When Nirvana was cool
Rewind to the late 90s. Almost everything you needed â" email, news, sports, stocks, maps and more â" was conveniently on one site: Yahoo!. Yahoo! was the âportalâ to the Internet that strived to deliver everything you could ever want on its own properties.
The crazy thing is how successful Yahoo! was at this. Few, if any, have ever done content or media online at that scale.
But then Google came along and exploited the fact that the Internet was growing too fast for Yahoo! to keep up. Suddenly, Yahoo! was struggling to find its way, as Google made buckets of money by taking the opposite strategy: redirecting its traffic across the Internet to the best sites for each query (e.g. popular topics landed you on Wikipedia, movies on IMDB).
Search replaced the portal as the dominant paradigm, and it became accepted that no single organization could successfully cover every aspect of the web by itself.
Portals reborn
Fast-forward to the late 2000sâ¦Facebook and smartphones, primarily the iPhone, are the new portals, reminiscent of the days of Yahoo!. They have every experience you need, from weather and stocks to games and maps. The difference is that theyâre not foolish enough to think that they can keep up by doing it all by themselves â" instead, they use their platform to scale the portal with partners.
As a result, todayâs mobile and social portals offer distribution to third parties that develop content for their own platforms. In this world, the AppStore is the new Google.
But wait, this shift certainly has problems of its own. It puts the burden back on the user to know which apps to install and which to actually use.
Even if a perfect app exists for what I want to do, itâs too much hassle to download, install, and learn about a new app for something Iâm doing just once. While there are many excellent apps today, finding the best one for my task is next to impossible.
Then, if I do manage to get the right app, it doesnât know anything about me â" I have to register and personalize it to some degree. Not to mention, I have to learn the appâs custom user interface, and try to remember for next time what the app does.
It makes me actually start to miss the simplicity of the Yahoo! world. A world where youâre already logged in, you donât have to remember a hundred places to go, and the apps donât overlap in functionality or act differently.
Search has to evolve
These issues are the opportunities at stake for tomorrowâs search engines. When you search, you know what you want (or something close to it) and the search engine points you in the right direction. You donât need to pre-install the results or pre-select the right app.
Weâve seen that Google, Bing, and Yahoo! have already made efforts to âappifyâ their results. When you search for âThe Dark Knight,â they all load movie show times, searching for addresses brings up maps, cities get weather forecasts, and stock symbols get charts, not to mention news results, image results, video results, etc. But, theyâre all trying to cover every scenario without the help of partners, which, as we learned from Yahoo!, is impossible in the long run.
The answer isnât to do it all in-house, nor is it only to enlist a community of app developers. The answer is a combination of the two: a portal connecting us to the app most qualified to accomplish the given query.
If the portal sees a query thatâs pretty common, they should make their own app. In Yahoo!âs case, theyâd keep their own stocks and news apps, but theyâd farm out things that are a little more niche (think Yelp, Spotify, social readers, etc.) This is similar to how the iPhone comes with a calendar app and stock app, but doesnât come with any games. Thereâs always going to be a set of things nobody builds apps for â" in that case, we always have the old school 10 blue links.
How would this work for search? Imagine if searching âblack eyed peasâ loaded the Spotify app right inside the website, or searching âFrench gourmetâ loads the Yelp app? They can let third parties build as many apps as they want, with each competing for distribution by proving their value to the search engineâs organic ranking system.
Such a search engine would mean that instead of having to install a hundred apps and remember which to use for which scenario, Iâd have access to thousands of apps custom-built for each and every scenario I could ever desire. And even better, this lets me focus on my intent and what I want to do â" not which app I should use to do it. Right now I have to think about the app category, like âI want restaurant info,â to know which app to use. What I want is to skip this step and just state my intent: âI want French Laundry.â
Even Apple is acknowledging that this is where the world is headed. Take Siri, for example. You donât say âask Yelp to find French Laundry.â You merely say âfind a table at French Laundryâ and it figures out which app or data source is best suited.
Why Yahoo!, not Google!?
Google is a search company at its core, and they make a lot of money doing it. If youâre the head of search at Google, are you really going to bet the farm on a new model when your current one works? Itâs risky, and itâs not in your DNA. Youâre somewhat a victim of your own success. Not to mention how distracted you are by competing with Facebook.
And Bing wonât appify like this because Google isnât doing it. Bingâs goal is to put a dent in Googleâs profits, making it harder for Google to go after Microsoftâs other cash-cow businesses, so, oddly, it counters Googleâs search strategy by mimicking its approach.
Yahoo!, on the other hand, already thinks like this. For more than ten years theyâve been focused on delivering users all the scenarios on their site. They still have plenty of traffic and theyâre a content company. It makes total sense for Yahoo! to become the Apple of the web.
Caption: Music apps competing for the best result on search for âBlack Eyed Peas.â
Editorâs note: This is a guest post by Adrian Aoun, the founder and CEO of Wavii, an app that provides instant news feeds for any topic. Prior to Wavii, Adrian was a director at Fox Interactive Media and worked at Microsoft working on bringing Microsoft Office to the web. He also obviously has some unorthodox opinions about search.
No comments:
Post a Comment