TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

The Elephant in the Room: Google Monoculture

130 点作者 gavinballard超过 13 年前

18 条评论

redthrowaway超过 13 年前
Can we get a [2009] in the title?<p>It would be interesting to see some updated numbers on this, especially from SO. While I don't imagine many programmers are using Bing, it would be interesting to see where DuckDuckGo ranks.
评论 #3458840 未加载
评论 #3458815 未加载
评论 #3458895 未加载
评论 #3458796 未加载
mekoka超过 13 年前
<i>I'm a little surprised all the people who were so up in arms about the Microsoft "monopoly" ten years ago aren't out in the streets today lighting torches and sharpening their pitchforks to go after Google.</i><p>Maybe people weren't so up in arms because of Microsoft's <i>monopoly</i>, but rather what they were doing with it. Apple didn't have a monopoly when I stopped being a fan.
评论 #3458774 未加载
评论 #3459277 未加载
评论 #3459829 未加载
martian超过 13 年前
Noting that this article is from 2009, I think it makes some valid points. By owning people's entry to the internet, Google has a monopoly.<p>But I don't think it's so much a monopoly on search that's interesting, as it is a monopoly on entry. Google is everyone's front door to the Internet. There are a few geeks like us who know about URLs and TLDs, but generally people just google what they're looking for.<p>And on that note, I think there are other monopolistic gates to the internet being opened. Like the portals of old, Facebook is setting itself up to be the other Front Door on the Internet. Part of that is wrapped in what people care about most: other people. So it makes sense that you go to Google for things, places, and ideas; and you go to Facebook for people.<p>Google realized it was missing that category of nouns and built Google+. Facebook knows it's missing a lot beyond people and is looking to expand into other nounish categories, but it's also looking to expand into verbs: listen, watch, read.<p>I don't think Google has a monopoly forever -- I think it's fighting tooth and nail to stay at the top. I think there is fierce competition going on at all levels here, Facebook being the obvious example. And let's not forget Apple, Comcast, and other media providers who are using their control of media experiences to leverage control over people's experience of the Internet.<p>The future is going to be interesting!
drhayes9超过 13 年前
I think one reason people aren't sharpening pitchforks and lighting torches is because every other search engine is one click away. Switching search engines is pretty frictionless compared to switching OSes.
评论 #3459525 未加载
评论 #3458760 未加载
jmduke超过 13 年前
Okay, am I missing something?<p>Microsoft wasn't a monopoly because their software pervaded rampantly; Microsoft was a monopoly because their entire business model bastardized the notion of vertical integration by making alternate software (ie competition) impossible, furthered by the costs of developing IE being (allegedly) baked into Windows.<p>Is the "Google = Monopoly" argument that their bundling of GMail/Search/Plus/etc./etc. is discouraging competition?
评论 #3458988 未加载
评论 #3459020 未加载
评论 #3460127 未加载
评论 #3459028 未加载
cpeterso超过 13 年前
Any suggestions from people who have switched from Google to another search engine?<p>I switched from Google to DuckDuckGo, but I gave up after a few days. DuckDuckGo's results were very good for popular/mainstream terms, but Google is much better at deep "needle in haystack" searches.<p>I later switched from Google to Bing, but I gave up after one day. Bing's results were very random and stale. And Bing is ugly. :)
评论 #3459905 未加载
评论 #3459795 未加载
评论 #3459787 未加载
ok_craig超过 13 年前
I'm really interested in hearing how people think this problem should be fixed, since Google having such a large market share is <i>necessarily</i> a bad thing. I see a lot of criticism, but no solution offering. But it's implied in all the anti-Google comments that either Google needs to stop making its product better, or it needs to be forcefully hampered by the government. Is this a correct assessment? If not, what are the alternatives?
评论 #3459189 未加载
bad_user超过 13 年前
The other Elephant in the room - with rich Javascript interfaces, crawlers are only feasible to build if you have enough resources - i.e. only companies like Google, Yahoo and Microsoft are able to do it. Web pages are becoming increasingly less accessible and Google has a lot to gain by this trend.<p>The writing on the wall is pretty clear - Google has a monopoly in search and the only way they can be disrupted is through alternative means of finding content (like social networks).<p>Which is why, as much as I like them and their products, I find the integration with Google+ downright scary and dangerous for the health of our ecosystem.
评论 #3460064 未加载
bediger超过 13 年前
He makes a legit point, and he even raises the "Microsoft Monoculture" issue, asking why the folks alarmed about MSFT aren't alarmed by GOOG. I think they (and we) should be alarmed.<p>Nevertheless, where are all the people, pundits, piemen and PR flacks that arose back when Dan Geer et al raised that monoculture issue? Whenever someone seriously raises a software monoculture as an issue, The Big Guns come out to discredit that someone, and to dismiss the issue. Where are the pundits now?
eslaught超过 13 年前
<i>&#62; But where's the healthy competition? Where's the incentive for Google to improve?</i><p>People here might not like this answer, but honestly, Facebook. Look at Google+. You can like it or not, but it's clear that it's the biggest change to Google's product in a while.
bishnu超过 13 年前
I mean the difference is that a search engine is a search engine - it's not a platform a whole bunch of people need to be using to be more effective. Ditching Microsoft in the 90s meant ditching Office, the best selection of games, etc. Whereas every other search engine works just as well (potentially) as Google search.
phear超过 13 年前
<a href="http://mashable.com/2012/01/12/bing-overtakes-yahoo/...The" rel="nofollow">http://mashable.com/2012/01/12/bing-overtakes-yahoo/...The</a> latest from mashable. Google still waaay ahead in 1st place. Notable is that when Bing first came out many blogs were talking about what was wrong with it and why it would die. They've slowly come a logn way(helped in part by Yahoo's problems). Do they have what it takes to be the thorn in google's flesh that xbox is in Sony's?
west13超过 13 年前
I haven't looked at every comment to see if anyone has stated the obvious: search is a self-fulfilling prophecy. The more data you have, the better your results. The better your results, the more data you get.<p>No one will make up ground on Google until a radical new algorithm is invented, and Google doesn't buy it :)
评论 #3465433 未加载
chrischen超过 13 年前
Google doesn't lock people into its search. People have a choice and they obviously choose Google.
评论 #3459695 未加载
评论 #3459240 未加载
tzury超过 13 年前
That is a must I would say in our era.<p>See, given one of the fundamentals in the Unix philosophical idiom is <i>Make each program do one thing well</i>.<p>In an era of Software as a Service, it is <i>Make each service do one thing well</i>.
mbesto超过 13 年前
Let's be clear first on what Google's product is and what it's selling.<p>Google's product is pageviews (or eyes). It sources these pageviews effectively for free (from you and I) and sells them to companies. The end-user who does the search is a marginal piece of the product that Google is selling.<p>Therefore you can't say Google has a monopoly on search, because there is no market for search, since no one is paying for a product called search.<p>edit:spelling
rorrr超过 13 年前
Here are the numbers for one of my sites, not related to IT in any way:<p><pre><code> Google 94.3% Yahoo 2.6% Bing 1.8% Yandex 0.63% Ask 0.37% AOL 0.23% </code></pre> EDIT:<p>Here's another non-IT site with 13 million monthly visits:<p><pre><code> Google 89.9% Yahoo 6.4% Bing 2.96% Ask 0.37% AOL 0.21% Yandex 0.12%</code></pre>
评论 #3459242 未加载
BillSaysThis超过 13 年前
This blog post is from 2009!!! An in-page search for 2012 gets zero results.