in the world of search technology, the topic of google's dominance - and the future of that dominance - is often a topic of heated discussions. those arguments in defense of the top dog, can usually be dropped into one of three buckets:
- "they're good enough" - they're not perfect, but people usually find everything they need
- "they're too big" - google is has too much market share, and it's brand is too entrenched to be overcome
- "they've already thought of it" - google has thousands of employees, working on a number of technologies. there's nothing in search that they don't have hidden in their "labs"
i've heard these arguments from a number of folks, including current employees, former employees, competitior employees, VCs, lay people, journalists and many more.
now there's nothing wrong with these arguments. there's a degree of validity to all of them.
when you are king, there's always someone eyeing the thrown. in markets where barriers to entry are low enough, technology impacts ability and a user experience comes into play, resting on your laurels is ill advised. the thrown is never safe. if you don't believe me, just ask: GM (or toyota), yahoo (or google), dell (or HP), motorola (or nokia) or smart phone manufacturers (or apple).
that said, i invite you first to read saul hansell's article titled google and the real search for meaning on the web. you won't find any mind blowing revelations when reading his defense of Google, but he makes sensible assertions.
afterwards, read riza berkan's (CEO of hakia) post on the company's blog titled if google had semantic technology. he provides some "see for yourself" examples which make this a fun post to read.
after reading both sides, what do you think?...
- as always, i like to disclose when i'm writing about any company in which I'm involved or invested. hakia is a portfolio company of my employer, and i sit on the board of directors. but that doesn't necessarily mean I'm biased.
i know my posts have been far and few between lately. to be honest, they will continue to be sporadic for the time being. i hope to move to a new URL, and increase consistency during the fall. thanks for continuing to read...
---
that aside, i recommend a quick read of sen. obama's op-ed in today's nytimes. the senator highlights one of the most divisive issues between the two candidates: the iraq war.
there are consistent accusations that sen. obama's plan is hasty and entails leaving "before the job is done". the senator's plan does not appear to reveal any signs of rash decision making or suggestions of a hasty exit:
We can safely redeploy our combat brigades at a pace that would remove them in 16 months. That would be the summer of 2010 — two years from now, and more than seven years after the war began. After this redeployment, a residual force in Iraq would perform limited missions: going after any remnants of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, protecting American service members and, so long as the Iraqis make political progress, training Iraqi security forces. That would not be a precipitous withdrawal.
the oft made argument that exiting = surrender is addressed by obama as well:
They call any timetable for the removal of American troops “surrender,” even though we would be turning Iraq over to a sovereign Iraqi government. But this is not a strategy for success — it is a strategy for staying that runs contrary to the will of the Iraqi people, the American people and the security interests of the United States.
i'd be interested to know whether any of you believe there are major holes in sen. obama's approach. i'm sure sen mccain will argue as such, and i await to see how directly he refutes this op-ed piece.
