Google is the new Microsoft
tnl.net
tnl.net
For example:
"Meanwhile, Apple may obviate the need for Google altogether with Siri as it introduced a radical new way to handle search on a mobile device (and with the majority of Google mobile searches coming from iOS devices, the search giant has to worry about this intrusion)."
That Siri utterly kills the need for Google on a mobile device (not even on iPhones, on mobile devices) is complete lunacy. Not to mention that Siri is not a radical way to handle search. Voice search has been around for a while--see Vlingo and Google Voice Commands.
The rest of the article is just as bad about making tall claims with weak evidence.
Another quote: "Meanwhile, Google will continue making large amounts of money (probably billions) on its current offering but may find it hard to show the general public how it is relevant today."
Let's analyse a typical day in my life. (Although I will add, that I don't think this behavior is limited to power users, but I'm sure plenty of non-geek users share similar behavior.)
Wake up and check gmail. Use my Android phone to track my bike to work Check Google calendar for any appointments Look up a good barbershop on Google Maps after work Video chat with my mom using google chat at night
Maybe the article is right...Google is so irrelevant.
Edit: Wanted to add a link re: the article's last point http://venturebeat.com/2010/10/14/google-earnings-q3/
My suspicion is that, on a 10 year basis, Google may be headed in the same direction.
One point I disagree with you on is about Siri. I strongly feel that Siri will drive some mobile business away from Google and thus lower its hold on the mobile search market. I suspect that it's only a question of time before someone else creates a Siri-like feature on Android phones that bypasses Google searches there. And remember that search is still what drives Google's ad engine and targeting. When less searches are performed, Google might have a harder time with targeting.
As I said before, "Siri-like features" already exist, and they're out there--used by a lot of people.
Besides, you claim the article is about cultural-relevance but you spend half the time talking about sales and possible lost advertising-revenue in the future.
Last thing, I didn't know what also-ran so I looked it up:
American Heritage Dictionary: al·so-ran A horse that does not win, place, or show in a race. A loser in a competition, as in an election: "had enough support to place him in the middle of the also-rans" (George F. Will). One that has little talent or success: just an also-ran in the art world.
The first and last don't really apply. As for the second, only time will tell I presume, but right now, my money is with Google. And although you claim the tech community has written Google off, I don't see that happening. The brightest software engineers who are not doing startups tend to view Google in a positive light or as a place they'd like to work. In fact, it's become so positive that the default in college campuses has become everyone wanting to work for Google (or at least saying so). Not to mention Google has their hand on a number of future-facing projects like the self-driving cars.
I would focus such articles more if I were you. If you're talking about cultural-relevance, do so. If it's bad business forecasts, then do that. If your prediction is for 10 years from now make that clear, and don't use a title phrased in the present tense.