Last week I mentioned a column by Seth Godin who had written about Apple's iPhone 3G launch. He made several suggestions where Apple could better handle the gap between supply and demand. Much to its credit, Apple seems to have taken the advice to heart:
The world is still trying to make sense of Cuil, the new search engine started by former Google engineers, so I was interested to hear Seth's take:
Seth argues that an icon must "stop working" for something to supplant it. But did Yahoo! or Lycos or AltaVista stop working when Google rose in prominence? No - people flocked to Google because it was sufficiently superior. They didn't know Yahoo! sucked at finding information until they saw how much better Google did the same thing.
Don't get me wrong, de-throning Google will require a convincing competitor. Their means of offering a better search will be revolutionary, something nobody today has thought of (i.e. not Cuil, at least in its current incarnation). But I refuse to believe a better search engine will get ignored simply because people are happy with the status quo.
"They started prequalifying people at 6:30 a.m. Within three minutes of arriving, I was given a serialized tag that is linked to an actual iPhone and I'm guaranteed to get one."
The world is still trying to make sense of Cuil, the new search engine started by former Google engineers, so I was interested to hear Seth's take:Once there's an icon in place, it's there because it's working. It serves a purpose, it carries useful information and performs a valuable function. There will never (or not for a generation, anyway) be the next Marilyn Monroe because this Marilyn Monroe isn't broken. Countless artists have seen themselves as the next Jackson Pollock, but as far as the lay public is concerned, we don't really need one, thanks very much.Much of what Seth writes I support. But wasn't Yahoo! the Marilyn Monroe of search before Google? I think Seth's analysis of Jackson Pollock and Marilyn Monroe makes sense, but his connection to tech fails. There isn't anything wrong with Jackson Pollock because he satisfies all the requirements for a role he himself defines. Seth is 110% correct that nobody can out-Pollock Pollock. But can anyone make a search engine to out-Google Google? Sure, I think that's possible.
Google, of course, is the Marilyn Monroe of search. I have no doubt that someone will develop a useful tool one day that takes time and attention away from Google, but it won't be a search engine. Google, after all, isn't broken, not in terms of solving the iconic "how do I find something online using my web browser" question.
Seth argues that an icon must "stop working" for something to supplant it. But did Yahoo! or Lycos or AltaVista stop working when Google rose in prominence? No - people flocked to Google because it was sufficiently superior. They didn't know Yahoo! sucked at finding information until they saw how much better Google did the same thing.
Don't get me wrong, de-throning Google will require a convincing competitor. Their means of offering a better search will be revolutionary, something nobody today has thought of (i.e. not Cuil, at least in its current incarnation). But I refuse to believe a better search engine will get ignored simply because people are happy with the status quo.
Leave a comment