You don't know that. It may well be that Zuck is sucking up to Google and sacrifice his Asian lady as an offering, or the other way around, Matt is sucking up to Zuck and pretends that he is having a good time with the Asian lady.
Beating Google ....
- Thread starter cheshire
- Start date
You don't know that. It may well be that Zuck is sucking up to Google and sacrifice his Asian lady as an offering, or the other way around, Matt is sucking up to Zuck and pretends that he is having a good time with the Asian lady.
An Os, the graphically user interface, that takes us out of the age of the command line, and enables us to use the mouse, touch screen, have icon, a desktop, and the web browser to get to a search engine, is NOT an incredible piece of software?? Are you using DOS to communicate on this forum? Lets not take for granted what enabled us to get to the mass of people to get to the internet since Windoze 95. All a search engine does is crawl alot of websites and makes it searchable for users. Yeah, its alot of work, but downplaying an OS to it. I dont know, just doesnt sound right.
But I digress... Somebody wanted someone else to create the Google killer???
Good luck bros.
Fact is that no body can beat Google.As time passes it becomes more tougher to beat Google.I think idea of niche search engine could work but it required lot of refined searches.
And most realistic people would say, for the most part, they can't be beaten. It's like saying you're going to start a fast food restaurant that will wipe out McDonalds. Sure it's possible, but the odds of being successful are pretty nil.
Everything can be done. And comparing a brick&mortar business to the online world is not a very good thing to do.
People thought yahoo was the shit.
Will google magically crash and burn? Hell no. But thinking they will 100% own search like they do now in 5 years(50 internet years) is not something you should do.
Hell, even they aren't so certain. That is why they deversify with email, video, and mobile and a shittone of other stuff.
It is a company like every other. If it keeps with innovating and doing their finances all right, don't piss users off and keep the governments happy, they will continue to be a huge ass company. If they fail at even one of the above they will go down.
There are a lot of things google has to be concerned about. One of them is wolfram alpha. And voice search. What about social search and the bing/facebook alliance? Do you think google is not concerned about that? Why do people think that google is invincible. It's no different than any other company.
Internet companies go to a billion dollars in a year. And they can crash as fast, if not faster.
I think there's a great opportunity for an open source search engine to disrupt Google's monopoly but it'll take a genius to get the project rolling (much like it took Linus locking himself in a room for weeks on end to create early versions of Linux).
I don't think Google stays on top because of their algorithm these days. They stay on top because they have amassed more data than anyone except maybe the NSA. But, as people mentioned with SETI@Home, there's an opportunity to create a distributed search engine with millions of nodes crawling and indexing the data.
With an open source model, you can expect black hats to "exploit" the source to find opportunities to game the system. On the flip side of the coin, you can expect white hats to fix the exploits. In the long run, I think it'd be better than a closed model.
All the same, it won't be easy and Google isn't likely to fall anytime soon. But, I think most of us can agree that Google isn't the same company it was 5 years ago and with epic failures like G+, it seems they aren't as innovative as they used to be.
I don't think Google stays on top because of their algorithm these days. They stay on top because they have amassed more data than anyone except maybe the NSA. But, as people mentioned with SETI@Home, there's an opportunity to create a distributed search engine with millions of nodes crawling and indexing the data.
With an open source model, you can expect black hats to "exploit" the source to find opportunities to game the system. On the flip side of the coin, you can expect white hats to fix the exploits. In the long run, I think it'd be better than a closed model.
All the same, it won't be easy and Google isn't likely to fall anytime soon. But, I think most of us can agree that Google isn't the same company it was 5 years ago and with epic failures like G+, it seems they aren't as innovative as they used to be.
Thanks for all your insight!
I figured it was more explanatory than a few facepalm pics.
You can't really think of Google as purely an "online business" anymore though. Will give you an example, when more server resources are needed:
Us -- Call up Rackspace or whoever, ask them to put a few boxes online, and within 24 hours it's magically done!
Google -- Search our and acquire an old pulp mill in Finland, then bring in a team of engineers to develop a custom cooling system by pumping the seawater in. Then bring in loads of huge cargo containers, fill each up with thousands of servers, and bring everything online. And that's just one data center. Nobody knows how many data centers Google has, as they keep it a secret.
Again, that's just a tiny sliver to help give perspective as to how big Google is. To compete with Google, you have to get your company to that level, which is a VERY steep uphill slope.
you can't just wake up one day and be as big as google. That shit is built up in the course of years.
Facebook didn't have as many data centres as myspace in 2006, did they?
You are stating that you have to posses huge amounts of resources right now in order to compete with them. That is simply not true. You build your product for years and years, you upgrade and expand and develop and you slowly get more and more market share. Market takeovers don't happen over night.
As you have more market share, you will find the money for sure. Get and idea how to beat them first. Start doing it, gain popularity, and then worry about resources.
People think that they need a huge backbone in order to build big businesses. That is not true. Nobody who made a big business(with very few exceptions) had capital cover the costs for everything at the company's peak. You need a few thousands to start. When you need more, you will get it.
Isn't M.C. Hammer starting his own search engine?
MC Hammer launches legit search engine | Technically Incorrect - CNET News
MC Hammer launches legit search engine | Technically Incorrect - CNET News
I agree with momchil9. You start small and build. I would say the main component that brought Google to the top was PageRank. The way they were able to create such a simple underlying basis for authority and relevancy through links was huge. You would need to out PageRank PageRank. You would need to find the next underlying piece that is simple, potent and more effective in terms of relevancy. PageRank requires tons of CPU power. Something better than it may not. Usually the more simple and more out of the box you can get with things the better. Who's to say you need millions of servers to beat Google? Maybe you do, maybe you don't.
Any business can be outdone. Facebook outdid MySpace. MySpace outdid Friendster. It happens all the time. And you never start big. Facebook didn't start big. Google didn't start big. Apple didn't start big. Microsoft didn't start big. You start small and grow. The big thing is not the size or funding but rather the people, the passion, the perseverance and the creativity.
Any business can be outdone. Facebook outdid MySpace. MySpace outdid Friendster. It happens all the time. And you never start big. Facebook didn't start big. Google didn't start big. Apple didn't start big. Microsoft didn't start big. You start small and grow. The big thing is not the size or funding but rather the people, the passion, the perseverance and the creativity.
Definitely doesn't work so easy. Examples? Duckduckgo :conehead: (partially opensource btw), Blekko :batman:... Oh, almost forgot... Wolframalpha :hollering: