My question is: why do we need an alternative really? What is better when even more companies index everything and perhaps screw with your privacy? My intuition agrees with you though. More companies == more competition. At some point privacy might be a selling point for them.
On the other hand: it is kind of crazy that when I read about "indexing the web" it starts ringing all kind of privacy bells, while apple's incentive might not even be to violate people's privacy.
When one company have more than 90% market share then: Yes, we do need an alternative. (Google market in search has been reported to be as high as 94% in countries like Denmark).
If a company manages to upset Google then that company ceases to exists online, regardless of the validity of Google reason to blacklist that company. Ideally no search engine would be above 20% market share (20% being a random low number I just made up).
Right now websites and marketing material/money is directed at Google exclusively, making it continually harder for new search companies to succeed.
I agree with you. Google has too much power over small webshops. If you somehow come in bad standing at Google you can just shut down your operation, because you won't make much money.
It's nice to have alternatives for something that's so fundamental to how we use the internet.
Google works well today, but what about 5 years from now, or 10 years from now? What if you need to be signed into Google+ to Google search? What if your Google+ account needs to be tied to a mobile phone? What if Google has limited search, and you need to own a Chromebook or Android device for the full search experience and viewing more than 10 results?
Competition keeps them in check from doing anything outrageous, and then if they decide to anyway, we have other choices we can migrate towards.
The main problem with Google is not that it indexes everything, but that it indexes everyone - since almost everyone (at least in US and Europe) uses Google. A strong competitor would limit Google's reach in this regard. In this particular case we could assume Google would know far less about iPhone owners.
In longer term Google (and others) would have adapt to that limited reach: either by forcing its way onto iPhone somehow, or - hopefully - by not basing its offer on its vast knowledge about users.
Comments
My question is: why do we need an alternative really? What is better when even more companies index everything and perhaps screw with your privacy? My intuition agrees with you though. More companies == more competition. At some point privacy might be a selling point for them.
On the other hand: it is kind of crazy that when I read about "indexing the web" it starts ringing all kind of privacy bells, while apple's incentive might not even be to violate people's privacy.
When one company have more than 90% market share then: Yes, we do need an alternative. (Google market in search has been reported to be as high as 94% in countries like Denmark).
If a company manages to upset Google then that company ceases to exists online, regardless of the validity of Google reason to blacklist that company. Ideally no search engine would be above 20% market share (20% being a random low number I just made up).
Right now websites and marketing material/money is directed at Google exclusively, making it continually harder for new search companies to succeed.
I agree with you. Google has too much power over small webshops. If you somehow come in bad standing at Google you can just shut down your operation, because you won't make much money.
It's nice to have alternatives for something that's so fundamental to how we use the internet.
Google works well today, but what about 5 years from now, or 10 years from now? What if you need to be signed into Google+ to Google search? What if your Google+ account needs to be tied to a mobile phone? What if Google has limited search, and you need to own a Chromebook or Android device for the full search experience and viewing more than 10 results?
Competition keeps them in check from doing anything outrageous, and then if they decide to anyway, we have other choices we can migrate towards.
Why would they abandon free advertising income, there's yet 3 billion+ people to learn how to use the internet, that's a lot of money son.
The main problem with Google is not that it indexes everything, but that it indexes everyone - since almost everyone (at least in US and Europe) uses Google. A strong competitor would limit Google's reach in this regard. In this particular case we could assume Google would know far less about iPhone owners. In longer term Google (and others) would have adapt to that limited reach: either by forcing its way onto iPhone somehow, or - hopefully - by not basing its offer on its vast knowledge about users.