In search of the next Google

Every investor and entrepreneur is in search of the next Google. The New York Times thinks it might be Powerset, Hakia, Cha Cha, or Snap. I don't think so. The way to beat Google is by doing it different. Things like Mobile Search, Local Search, or Location Based Search.

"Since the beginning of 2004, venture capitalists have put nearly $350 million into no fewer than 79 start-ups that had something to do with Internet search, according to the National Venture Capital Association, an industry group."  "Still, recent history suggests that gaining traction is going to be difficult. Of dozens of search start-ups that were introduced in recent years, none had more than a 1 percent share of the United States search market in November, according to Nielsen NetRatings, a research firm that measures Internet traffic."

Here is what I would do if I were still in the search business.

Mobile Search - Target the cell phone. Use Local Search and build an index like the Yellow Pages, only better. And of course, incorporate Location Based Services.

Results - Rather than search for 1,000s of results only deliver one, the best one. Cell phone screens can't handle lots of results. Have an easy button for more results.

Advertising - Don't use advertising to monetize. The cell phone screen isn't optimal for ads. Instead, charge the user $0.05 per search and charge them through their cell phone carrier. Just like directory assistance. Or, charge the local businesses to be listed in the index...just like the Yellow Pages.

Speech - Build a state of the art voice interface. The cell phone is uniquely situated to use a voice interface rather than text.

“It is hard for me to believe that anybody thinks they can take Google’s business from Google,” said Randy Komisar, a venture capitalist who was once known as Silicon Valley’s “virtual C.E.O.” for his role as a mentor to scores of technology firms. “But to call the game over because Google has been such a success would be to deny history.”

History does indeed show that there will always be a "new" leader that will emerge. But, history also shows that they do so by taking a different approach to the same thing. The Next Big Thing will be the old thing done in a new way.

UPDATE: Please take the time to read the many insightful comments from readers.  Here is one of my follow up comments. "I think they are better than the post itself. Personally I think the cell phone is/will be the "first screen" for most users. Search on cell phones will be a very lucrative business. No one has done it right yet. There are lots of pieces to this puzzle. I think the cell phone search experience, interface, and business model will be fundamentally different, and Google will not necessarily win on that platform."

Subscribe - To get an automatic feed of all future posts subscribe here, or to receive them via email go here and enter your email address in the box in the right column.

Comments

[Steve Newson]

My take on the NY Times article is that Powerset, and the Jimmy Wales Wikiasari project, is precisely about doing the old thing in a new way.

I do agree, however, with what I conclude is your main point; there isn't yet a Google killer out there (in the search arena).

[Vijay]

There will never be another Google..just as there will never be another Microsoft...

There will be a new company... with the "New.. Next big thing"...

Great post Don.. insightful as ever..

[Darryl]

I am the CEO of a search company that has been working on solving these exact same issues for almost 3 years and we believe we have the answers, please contact me so that I can share our technology, I think you will be impressed. Google will be upended when many other search engines offer the same ads for a greater revenue share for those that can't build an ad bidding system.

[Andy]

Don, how come the shift in thinking? When I wanted to talk about Q-Phrase's conversational search (e.g., voice search) you told me that search is not about the interface and a new search method would not make a difference.

[Don Dodge]

Andy, There have been 79 search related start-ups funded since 2004, and probably hundreds more start-ups that have self funded.

Theses search start-ups have tried UI approaches, Clustering, social filtering, natural language processing, vertical search niches, different algorithms, different business models, etc. Nothing has worked well or gained significant traction.

I don't see any startup beating Google at Google's game. I also don't see a company focused on one feature or approach winning. There are lots of startups out there doing one or two of the things I have mentioned above, but that won't cut it either.

I think it will take all of those approaches working together in a simple, elegant user interface, to create a new search experience that satisfies users, advertisers, and content owners.

Remember, to be successful in search you must satisfy all three parties; users, advertisers, and content owners.

Personally I think the cell phone is/will be the "first screen" for most users. Search on cell phones will be a very lucrative business. No one has done it right yet. There are lots of pieces to this puzzle. I think the cell phone search experience, interface, and business model will be fundamentally different, and Google will not necessarily win on that platform.

Q-Phrase *might* have one of the pieces to this puzzle, but so do lots of other start-ups. The secret will be combining them all together into a new elegant search experience.

[Andy]

I appreciate the insight.

[Adam Jusko]

The way to beat Google may be to have a completely different service that is so popular it allows you to start a new search engine that is the default search for a particular site or family of sites. The obvious example would be MySpace. What if Rupert Murdoch decided to stop partnering and instead invest in MySpace's own search engine, making it the default on MySpace? It might stay relegated to MySpace for the moment, but, if as the years went on and the current MySpace audience aged they considered it their default way to search, it would clearly cut into Google's share. (This of course assumes that MySpace could sustain its current popularity.)

On a different note but still on topic, our startup Bessed (http://www.bessed.com) is a human-powered search site, but we're not targeting Google in a head-to-head, but rather as a complementary service, a second choice to the big engines. Just as Wikipedia has become the go-to source for human vetted information, we plan to become the go-to source for human-vetted search results. In today's environment, this is the path to take---a lot of VC dollars are going to disappear when it comes to taking on Google head-on.

[Ben Strackany]

Hi Don, good post. I recently found your blog through your post on MS's RSS-related patents & appreciated your professional demeanor despite the brewing flamefest.

IMO you're right that mobile devices are different enough, and that accessibility & usability need to be considered in order to be a successful mobile application. I just came off a project involving a mobile-enabled web site, and it's definitely a different animal than a laptop w/ a browser.

However, as mobile devices evolve, application developers will need to balance between legacy device support and exploiting newer/better/bigger devices. I believe that keeping an open & inventive mind, knowing your target audience (users & devices), and understanding the idea of tradeoffs can help some companies avoid cramming the square peg of desktop-oriented applications into the round hole of handhelds.

I only mention this because you mentioned the "cell phone screen" a few times as a limiting factor, and while I agree with you that it's on a totally different scale from a desktop screen, I think the "baseline" handheld screen resolution will scale up dramatically over the next 0-2 years, to the point where multiple search results or ads might be very doable.

It reminds me of the dot com days before the bust, where you had to make web site development tradeoffs based on the browser market and decide who could use your app & *how* they could use it. A similar, more recent wave occurred/is occurring with AJAX-enabled applications. Devices are a (rapidly) moving target, so sometimes it feels like we're always aiming. :)

[Don Dodge]

Steve and Adam, I agree that a community based search experience (Wikiasari or MySpace) might gain some traction. It is the one approach that is not technology based, making it hard for Google to replicate it. The big search engines could easily replicate any other technology based approach to search.

Community and social networks are very powerful, valuable, and not easy to replicate. I think this is why Google bought YouTube even though they already had the technology in their existing Google Video service.

Good luck on Bessed. It is an interesting approach.

[Don Dodge]

Ben, thanks for the insights and first hand experience with mobile applications. We agree mobile applications are different...and can't just be repurposed web apps.

I agree that cell phone screens will get better. But, that doesn't mean that the winning approach will be to cram in multiple search results or advertisements. If that is the case Google will easily win this business too.

I am reminded of the cliche "just because you can doesn't mean you should". While it may be possible in the future to take advantage of larger cell phone screens, I think it would be a mistake.

I think cell phone search will be The Next Big Thing...and I think a new, unknown company will do it.

[RichA]

Interesting discussion I've stumbled across. In my opinion, size and cost limitations make cell phone text screens inexorably inferior to computer screens -- nobody will carry around anything bigger than a PDA in their pockets, and the cost of even PDAs prevents them from becoming as ubiquitous as computers (remember that it took us decades for everyone to have a computer). What's reassuring, though, is that there doesn't have to be any speed limitation to cell phone text searching. What we're left with for text searching, then, is rapid fire back-and-forth texting in order to get specific results, or regularly scheduled alert texts -- 4info is already doing both of these, but even that certainly won't upend Google. On the computer screen, it's unlikely (it seems to me) that anyone will upend Google anytime in the near future. Change the medium, however (as in text messaging), and it's still anybody's game.

[Steve Morsa]

...great points and insight all. But another apparently little-noticed aspect of Google's great search success is/was the love affair the media has had w/them virtually since their launch.

Whatever hot new search app someone comes up with is going to have to blow the doors off of what's already out there...it'll have to to even have a chance at again capturing the hearts and minds of the media.

[CourtneyGQuinn]

Perhaps mobile searches (and search in general) might be done by fibre optically connected Indians. As long as cell phone screens/keyboards are small, it might be easier and faster to call an 800 number that connects you with an Indian call centre where you can simply ask your question to an English speaking human being rather then fumbling around with a small screen and keyboard typical to most cell phones. Perhaps a bluetooth connected device such as a small printer or small (7 inch or so) LCD screen will allow information/answers to be sent from the call center to the cell phone to the device. Think OnStar for the WorldWideWeb. And maybe even regular searchs on normal computers might benefit from a few technologically proficent, english-speaking capable Indians. Connect with the call center via VOIP and verbally explain what you need to find. Within minutes answers (better then some might find) could be IM'ed, emailed, printed, spoken or video conferenced back to you. Perhaps awards might be given to the best data miners. If time is money, and Indians - on average- make much less money (yet are technologically minded), then perhaps there's opportunity.

And searching for specific answers will be changed by the introduction of a FAQ10Q type website. Business, political and academic leaders might feel compelled to answer questions put forth from millions of shareholders, voters and students looking for answers. Imagine "FAQ10Q.com: Task Force Questions, Ask Source Answers.". Just as Google couldn't be ignored by advertisers as millions of people started using it... FAQ10Q be impossible to ignore if millions of people are looking for answers from specific sources.