In terms of market share, it is also brand recognition which allows Google to dominate. Microsoft lost it’s vernacular brand; people don’t flock to Microsoft, they try to avoid it. It is unlikely they will get their position back. They never were innovators; they were primarily hunters and gatherers.
Google was smart in naming and branding; even non-internet users know of it and like to vocalize the name. But Google is making errors too. Gathering everyone’s data, and trying to be the everything to everyone so they can then shut the door behind all the little mice as they nibble away, will backfire. Filtering search for self-serving reasons will only increase as their power expands, and it will also be a point marking their demise.
The concepts of semantic search have been around a long time; the steps being considered sound similar to those invoked during the trajectory from AI to Fuzzy Logic. But the problems are the same. You need to include contrarian points of view and counterpoints, as mirror reflections within the ontology. It can’t be limited to syntax or semantics. It has to include the expanded forms of writing as Derrida described. There is a way to do this which works perfectly with multiple modes of distribution and rich media. The problem is, programmers tend to think with abstractions and then base creative actions on forms of language, (another abstraction). Instead they need to include other methods for knitting the black boxes together after breaking them apart.
You can sense that Google is putting up walls now; always the sign of defense which points to reaching the top/peak of its market. One of the most innovative things G did was the _way_ it came into the market as a public company. It ensured their ascent. The market is another social medium; where consensus outside the specific field, creates value. The further the integration of the markets with social media, the shorter the lifespan of each market, creating faster innovation cycles.
Think about how the market drove application development. First a needed product is created through innovation. Then the continuous addition of more and more features to sustain market share. Eventually the entire application is transformed into a heavy, nearly unusable beast, until another innovation develops a new product which takes makes the older product extinct. This is a description of a living system.
Products that "glue people and ideas together" need to be developed with very short life cycles in mind and be innovative in their integration with and use of public markets. They need to be careful not to follow older development trends.
It would be very interesting to see an operating system for the net, that was inclusive of search, but was also integrated with clusters of public companies. Each company would be facile at developing software with very short life spans, and a very simple user interface, (like Tumblr and Twitter). There would be a move away from the ad revenue model, which would keep a lot of irrelevant filtering at bay, and allow for more teleological forms of knowledge to emerge. You could shift revenue making to a use model, based on "tiny cents". (as Google does with it's ad models), then only charge for use. As an option, to keep it affordable to all, users could group together, paying these small fees as a group. As the share price in each public co. grew, the user fee could go down; increasing overall market share.
Leave a Reply