Yesterday was a banner day in the world of search. It marked the official birth of yet another alleged "Google Killer" -- Wolfram Alpha. Except, as is standard when said killers are born, the site is oddly not in any position to slay Google, nor did it ever say it was.
But the blogs that termed it as such are mad anyway.
Henry Blodget over on Silicon Alley Insider, for example, in a blog called "Search Engine Wolfram Alpha Launches With Big Dreams And No Chance" tells us that the site will flop "because search isn't broken." While it can be improved, he says, Wolfram Alpha, from Wolfram Research Inc., will only satisfy the task of showing Google how to improve it.
Therefore, in this equation, Google not only stays on top, but it gets smarter at the new engine's expense.
Convenient. And surely just what Mr. Wolfram had in mind.
It's true that we get overexcited with the birth of every new search engine. Most recently there was Cuil, which proved to be unfathomably bad. There were reasons to get excited about Cuil, though. It had some money, it had former Google employees, it had a snazzy interface. But in the end, it had a traffic spike. And then it pretty much had death.
But the difference here is that Wolfram Alpha is not actually a search engine, nor is it purporting to be. As the site explains, "Our goal is to build on the achievements of science and other systematizations of knowledge to provide a single source that can be relied on by everyone for definitive answers to factual queries." Wolfram Alpha's data comes from its own "internal knowledge base." The site performs computations on an array of facts from various sources to come up with what it considers original data.
Google's goal, on the other hand, is to feast on children's brains "index the world's knowledge." The difference in those goals makes Wolfram Alpha more of a "fact engine" -- or a self-described "computational knowledge engine" -- and can be best emphasized in a simple search.
Typing in "New York City" on Wolfram Alpha, for example, I came up with a page of facts: city population (8.143 million people); metro area population (18.61 million people); the weather (a depressing 57 degrees in May); the local time (5 o'clock somewhere... just kidding); and some other facts.
The same search on Google produces an image of a Google Map of New York, followed by the link to NY.gov, followed by a link to a tourist site, and then followed by a link to The New York Times.
On the other hand, while a search for "Internet Evolution" on Google brings you right to our URL, a search for the same on Wolfram Alpha gets you this prompt: "Wolfram|Alpha isn't sure what to do with your input." (Oh really now? I bet I can tell you what to do with it...)
But I shouldn't expect Wolfram Alpha to know anything about Internet Evolution because according to its own self-description: "Wolfram Alpha answers specific questions rather than explaining general topics." And, "You can only get answers about objective facts."
Of course, this isn't to say Wolfram Alpha is in the clear. It could easily turn out to be the flop the blogosphere expects. But giving lazy Web users quicker access to actual facts is never a bad thing. So there are reasons to get interested in, if not excited about, Wolfram Alpha -- and they have nothing to do with its fabricated ability to wipe Google off the Google Map.
The information loaded era is not that easy to encapsulate or tagged with just one searchh engine and this must be a coloborative effort with the idea and goal of providing users with most up to date knowledge and not to wipe off some existing sources. See the great difference in the goals of two, one aims for knowledge and other for gerenal serach, and this difference speaks for itself.
Interesting, was Google introduced to the public as Yahoo killer? I don't think so. So , so every new earch engine is introduced as Google killer but I still can't smell of decay. do you?
May be to be Google killer , one has to kill Google at first and then, to be proclaimed Google killer- just a thought :)))
This is the link to that Microsoft report you refer to. Very interesting stats there on search market share:
Nielsen Online numbers for April show Microsoft having 9.9 percent of the U.S. search market, as compared to 16.3 percent for Yahoo and 64 percent for Google.
Have you ever searched for something(that existed) using Google and not found it?
There are of course things that exist that are not on Google but they tend to be quaint, regional and definitely not in the digital realm. One example:
Growing up in Avoca, New York I often played a child's game where children sat in a circle and each said to the other in turn "This is a sad and serious occasion." The object was for neither party to laugh. If a child laughed he left the circle and so the circle got smaller and smaller until finally only the person who had never laughed was left.
I always thought that this was a common game that many had played, but Google does not recognize the phrase "This is a sad and serious occasion." It must be that the game is peculiar to the particular area I grew up in and unknown elsewhere. It is in fact the only significant thing I have found in my life that is not in Google!
On researching it further I find that our game was our own local version of the game “Honey, if you love me won't you please please smile?” but that game is much more structured than the one we played. Our game was quite simple in comparison, with no romantic flavor.
You will be able to find other things like this, but generally you are right almost everything that exists is there.
And of course as a consequence of this post my example will be on Google now! We can see how long it takes to appear there!
Thanks for giving us updaes on Larry Page's take on Wolfram Alpha. People who are on the look out for some kind of mythical Google killer have just failed to realized as Page pointed out that search is still in its infancy. Microsoft is currently running several research labs across europe in order to make further progress on search.
So it's quite a good thing to have the likes of Wolfram Alpha. May be aonther person will use it as a springboard to make further progress in our continue quest to unravel the marvels and potential that are locked up in the internet..
Very true jp, and we do tend to love these David vs. Goliath matchups, but generally the little guy ends up on the losing end, or being acquired.
Speaking of Netscape, I remember back in 1995/96 when Microsoft was caught completely flat-footed by the Internet and Netscape's browser had 80+% market share. Everyone was predicting MS' demise and Marc Andriessen would be the next Bill Gates, and Netscape was successful for a while. Then in early 1996 Gates made his famous "we are now an Internet company" speech and MS threw all of its resources into remaking itself, and ....well yeah, where is Netscape?
Google biggest issue is trying to gorw too big, too fast by getting into so many diferent services and offerings. One day, they will find the straw that may break their back. YouTube?
Personally, I don't see what Google has to worry about. As far as I can tell, Google offers everything Wolfram does, plus a lot more. The information I recieve with a Wolfram search is nothing I can't find using Google, so what is the incentive to use Wolfram?
In my opinion, nothing will ever "kill" Google, because there is nothing wrong with Google.
Let me ask you fine folks a question: Have you ever searched for something(that existed) using Google and not found it?
If your answer is no(and mine is) then what exactly is the point of a new, hot search engine?
Wolfram gives you the facts. Google gives you... well... everything.
The ThinkerNet does not reflect the views of TechWeb. The ThinkerNet is an informal means of communication to members and visitors of the Internet Evolution site. Individual authors are chosen by Internet Evolution to blog. Neither Internet Evolution nor TechWeb assume responsibility for comments, claims, or opinions made by authors and ThinkerNet bloggers. They are no substitute for your own research and should not be relied upon for trading or any other purpose.
Ahh, the holiday season is upon us: People have begun bargain hunting, department stores are donning premature decorations, turkeys are being shot to death, and email inboxes everywhere are being graced with season-appropriate promotional materials so absurd, one might think they were actually written by the clinically insane.
Considering President Obama went and took the Nobel Peace Prize this year (attention hog, much?), Internet Evolution had to settle for a nomination for the second best prize in the world: a MIN Editorial & Design award. And we're happy to say that we won. Big time.
NEW YORK -- Web 2.0 Expo -- Here at the Javits Center in New York City, several industry innovators have come out to take the stage at the Web 2.0 Expo. But some are having a hard time keeping the audience's attention. The culprit? What else? Twitter.
The debate over whether Google is fairly aggregating newspaper content online has been going on for a while, with Rupert Murdoch and News Corp. leading the discourse. Typically it's followed a consistent pattern: Murdoch complains about Google stealing its content to no real benefit to his company, someone suggests hiding the content from Google, and things get quiet on the News Corp. side of the room.
While Google introduces its new Chrome OS (which I'm hearing will be widely available in one year? Did I mishear that?), IBM announced 10 new products today to help companies using IBM System z mainframe technology.
Smarter Collaboration: How to Thrive in a Challenging Business Environment Market conditions are changing faster than ever, and organizations need to improve their agility and adaptability in order to provide better service and improve processes. The ability to work with customers, business partners, and employees as effectively as possible - while at the same time holding down costs - is a key to success. READ THIS eBOOK
your weekly update of news, analysis, and
opinion from Internet Evolution - FREE! REGISTER HERE
Wanted! Site Moderators Internet Evolution is looking for a handful of readers to help moderate the message boards on our site – as well as engaging in high-IQ conversation with the industry mavens on our thinkerNet blogosphere. The job comes with various perks, bags of kudos, and GIANT bragging rights. Interested?
To save this item to your list of favorite Internet Evolution content so you can find it later in your Profile page, click the "Save It" button next to the item.
In the final episode of this series about the death of Internet anonymity, Saunders describes how the Internet of the future will start to attain a level of intelligence that requires no human intervention. Scary.
What can users today do to protect their online privacy? The simplest and most obvious option is to not use the Internet – at all. However, once all digital information is consolidated over the Internet, trying to protect digital identity by simply unplugging from the Internet becomes impossible – a fact that has manifest implications for civil liberties, Saunders says.
By 2011 the number of Internet-connected sensors will exceed 1 trillion, making your chances of doing anything or going anywhere unnoticed pretty much zero. Saunders talks about how the 'sensortization' of the Internet is eliminating the traditional divide between online and offline populations.
The 20th Century Internet was characterized by the ability to interact with other people and information on the Internet largely without anyone knowing who you were. The Internet of this century, conversely, will be defined by identity. Saunders explains how Internet users are unwittingly contributing to the demise of the anonymous Internet.
Steve Saunders talks about the risks inherent in uncontrolled, widespread profiling of Internet users, and how one day this practice could form the basis of a new industry, the Outernet, which in economic terms will have outgrown the commercial value of the Internet itself.
Search companies and social networks are collecting incredibly detailed information about their users, says Steve Saunders, who predicts that these 'profiles' could one day become commodities to be bought and sold by companies on 'profile markets' or 'identity exchanges’ – the digital DNA equivalents of the financial and commodities exchanges on which stocks, oil, and gold are traded.
One of the most important Internet issues of all time is being ignored by the media. In this three-part video series Steve Saunders explains how search companies are turning the tables on their users by creating user profiles for financial gain, and how soon this trend will explode into full scale profiling.
The Google backlash continues. After seeing their Project 10^100 submissions disappear into the bowels of a Google server farm, a group of irate developers has started their own site to re-collect and vote on the ideas.
Now that Bing has struck a deal with Twitter, its search service will have to process a tsunami of Tweets, many of which are worthless junk. Stefan Weitz, director with Bing Search, explains to Michael Singer how his service will make sense of the Twitter mayhem to provide relevant results to end users and enterprises.
Industry initiatives and government stimulus funds are giving enterprise software vendors a great opportunity to help build out and manage smart grid technologies.
The problem with telepresence is that it's not universally accepted, because video calling isn't. While we can all do video calling, we also apparently worry too much about how we look. If we want HD telepresence in our future, we have to dress down, mess up our hair, and dive into our online life.
The US loses about $20 billion a year on pirated software, movies, and music. But public policy can help stem the tide of digital theft. For example, France has recently passed a 'three strikes and you’re out' law, whereby if after two warning letters an individual continues to download pirated software then his Internet access will be cut off. US policy makers should consider adopting similar policies.
Financial management planning does not need to include Voodoo economics, but it does help to tap into the knowledge base of your team through some sort of real-time system. We explore your options.
When Reiter gets incensed over incompetent Verizon FiOS order-taking and support, he broadcasts it via Twitter. Did it do any good? How should your company offer Twitter support? Watch this for all the answers.
The successor to the BlackBerry Bold 9000 – the Bold 9700 – will be available soon in the US. Is it worth upgrading? Reiter's got one, and offers advice.
Digg
Del.icio.us
Reddit
Email This
TWEET THIS
