Just Bing it :-)
The world needs more search engines
91–100 of 549 posts
Re: The world needs more search engines
#92A competitive market with high barrier to entry seems to stabilize at 3 entrants.
Others that might seem to be in market are niche players.
Scale is good for consumers, benefit of scale is a thing, so 'trust busting' should happen if there are fewer than three.
In the us search market, we have google, ddg, and Bing.
Wanting more choice is very American, but it's hard to take seriously.
Re: The world needs more search engines
#93It is already too late for Google to fall. Even if it falls something worse will take its place.
What are our options? Government? How will it be even remotely close? Data will be needed, How will the government get data? They will probably make it mandatory in schools of course. Why not? its for the good of the children.
Interesting times indeed.
“The individual is in a dilemma: either he decides to safeguard his freedom of choice, chooses to use traditional , personal, moral, or empirical means, thereby entering into competition with a power against which there is no efficacious defense and before which he must suffer defeat; or he decides to accept technical necessity, in which case he will himself by the victor, but only by submitting irreparably to technical slavery. In effect he has no freedom of choice.”
― Jacques Ellul, The Technological Society
Re: The world needs more search engines
#94Google's dominance is almost entirely due to the fact that its by far the best at search. I use ddg, but I use google search via !g about 25-50% of the time after a failed attempts. And 9 times out of 10 Google gives me exactly what I'm looking for. For instance: "the actor that plays the news guy in spiderman" ddg: Tom Holland (side bar) Spider-Man Homecoming (imdb) Tom Holland (wiki) Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Ver…
Antecdotal .. realize that google search links to usually three sites. Wikipedia, stackoverflow, and medium. If you just started your seatch there you would be good.
Re: The world needs more search engines
#95I'm already degoogling myself, transferring all my emails to tutanota and using firefox with duckduckgo now.
I've been doing this too, but every time I check my open connections in my router there are a ton of open connections to 1e100.net
Re: The world needs more search engines
#96I feel the problem most people have when thinking about monopolies is if a monopoly produces a product that people like right now (e.g. they like the features, they like the cost), people don't see the monopoly as a problem and even will even defend it thinking it's great ("I love company X, they make amazing products, they deserve their success!"). The problem with monopolies is when the company decides to e.g. pric…
Hi, Marc from Cliqz (and one of the authors of the linked article): We at Cliqz do try and others (like mojeek in the UK or Seznam in Czech) are trying as well. But yes, it has very high costs. We did a lot of (I find smart) technical shortcuts (and will explain how in the next days in our blog), but it is still an investment. The main hurdle is however distribution. As said in the article, Google spends 1/4 of their revenue to block market access and this makes the investment case nearly impossible. It's their strategy to stop competitive innovation. This no company can solve and why e.g., in Europe you do see the 93% market share of Google. This is where this becomes a political topic. In fact since search tends to be a natural monopoly and information is so important this is where politics has to regulate and ensure competition. In an ideal world there would be 4-5 competing search engines in every region ...
Re: The world needs more search engines
#97> There are only very few truly independent search engines in the world. Google, Bing, Yandex, and Baidu are the best known ones. Most other players only white label results from those four and are dependent on them and their business model.
Does this mean the article is insinuating that DuckDuckGo is dependent on another search engine? Is this true? Or are DDG results organic?
Re: The world needs more search engines
#98What happens to our data when this empire falls?
Ready for the subprime data to be bundled with AAA rated data causing a data industry micro-economic collapse? Because I am!
Re: The world needs more search engines
#99It is impressive what they built. The results are quite good! The UI shows innovative elements like trackers used on the page. I see two problems with their approach: 1. The product is not built with the 'grandma test' mindset. More sliders and widgets is not what your grandma wants in a search engine. This is why building a search engine is hard. You have to guess with very little information what the user wants and…
>Google must not fall because it is a monopoly. If it was to fall it should be because someone built a better product. One of the reasons for breaking up monopolies is that they make it harder for newcomers to build something better.
Even if you break up Google or Alphabet, the search division would probably remain a single company. It won't solve anything.
So You get Google Search Inc. Adsense Inc. AdWords Inc, Gmail Inc, I imagine.
This would be just restructuring, Googlers are too smart to get hold back by this and they probably already have an emergency plan if it remotely comes as a possibility.
Re: The world needs more search engines
#100This is cool. But some criticism. UI seems a bit janky. Results are good but visually presented in a way it's hard to tell each result card from the next. Cliqz is a bad name, even tho you may want the world to be a cyberpunk dystopia where renegade hackers control the outposts of civilization, Google has not fallen yet, pick a name the 99% can relate to. And get Machiavellian ... if you're really gonna beat Google, you're not gonna do it with hippy tactics, no love flowers light or manifestos. You have to get evil and more evil than Google. You have to out evil the big evil.
Realistically if I were trying to beat Google I wouldn't be building a search engine. What can you offer that they can't? And if you even begin to compete with them there, what steps can they take that you can't recover from?
Instead, I would focus on beating them first, building search later (if search is what you actually care about). What's Google's weakness? Figure out "the cord that makes them run" (to paraphrase Meredith Vickers in Prometheus) and relentlessly attack that (legally, of course, this is business not cartel turf war). I have no idea what that might be, but Rome fell, IBM fell (well, stumbled, I guess?), so Google must have its Visigoths or Bill Gateses or whatever.
You built something cool, that replicates the functionality (80%). Cool. Good for you. You proved you can do it. Now decide if you really are serious about "beating Google", and figure out an effective way to do that. Search engine is not the way.
Anyway, Google built the (past of) search. If you really wanna do search, build the (future of) search. I dunno, like AR/VR search? Search for FBs AR platform? I have no idea but text search on WebPages is the past. Google already won. Get over it and move on. Build the future, or go build a better steam engine, you know, for like fun and stuff. Because it's cool, but it won't ever beat Google. Sorryz Cliqz