Comments on: March search share: Google up, rivals down

Google claimed 64 percent of the U.S. search market in March, with growth that outpaced the overall market.

[Jack2point0]

It definitely looks like Google may continue to put some distance on the competition. We built a site as a pet project. The site caters to Twitter users. The other day I pulled some data, and when I looked at our traffic sources and compared all the search engines, I found that Google drove just over 93% of our search engine traffic. The next closest drove under 3% (take a moment to let that differential sink in). Yahoo, is third with just 2%?

The stats you provided, coupled with some insights taken from the alleged "early adopter" traffic, and we could be seeing Google becoming even more dominant then they have already been.

I wrote more about our data here: http://weareorganizedchaos.com/index.php/2009/04/09/who-is-the-twitter-user-and-should-microsoft-hate-them/

[RF373]

Google was one of the first and only webcorps to realize, most viewers
do not want to be hit over the head with flashing garbage while they
read the content they came to the site for. People look at the text banners,
and look away or leave the pages of the flash ads --
-- found a cool site; Balkingpoints ; incredible satellite view of earth

[jackdaniels08]

I love the new local results in Google. For example type in "starbucks" into Google Search box, and Google will give you local results based on you ip address. Very convenient! I love Google!

[hartney71]

I "google" everyday. It is the only search engine, imo, with the best returns

[rhsc]

I've now resolved to use Live search exclusively

[loose_screw]

Good luck with that.

[t8]

There is always one.

[selfkill]

Nobody seems to notice that the more Google dominates the search market, the less the market itself will expand and create new innovation. This might be good news for people who seem to have rose-colored glasses for Google as a brand, but overall it's just bad news for search advertisers, search engine competition and people who like to have a choice in general.

[coryschulz]

The funny thing about Google though, is that the more they grow the more they are innovating and creating. Google is a standard now. Like facial tissue is Kleenex. Like MP3 players are iPods. I have no sympathy on advertisers. F*&CK em. Google gives us what we want, and we are loyal to them. When we want privacy, Google gives us that too. Yahoo doesn't know how to function smoothly and their homepage is terribly ugly, and nobody trusts Microsoft or even cares about them anymore. AOL is a joke from the good old 56K dial up days. And everyone else involved in search is just crumbs on the plate. Google offers a simple and direct service; it works for them and it works for us. The internet without Google is not the internet. If Google did not exist, it would be necessary for us to create them.

[hutwarmer]

I always love reading these comments. What the he11 are you talking about with your "rose-colored glasses"? I use Google for search because it gets me the information I need in the quickest amount of time. I have tried MS live search (it's our company's default search page) and it is STILL garbage. The results are as bad as they were when it was first introduced. If you want to use it, fine, go for it. Yahoo want's to beat me over the head with an entire first page of sponsored links. No thanks. I normally find exactly what I am looking for within the first 2 pages of Google results. If you want to waste your time using these other search providers so you can feel like you are flexing your consumer rights, more power to you. I'll take the time I saved and go do something fun with my family.

[selfkill]

You'd really have to be pretty naïve to say you have no sympathy for the advertisers. Remember, Google, like any business who's only goal is to make money, is propelled by their advertisers. No advertisers means no Google. Google isn't a charity service. This is what I mean by "rose-colored glasses" and this is why so many individuals who bash one company will easily get in bed with another. It's all about favoritism.

As far as Google's current competitors, no I don't use them either. I use Google myself because it's obviously superior to anything on the market right now. And this is the problem. The search engine market isn't like the browser market where you have a lot of different choices that have their own different features to meet people's needs. No, instead Google is your only choice and as long as it stays this way, you will never see any actual advances in search innovation. This is obvious by the fact that despite years of evolution on the web, Google stills looks like a static page with plain text.

The last time I recall Google adding any obvious new features to their search was when they added an autocomplete search drop-down. And ironically, they took that idea from their competitors. If you call this innovation then you'd probably be better off if Google never existed at all. Hey, I'm sure you wouldn't even notice the difference.

[BOTNET]

selfkill, I totally agree with you. Any company in any field with 64% of the market raises eye-brows. It's funny how people think that Google is this great brother instead google is sniffing gmail accounts and now even my IP address. Yes they give you better result, but they sell it as a great marketing tool as well and make big cash.

I think google search UI (not content) is really frozen in time, I really wish there would be more intelligent refine search filter after you search something - similar to kayak.com or indeed.com


I don't want to be too critical, Google is giving a lot back to developers' community more than Microsoft, Apple or Oracle.

[new_media_works]

I thought twitter was Google's "rival".

Oh, and what's that other website? ... "Facebook"?

How many sites are there today?

Like: where is the best place to search for downloads?

A couple years ago I wrote this thing called <a href="http://gaggle.info/miscellaneous/articles/wisdom-of-the-language">Wisdom of the Language</a>. If people continue to pretend that the world-wide-web is merely an outgrowth of Google (instead of the other way around, which is much closer to being factually true), then they will continue to be misled.

As for such statistics, which tally up percentages for a small handful of websites... -- well, they completely miss what's actually happening on the actual web.

:) nmw

[hutwarmer]

Ah, pretentiousness at it's finest. I love it. Here is a little secret for you; the average person doesn't 'pretend' anything regarding the 'world-wide'web'. The fact is they really don't care all that much. They use Google because it works for them. Build a better mouse trap...you know the rest. Then you can show people what is happening on the 'actual web'. Hahaha, you pretensious d0uche!

[sirishgauni]

google is one of the few companies (other being apple) which continues to be innovative, productive and sticks to its core philosophy irrespective of its market share. Google and apple have dominant market share in some fields and less than 10% share in some like search and web browser for google and ipod and mac for apple, but in all the fields the way they work is the same and so far remained unchanged,

[BOTNET]

well ... most of the companies out there stick to their ore philosophy irrespective of its market share. The key question is what is the philosophy.

Google has open-source approach and yes their core values as one of the bests out there.... I would not put Apple with their close OS (with lawsuits if anybody tries to port it to non-apple hardware), closed (remember firewire?) hardware and proprietary iPod/iPhone connectors anywhere near Google's vision. Can you imagine where we would be if Apple would apply same open approach on iPod/iPhone what Google is applying in Android?

[eltoro2827]

google is for homos

[serversupply]

microsoft and will never catch up with google becasue the algorythm they use are susatially different.
MS at least has no intelligence at all when it comes to search. their model is to generate money from ads they are strictly looking at $ while google is trying to perfect the art adn then make money the focus of value is in the quality of their product and their strict adherance to core values. their is refined elegance in their simplicity. go google go

[jbelkin]

Search engine is really the only PURE consumer choice that you can switch from in 2 seconds - literally! There is no cost, and no one looking over your shoulder and convenience is the same - bookmarking Google or JoesearchEngine is EXACTLY the same. You use because it delivers you results - it's as simple as that. Sure, for some people, it's laziness but if you weren't reasonable satisfied, why take 2 SECONDS to switch. That's what makes MS spending $3 BILLION on search technology all the sadder and another indictment of when consumers have a choice, they seldomly choose MS ... and in this case, paying for hundreds of millions with their search and we pay you program has netted them exactly a .03% gain ... typical MS results for $3 billion dollars spent. As Fortune pointed out, MS made ZERO money on the internet last year (internet division is $700 million in red for 2008). Ms, the DMV of technology - even AOL made money ...

[ibudclark]

fabuous and expected but wait what about recent headline that YouTube now number 2 ranked SEARCH ENGINE?