There’s No Such Thing As A Google Killer | Hacker News Reader

There’s No Such Thing As A Google Killer

skrenta.com

47 pointstrs9024 comments

Two men woke up in their campsite one morning to radio news that a man-eating tiger was on the prowl. One man promptly started wearing his running shoes, while the second teased him: "surely, you don't think you're going to outrun the tiger in those?!". "I don't have to outrun the tiger", replied the first man. "I only have to outrun you."

They don't have to kill _Google_. Outsurviving Y! Or Bing will do handsomely.

PS: that said, comparing google to coke is an analogy without legs.

Edit: clarified based on reply.

So who do they have to kill/outrun/whatever? I'm not sure I understand your analogy.

#2: y! & bing

Yahoo and Bing are full service search engines. If they execute well, they could eventually become "Google killers".

I think the premise of this article was that just because Blekko is in the search space, doesn't mean it's trying to replace Google (or Yahoo or Bing). They think they can succeed by being Mt. Dew rather than Pepsi.

Outsurviving Y! as a search engine just got easier...

"X Killer" never meant that in my experience. It is phrased as such because it generates clicks and ad revenue. That's it. A lot of headlines are hyperbolic because they are designed to garner attention.

They also serve to introduce concepts to people who aren't familiar with the field. Saying "web search start up" to a layman isn't going to excite much, but "google killer" will, regardless of accuracy.

Was there ever a "X killer" that actually killed the X? I cannot think of one example. If something is branded that way, must be a loser already. True "X killers" are like ninjas that come unnoticed and unexpected.

"Was there ever a "X killer" that actually killed the X?"

I would think Dell, Amazon and Wikipedia would this idea.

That being said, I would define "X killer" as an organisation that completely dominates it's field. In all of the above cases, they managed to beat their competitors in price point and range.

The Google killer isn't going to be a search engine, just as the Microsoft killer isn't a software company, just as the IBM killer wasn't a computer manufacturer.

And, in fact, none of those companies are dead (or close).

It all depends on yor definition of dead. http://www.paulgraham.com/microsoft.html

IMO, on search and presentation of results, Google can be beaten.

I just do not believe that what they have there now is the best that can be achieved in this field. It's plain, makes limited use of colour to provide more information about results (is this page for a business, is it a forum, is it a MFA info site, is it a blog, or a mailing list archive?), gets pretty messy once the top and side ad positions are full, may rely too much on the title tag in presenting results, could provide larger targets for paging, etc.

Fully agree. And it's also almost impossible for Google to change their presentation, because they would immediately confuse millions of users.

This is a weakness that can be exploited by a new competitor. Cuil did some work in that area, it was promising.

all the attempts to provide "richer" results have failed pretty badly though. that should be telling.

I prefer googles "raw" results - it leaves the processing to my brain rather than a computer :)

'Tisn't "product killers" but "category killers". Google isn't the Microsoft killer because they've a better desktop platform, it's that they're making desktop platforms irrelevant. All we can know of the hypothetical/eventual Google killer is that they won't be competing on but with search/advertising.

There is no Google killer, but there are thousands of vultures ready to exploit any weakness.

At worst Google will end up as Yahoo/Microsoft, a legacy company that did something important in the past. They just have too much brand equity to fade into the sunset.

I label Christine Varney as the most likely Google killer. http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2009/07/27/varney-getting-pushback-...

I was going to say the exact thing. Government is the real killer.

Technology is not Coke. Google is a huge brand, but brand only matters when it comes to brand loyalty, and in technology there is no brand loyalty.

The minute someone comes up with something significantly better (and it will happen), Google will join Yahoo and many others in the "former king of the hill, still important, just not very influential" camp.

The only company even remotely in a position to kill google is google itself. If they mess up badly enough in the eyes of their users then there would be a mass exodus, as long as they keep doing what they're doing now they will outlast all of us.

It would be interesting to analyse past articles about IBM and Microsoft and check at what point of the cycle, now with Google, we are.

Also, one must realize that there is no such thing as search market, as well as there is no such market as restaurant's market. There is only market of finding answers, or buying food and social status.

Thus, to get a new Google we have to wait for a paradigm shift. Computers enabled IBM; personal computers enabled Microsoft; Internet enabled Google, etc.

so...any information on blekko's actual product/service?

I disagree. There is only one Google Killer.

Google.

That's a nice sentiment, but what does it really mean?

Google would only be completely to blame for lost market share if its competitors were completely stagnant, which they are clearly not.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com