Why Google Won’t Be A Victim Of Twitter & Why John’s Theory Is Flawed

I think the most important insight in this article is, NOW Web is happening everywhere and not just on Twitter. Hence I think even if we search on Twitter for something, I dont think we will get comprehensive results and most probably they will be irrelevant.I just searched for iPhone and one of the search result was "Playing with her new iPhone.."

Here is how disruptive innovation is described in Wikipedia:

"A disruptive technology or disruptive innovation is a technological innovation that improves a product or service in ways that the market does not expect, typically by being lower priced or designed for a different set of consumers.

Disruptive technologies are particularly threatening to the leaders of an existing market, because they are competition coming from an unexpected direction. A disruptive technology can come to dominate an existing market by either filling a role in a new market that the older technology could not fill (as cheaper, lower capacity but smaller-sized flash memory is doing for personal data storage in the 2000s) or by successively moving up-market through performance improvements until finally displacing the market incumbents (as digital photography has largely replaced film photography)."

After reading this, I don't think Twitter search will take Google's place as of NOW.Since Google is already experimenting with time line search, and I am sure they are working on real time search as well.But I do think that Twitter search can be treated as a very good 'Breaking news search engine', since it asks the question : "What are you doing NOW?"

Having read both of these, I can't really see why Google could simply refine its existing news section to incorporate ephemeral data.

I have routinely found recent HN posts on Google -indexed a matter of minutes or hours after they were created. Google knows the value of up-to-the minute information and I am sure they are working on solutions.