Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Yahoo! Businesses Google The Internet

Yahoo! Yields Search Dominance to Google 180

Posted by Zonk
from the bowing-out dept.
Unsichtbarer_Mensch wrote to mention a Seattle PI story in which Yahoo! CFO Susan Decker states that they're not aiming to be the No. 1 Search engine. From the article: "Yahoo!'s comments underline the difficulties any Internet company faces in trying to challenge Google's dominance of the Web search industry. Google has at least double the market share of Yahoo! and Microsoft Corp. in Internet search, the largest and most profitable segment of online advertising. 'In some countries, it's already game over in search, with Google the clear victor,' said RBC Capital Markets analyst Jordan Rohan in New York. 'Google's product development pipeline runs at such a fast rate that it's very difficult for any company, Microsoft or Yahoo! to catch up.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Yahoo! Yields Search Dominance to Google

Comments Filter:
  • Yahoo in neutral (Score:5, Interesting)

    by peterdaly (123554) * <petedaly@ix. n e t c o m.com> on Tuesday January 24, 2006 @02:32PM (#14550153)
    "We don't think it's reasonable to assume we're going to gain a lot of share from Google," Chief Financial Officer Susan Decker said in an interview. "It's not our goal to be No. 1 in Internet search. We would be very happy to maintain our market share."

    "maintain our market share" is what's interesting. She doesn't even say increase. That is not a good sign for Yahoo's search business.

    I can imaging Ask employees giddy with glee seeing that search engine #2 has consciously put their search market share in neutral.

    -Pete
  • Take a leap! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Arthur B. (806360) on Tuesday January 24, 2006 @02:33PM (#14550159)
    Maybe they are not going to catch google at this "raw brute-force search engine game"... good for them! Why would one try to imitate such a primitive way of searching. Come on, this is the prehistory of search engines, there is so so much more to do. They should take a leap into next generation search engines. When I look for a movie, I go to imdb, when I look for a scientific article, I go directly to wikipedia... I wish I'd use only one site but I need to look for more than a movie title, I want to specify it is a movie, and if in my native language "movie" is written just like "baby diapers" I still want to be unambiguous... Google still relies VERY heavily on syntaxic tricks... there are so many "tricks" in Google maps it is sickening, just for the sake of keeping a single search bar. The future is clearly semantic, I think Google is seeing it with Google base but for the moment, this is their only "appearant" use.
  • by Mrs. Grundy (680212) on Tuesday January 24, 2006 @02:34PM (#14550166) Homepage
    I doubt it will be as simple as tossing their 'do no evil' mandate, but rather the law of unintended consequences will take hold as they grow. Things they think are harmless or even good can and probably will have effects they cannot control. This is especially difficult as one tries to balance the ethical dilemma of doing 'no evil' to shareholders as well as users simultaneously.
  • by macadamia_harold (947445) on Tuesday January 24, 2006 @02:36PM (#14550187) Homepage
    Wasn't Yahoo's strength always that it was a directory, not a search engine? They've always outsourced their search .
  • by mmell (832646) <mike.mell@gmail.com> on Tuesday January 24, 2006 @02:36PM (#14550196)
    But even a quick look will show you that Google is aware of their preeminence in the search engine arena. While they are still innovating, I'm just waiting for them to become so caught up in their own greatness that they kick back and rest on their laurels.

    Because that's when somebody'll come up with "a better mousetrap" and unseat the reigning kings of search. Anybody here remember Browser War I (BW I)? Microsoft won that one and suddenly Insecure Exploder didn't need to be improved any more.

    Sorta like the way Wal-Mart grew up (hellfire, I can remember driving out of the city to a rural area just to shop at Wal-mart. Now that they're a retailing juggernaut I avoid Wal-mart whenever possible - their customer service sucks almost as bad as their mostly-imported product lines).

  • by us7892 (655683) on Tuesday January 24, 2006 @02:41PM (#14550242) Homepage
    It used to be that technical searches (the kind you use at work when searching for code snippets, general help, etc.) turned up some excellent result using Google. Back when AltaVista was still around, I switched to google because Google had great result lists.

    In the past year or so, there are just too many junk results. Sites which exist only to flood us with google ads; sites that are fake (you know the ones, with obviously bulk generated text to "match" your search); and poor "help" sites which also seem to exist just for ad revenue...

    The next "google" will be the one that filters out the garbage, and brings the result lists back to the way they were 1999-2001...actually, Google will probably allow us to mark results as bogus, like a personal "black list". Maybe they allow this already?
  • by dpbsmith (263124) on Tuesday January 24, 2006 @02:52PM (#14550344) Homepage
    I'm reasonably net-savvy, but wife is a computer layperson. She's quite "computer literate" but has no real depth technical understanding. She bought a Gateway about six years ago, choosing Gateway because the liked the Holstein motif. She specifically wanted it to be _her_ computer and wanted me _not_ to "help" her or hang over her shoulder or kibbitz.

    When you double-clicked the IE icon, it brought you to a Gateway-badged version of the Yahoo home page. So, her network experience started with Yahoo and she never turned back.

    By the time I offered to help her configure Outlook Express to work with our ISP's email, something I thought she might have trouble with, she said "But I already have email." She had signed up for a Yahoo account, and she thought and still thinks that there's no reason at all to use anything else. (And she was proved right when our ISP had some infuriating email outages, lasting several days each, and my email was interrupted while Yahoo's was completely unaffected).

    She uses Yahoo weather, Yahoo maps, belongs to several Yahoo groups, books her plane flights with Yahoo travel, and so forth and so on. Yahoo is well-designed, engaging, caters to novices, and is a portal to many things that she wants to do on the Internet.

    It is, in fact, all the things that AOL tried to be and wasn't.

    The only thing she doesn't use Yahoo for is searching. Within about a month after Google launched, I discovered it and was impressed by how much better it was than either Yahoo or Altavista. I mentioned it to her, she tried it, she loved it, and has used nothing else since.

    I have no idea at all what Lycos and all the others are up to these days...

  • Re:Innovation (Score:3, Interesting)

    by QMO (836285) on Tuesday January 24, 2006 @02:57PM (#14550391) Homepage Journal
    "Trying is the first step toward failure..."

    That soulds like something from http://www.despair.com/ [despair.com]
  • del.icio.us (Score:3, Interesting)

    by massysett (910130) on Tuesday January 24, 2006 @03:26PM (#14550652) Homepage
    Maybe they are not going to catch google at this "raw brute-force search engine game"... good for them!

    Some say they are already going in this direction, which is why they acquired del.icio.us. Why have computers characterize pages when humans will do it for you, and for free? Sometimes I search for things in del.icio.us, and the other users' bookmarks turn up some good results. It will be interesting to see if Yahoo can harness this in a big way.

  • by mikepaktinat (609872) on Tuesday January 24, 2006 @03:27PM (#14550663)
    You should check out the firefox extension "customizegoogle"

    It lets you filter results in "black list" fasion(among other crazy google customizations)
  • Re:Horsepucky! (Score:2, Interesting)

    by OOGG_THE_CAVEMAN (609069) on Tuesday January 24, 2006 @03:39PM (#14550763)
    their core "product" still weighs in at 1.3k, fits on a 640x480 monitor, and has a single significant input field.

    I think this view of their "product" is totally naive.

    Google makes squat from that blank page. They make lots of money from sticking tiny, unobtrusive, but still lucrative ads on all sorts of websites, including their own.

    As long as they keep finding new ways to stick their ads all over the place on pages people want to view, and the ads stay lucrative, www.google.com itself could vanish, and GOOG would keep making money.
  • by maillemaker (924053) on Tuesday January 24, 2006 @03:50PM (#14550855)
    Make the top 10 search results actually relevent again.

    Google is rapidly becoming a disappointment for me. Or rather, I'm quickly learning after doing a Google search to immediately click to page 2 of the results to see the "real" results.

    Page 1 of the results seem to largely be irrelevent to what I'm /really/ searching for - it is far more relevent to people who have paid to have their URL returned when my keyword is typed in.

    I can't tell you how many times I've typed in "chicken" (or whatever) and been presented with a top-10 list of "results" for web sites that have absolutely nothing to do with chicken - they've just paid someone to make sure their web site /appeared/ to be associated with chicken.

    You want to beat Google? Find a way to make a search engine that doesn't pad the results with irrelevent paid advertising.

    Interestingly, I'm finding the "legitimate" paid results - those down the right side of the screen, to often be more relevent to my searches than the top 10 URLs presented in the actual search body.

    Steve
  • Ironic (Score:3, Interesting)

    by PingXao (153057) on Tuesday January 24, 2006 @04:42PM (#14551293)
    It's ironic that this story was posted today. Only 3 hours ago I used the Yahoo search engine for the first time ever. Google has been serving me a ton of broken cache links over the last few weeks, and today I finally had enough. Google also needs a way to turn off their supplemental search results. If there are only 2 or 3 hits on something then that's all I need to see. I don't need 3 extra pages of dreck. I got modded as a troll for posting these sentiments in a different story the other day but I am completely serious. I have had Google as my home page for 5 years now and I'm not abandoning it. I'm just saying that if Google wants to maintain their overall superiority and excellence of quality there are a few things they need to attend to.

I'd rather just believe that it's done by little elves running around.

Working...