From search engines to content engines

Denniso Livin, a prominent critic of the US search industry, recently published a commentary on how Google (Weibo) evolved from a search engine to content distribution and why. The following is the full text of Sullivan's article: 1998,

Danny Sullivan, a leading U.S. search industry commentator, recently published a commentary on how Google (Weibo) has evolved from a search engine to content distribution and why. Danny Sullivan

The following is the full text of Sullivan's article:

During the 1998, when I started writing about Google as a popular search engine, I had never thought about the future of the company in 15 years. Google will plan to buy Frommer's travel guide service, and will not expect Google to sell gift cards that can be used at Google Play's online store.

From search engines to content engines

How did we infer from Google's acquisition of travel guides or the sale of gift cards that Google is turning from a search engine provider to a content provider? Compared with the past, Google is now talking about its own products and services will not be in search results, it is difficult to convince other companies.

For my review, I thought about several titles, including "How Google lost its way" or "How Google does evil". Perhaps these headlines will attract more eyeballs, but these conclusions are not correct. From the current operating mechanism of Google's services, the company has not lost its way. Just compared to its original business model, Google has embarked on another path, far more powerful than ever before.

Some might argue that the new path Google has chosen is in fact a departure from the company's credo of "Don't be Evil" (Don ' Evil). This is not the same view. As I have said before, Google's new path is neither good nor evil. Google is full of ideas, and now it is. But the new path Google has chosen has led to an escalation of conflicts of interest between the search giant and other outside companies. Because of this, Google's move also incur outside "evil" accusations.

Google still says it will fight for the good development of its netizens and the Internet industry as a whole. So why is Google choosing a new path? I think it is because of the company's "paranoid" attitude. It is Google's belief that Microsoft, Apple and Facebook are putting a lot of pressure on companies, leading to a 180-degree shift in market strategy and a complete change in the company's initial strategy as a search engine provider.

Google Business

Google, of course, continues to provide search engine services. But the company's business is much more than that. Previous to Yahoo two former CEO namely Jerry Yang and Bartz (Carol Bartz) asked "What is Yahoo" question, they both were all of a sudden question and answer. If we ask Google CEO Larry Page to answer the question "What is Google", I don't think page will be much better than Jerry Yang or Mr, at least not in the concise language of the Google business.

So what is the "mission" of Google's official statement? Google wrote: "Google's mission is to make an orderly summary of global information and to enable all public access and use." ”

If this is Google's answer, it doesn't actually tell us anything. Here I would like to write a number of business in my head that I can think of Google. Take a look at:

Google is a search engine provider that can provide social networking services, develop mobile operating systems, and produce smartphones and tablets called Nexus, while opening a Google Play Web store where users can buy e-books, games and videos. Google also offers travel route services, blog services, video services (YouTube) and the development of chrome browsers. Google's main source of revenue is text-search ads. The company also launched a mobile payment business.

The products and services I think of are actually not helpful in answering the question of what Google is.

Google products and services logo (Tencent Science and technology with map)

Then we might as well log on to Google's official website, you can see the company's various types of product identification. For these different products and services, Google has the following note: "Google has been committed to providing users in addition to search products and services, but the company's product concept of the soul can still be retained." All of these technologies and products, from search to Chrome, to Gmail email services, are designed to make it easier for users to find the information they need and do their jobs faster. ”

"Google, can help you do a good job." "Perhaps this should be Google's explanatory text. But the problem with the text is that Google's mission is to help the public "work" and that there is no limit to the scope of the help, and that the conflict between Google and them is inevitable for other companies that are helping the public to "work".

Google as a content company

Google Play network store gift card (Tencent Science and technology with map)

Google has been expanding beyond the search business for several years. Only last year, Google's initiative to enter the content business area of the pace has been greatly accelerated.

Google's creation of the play online store This March shows that the company has identified itself as a new role as a content provider. As of this week, American netizens have even been able to buy gift cards that can be used at play stores. And media reports last week said Google would buy Frommer's travel guide services.

Google's becoming a content issuer and broker will cause a lot of skepticism. Take the acquisition of Frommer ' s travel guide Services for example only:

As a search engine, Google has previously linked search results to Frommer ' s and other sites, but the search engine is to acquire one of the travel guide business, what is this?

So do other travel guide services have reason to worry that their information will be discriminated against in Google's search rankings or simply excluded?

Google to do so, not equal to let fairsearch, such as Google's alleged monopoly of the agency found a substantial reason? These organizations have previously opposed Google's rationale is not "strongly", and Google's acquisition of Frommer's travel guide services, is the active handhold?

Suspicious of the birth of an enemy?

I personally think that it is Google's "paranoid" mentality, so that the company came to the point of today, and more enemies. This is also ironic, because if Google does not insist on its own paranoid mentality, perhaps Google's current enemies, some can become Google's partners.

Google Chrome Browser logo (Tencent Science and technology with map)

First, Microsoft is the big enemy Google needs to deal with. Because Microsoft has a dominant share of the operating system and browser markets, it is possible to come up with measures to prevent users from accessing Google's products and services. So what's the solution? That's Google's development of its own browser chrome and OS Chrome OS.

What are the results? Some statistics show that Chrome has defeated Microsoft IE. Microsoft has to keep that in mind. Mozilla's Firefox is also a loser, only Google's main donor to Mozilla, so Mozilla's pain level has eased. But in any case, Google launched an attack on Microsoft via Chrome and made Mozilla, a former Google supporter, uncomfortable.

Google Android operating system logo (Tencent Technology matching map)

Apple has a huge share in the mobile services market, so Google is hosting the Android mobile operating system, so Google will not be excluded from the mobile service market. Although Android is an Open-source product, no one can guarantee that Google will not give the latest version of Android priority to its products and services. For most of the current leading Android devices, they end up not getting away with this (Amazon Kindle Fire can be considered a special case).

As a result, Android has defeated Apple iOS in the mobile market, or is not in the same market share as iOS (the statistics given by different market research firms vary). Google no longer has to worry about being excluded from Apple. Yet Apple has started rejecting Google Apps in iOS. If Google had not been so worried about Apple and developing its own mobile operating system, Apple would not be rejecting Google Now.

Apple will give up its services such as Google Maps and YouTube. Apple's crackdown on Google might inspire Google to develop follow-on products, but this hostility has also led Google to face the risk of a patent infringement meeting with Apple directly in court, and to make two of its once-close partners rivals, leading Apple fans and Google fans to scold.

And then there's Facebook. Google is concerned that Facebook's closure of its own user content will result in Google's search engine being unable to crawl the content, hurting Google's search business.

Google + Service logo (Tencent Technology matching map)

The solution? That is to launch the own social sharing button, the "+1" button. Google said the button would improve the search user experience, but Google did not appear to be planning to launch its own social networking services. Soon after, however, Google actually launched its own social networking services Google +, but claimed that the service was not a social network but a "social layer". While there is nothing wrong with the "social layer", Google + is indeed a social networking service.

What's the result? It will take a long time for Google + to catch up with Facebook, based on the number of users and the level of participation. After the publication of the data on this area, it will cause heated debate in the media. But in any case, Google + has been stepping up its social networking business and getting rid of its reliance on Facebook. But Google has also made Facebook and Twitter more supportive, partly because some critics believe that Google + services will prefer their products and services to discriminate against other social networks.

Logging Open

And the formation of Google's paranoid mentality, neither other companies do not want to suppress Google, nor they will be more than Google to focus on the interests of users to fight. And Google is not without paranoia, but just want to release new products. Android didn't have a foundation until the iphone was released. Maybe we have a bit of a paranoid mentality here. It doesn't matter whether you believe it or not. Whatever the view, the results are the same.

To some extent, the company is now quite different from Google, which was just formed. Google is still popular with consumers, but the company is increasingly worried about its ecosystem partners and content providers. And Larry Page and Sergey (Sergey Brin) created the company years ago, and that's not going to happen.

Paranoid or ambitious, no matter how you look at this situation, I feel that Google has now entered a forest, and to block in front of their own trees, small trees for felling processing. Google has not been "malicious" in its process of felling trees. Google can always find reasons why users ' interests are hurting. "We have to cut down the tree and everyone will benefit." "However, after these" logging "activities, Google did not get lost in the jungle. Google sees no forest at all, and the company has cut down all the trees.

Personally, I can understand why Google wants to buy Frommer's travel guide Service or shop review site Zagat, especially when rivals such as TripAdvisor or Yelp claim that Google crawls their user data (while acknowledging that Google has brought them huge traffic) These acquisitions are understandable. Well, you keep your data and we'll create our own content. So a tree was cut down, and for good reason. But other trees in the forest were hurt.

This forest, in fact, can refer to many things, such as Google's relationship with other companies. But I'm more inclined to think that this forest is a content provider that has long cooperated with Google in a tacit way. The general content of this unwritten agreement is that Google crawls content provider data and displays it in search results. In return, content providers will get huge traffic. Google does not want to be the ultimate destination for users to visit.

Have the answer

For years, the role of search engines has been to show users where the content is, rather than hosting it personally. Google's entry into the content market has been a threat to the unwritten rules of the years. Google (Microsoft Bing, too) has provided external links while providing "direct answers" to users. It is undeniable that it is understandable to provide users with answers such as "2 plus 2 equals" or other general questions.

But if users are searching for content such as songs or TV dramas, what is the "direct answer"? If we were to do this kind of search, we found that the search results were directed to Google Play network store, which undoubtedly makes Google into Apple or Amazon, and lost the impartiality of the search engine.

When it comes to Amazon, what if Google is taking it for itself? After all, from Google's point of view, how to buy an E-commerce giant, will certainly make "users benefit." What would happen if Google were to consider acquiring content publishers such as the New York Times? Germany is planning to legislate that search engines must pay for content providers that the link points to. So why not consider buying a publisher altogether?

It has been suggested that the Google search engine to other search engines to take an unfair attitude. I think this is ridiculous because it makes no sense to let a search engine point to another search engine. The most basic function of the search engine is to access the destination "directions" for the user. As Google becomes more and more the destination itself, the impartiality of its search engine will inevitably be questioned.

This is the traditional role of the fallen forest, the search engine. And this change should cause the concern of every content occurrence business.

This should also cause Google's concerns. If you are an internal Google employee and you see this article, you're going to have to wonder if my article seems to have an aversion to Google (I don't really hate it), and I'm puzzled by the overreaction of other companies (outside companies sometimes, but usually worry), because you don't see the forest. Think of the trees you are cutting down. Perhaps more trees should keep them upright there. The same is true of other companies. We want to see this forest survive.