Comments on: Google should open source what actually matters: their search ranking algorithm

By: Wordpress, the GPL and What It Means | Robby Grossman

Wordpress, the GPL and What It Means | Robby Grossman — Thu, 15 Jul 2010 16:33:28 +0000

[...] business practice known as “commoditizing the complement.” More recently, Chris Dixon called out that Google for disingenuously using the same strategy. For those who aren’t familiar, [...]

By: The Great Tech Debate: Open Platforms Vs. Closed Platforms | Startups

The Great Tech Debate: Open Platforms Vs. Closed Platforms | Startups — Mon, 26 Apr 2010 01:49:10 +0000

[...] rule of thumb, a company should close their core assets and open/commoditize complementary assets. Google’s search engine is their core asset and therefore Google should want to keep it closed, whereas the operating system is a complement [...]

By: The tradeoff between open and closed cdixon.org – chris dixon's blog

The tradeoff between open and closed cdixon.org – chris dixon's blog — Sun, 25 Apr 2010 19:58:02 +0000

[...] them profits & a competitive advantage and open/commoditize complementary layers in the stack. Google’s search engine is their core asset and therefore they should keep it closed, whereas the operating system is a complement that they [...]

By: Jimbo

Jimbo — Tue, 05 Jan 2010 17:01:04 +0000

They are already Crowd sourced (not open) One of the places Google has a huge advantage is in their huge base of advertisers that one by one populate the paid serps side of the engine. To be honest when doing a lot of searches I find a better quality result via the paid links than in some instances of the organic.

In reply to better overall results in the search marketplace I don't think it even matters at this point. People have already associated search with Google. If a magical no name engine appeared tomorrow with "Better" results than Google who would use it?

IMO I think only one company could compete with Goog in search and they are more closed than them and that is Apple.

I think at this time in the search space the masses use a comfortable brand. Bing or Yahoo don't have the same brand mind share that Google has in search and it shows in terms of use penetration. Take a popular brand like apple with a growing % of hardware devices such as Mac, Ipod Touch, Iphone, Islate(soon) and load them all with Apples search engine as the default and you will have a competitor to Google. Not Binghoo.

By: Jimbo

Jimbo — Tue, 05 Jan 2010 09:01:04 +0000

By: James Riso

James Riso — Sun, 27 Dec 2009 20:02:40 +0000

I commend Google for the openness they embrace–especially the “data liberation” movement Matt mentioned–where it benefits me, the consumer. And to the extent that the company's choice to keep search and advertising closed allows them deliver services I find valuable, I commend that too. That said, I am turned off by the corporation-cum-savior image they often attempt to project. Call me a cynic. Rosenberg clearly downplays the gritty specifics of how Google's strategy is profit-generating (i.e. the critical role of closed-ness) but is quite generous with the “feel good” side of things. The angle shows up elsewhere with Google, I think you'd agree. I'm sure when that proposed “re-write the MBA curriculum” does happen, it will be put much more objectively.

By: MrP

MrP — Sun, 27 Dec 2009 10:34:20 +0000

hunch.com/developer – this is not an example of openness, it is just a list of API calls, an invite to build on your platform. Applications that use it will not be able to migrate easily as the backend is closed. This is as open as Microsoft's documentation makes Windows open

By: SearchCap: The Day In Search, December 22, 2009 | Online Marketing Strategy

SearchCap: The Day In Search, December 22, 2009 | Online Marketing Strategy — Sun, 27 Dec 2009 04:48:26 +0000

[...] Google should open source what actually matters: their search ranking algorithm, chris dixon’s blog [...]

By: wilner

wilner — Sun, 27 Dec 2009 04:09:42 +0000

Matt Cutts is the mouthpiece of the Google Monster Borg.

By: mattsly

mattsly — Sun, 27 Dec 2009 01:08:00 +0000

I don't think we're debating whether keeping the algo closed is best for GOOG's bottom line but rather the hypocrisy (in my opinion) of not owning up to the fact that indeed maximizing shareholder value is the very reason they continue to guard the “secret sauce” so closely.

Yet, rather than own up to this choice as a deliberate revenue-maximizing strategy, GOOG patronizes us with sanctimonious posturing about being open”…and offers up dubious excuses about protecting users interests as to why said openness doesn't extend into (its only revenue producing areas) search and ads.