bad word.
Related Traffick article: Into the Enterprise We Go: Web Search Technology Companies Seek Stable Revenues in the Corporate Sector (May 28, 2001)
Posted by Andrew
| | Permalink
 
Sunday, November 02, 2003Putting the "eeek!" in Unique
It's holiday time, and the pay-per-click bidding is competitive.
Selling a product online and think it would be a unique gift idea? Well, for a bid of about 40 cents per click, your Google AdWord can show up, on average, in about 60th ad position on the broad match for the term "unique gift idea." (60th position is approximately equivalent to "nowhere." It would be like taking out a special invisible classified ad.) That's not what Google's projections will tell you - they might say 15th, or 26th, or 30th, spot. But that's precisely the average ad position enjoyed when one advertiser actually ran an ad on that phrase with a max bid of 40 cents (in spite of being warned that this phrase wouldn't be a winner). Projections, unfortunately, can be way off when it comes to the complex Google keyword auction.
It's even harder to predict actual buyer behavior when it's being played out in a new medium where many companies are trying e-commerce experiments in earnest for the very first time... attempting to tap into a navigation process that we have only a rudimentary understanding of. You never fully grasp this until you see something like a big order for Lego coming through that originated from a keyword search done on Weather.com (fictitious example, but not completely fictitious).
In any case, well, of course you're unique. But apparently, being unique and wanting people to buy your product as a gift puts you in some pretty crowded territory. It's time to think harder about what makes your company really unique. And if there isn't much to speak of, it's high time you invented or reinvented it.
I'd tell you where your ad would show up for a bid of only five cents, but Hallowe'en is over so I don't want to frighten you!
Posted by Andrew
| | Permalink
 
