Yahoo! Launches Pay-Per-Search 338
vasah20 writes: "ZDNet.com has this article saying that Yahoo is starting a pay-per-search service for 'premium documents,' in attempt to offset some of its revenue losses. Maybe it's just me, but if people can already find the most relevant results on Google, what are the chances anyone's gonna use this service?"
Will it be ad free, then? (Score:2, Interesting)
J.
Re:Will it be ad free, then? (Score:5, Insightful)
Similarly we are charged admission to go to the movies. Imagine if we had to sit through ads for snacks from the lobbies or upcomming movies, let alone dotcom and Mountain Dew ads, after plunking down $8.00 for a ticket to see the movie! What sane man wouldn't demand a refund from the manager and say "Good day" to that theater?
So of course Yahoo! will recognize that their subscription fees pay for the service and remove the ads. I shudder to think what kind of company would put profits ahead of their customers' experience.
Where (Score:5, Funny)
Where on Yahoo is their pay-per-search? I can't find it. I will pay for this information.
Re:Where (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Where (Score:2, Informative)
http://premium.search.yahoo.com/
For those of you who can't be bothered... (Score:3, Informative)
According to the site, Yahoo plans to charge consumers between $1 and $4 to retrieve files from a specialized database of some 25 million research documents culled from 7,100 publications, including academic periodicals. Yahoo also expects to offer a "Premium Discount Search" option of 50 documents a month for $4.95.
So it's like Lexis/Nexis.
OH... _research papers_ (Score:2)
Me: Wow this is a really good article... *scrolls down*
Salon.com: Did you like this article? Read the rest of it after a subscription...
Me: Nooooooooooooooo! *pulls hair out*
Not that I have anything against subscription services, but I admit I got used to alot of stuff being free.
On the other hand, if you want research documents, try out NEC's Research Index [nec.com]. It's really quite good, I met one of the guys who put it together and talked about the theory behind it. Plus, I got a couple papers in the database.
Research Documents Database? (Score:2, Redundant)
Re: Research Documents Database? (Score:2, Insightful)
Yahoo's screwed. (Score:3, Interesting)
I suspect a lot of people will say that Google is the better search engine anyway, and though I agree, don't count out the sway of Yahoo's excellent categorization. However, I'm pretty sure that something will come along (maybe Vivissimo [vivissimo.com] (check my spelling on that)) that will supplant's Yahoo's tried-and-true categories.
This just doesn't bode well for Yahoo. I hope they are able to stay afloat. They're still among the top ten sites for hits on the Web for sure.
Re:Yahoo's screwed. (Score:3, Insightful)
sPh
Re:Yahoo's screwed. (Score:4, Informative)
As to the heroin-like aspect of L/N, I agree: they pulled the same deal at the business school where I took my MBA. It was funny to walk past the law students lined up 50 deep for the (at that time propriatary) terminal and into the B-school library where there was never a line!
sPh
Re:Yahoo's screwed. (Score:2)
Re:Yahoo's screwed. (Score:2)
I assume you mean 'on the Internet' since it's pretty obvious people will pay for information generally, as the inside of any book shop will make clear.
However, there are plenty of web sites where people will pay for content, it's just often very specialist content. Clinical Evidence [evidence.org] is one such site that I'm vaguely connected with.
I know people such as sailors and event organisers will pay for detailed weather forecasts online.
There are a load of niche markets where this works. But no-one gets to be a billionaire in a niche market, so no-one is too interested.
Paying for info works... (Score:3, Informative)
-Lexus/Nexus
-Time Magazine
-The Wall Street Journal
People have been paying for information for a long time and they will continue to do so. To judge the validity of such schemes based on the success and failure of a bunch of dot com's doesn't really account for the true nature of this market.
What we've really seen in the world of internet information is a failure of ad based revenue models. Everybody believed they could give everything away for free but then make money on advertising. But there were so many outlets for advertising and the audiences were so dispersed that these models quickly fizzled out. Those sites that coninute to post worthwhile content will continue to see ad revenue and will be able to establish subscriber bases over the long term.
Personally I pay for a salon subscription because I like the content and consider it worth the money to keep them in business. Also, can you explain to my why you believe Salon's subscription service is a disaster? Last time I checked they were still in business.
Re:Yahoo's screwed. (Score:2)
Your spelling blows.
It's pretty cool, too. Just for fun I typed in "infinite reality" (without quotes) to see how it handled that.
Here are the categories it gave me:
Graphics
Universe
Philosophy
Existence
Science
Idea, Help
Buddhism
Book, Channel
Biography, Theology
Arts
Not too bad. Google's search was better; the "I feel lucky" button took me right to SGI's Onyx2 page. But the way vivisimo parsed the input and assigned categories was pretty cool.
Not exactly pay-per-search (Score:3, Interesting)
Not too bad, if you can afford it. It's better to see your search service return non-free documents, so that at least you know they exist, that not returning them at all.
What will happen to google, then? Yahoo already dumped altavista as search engine, then, I seem to remember, hotbot, and now Google? Will they be loosing this source of revenue?
Re:Not exactly pay-per-search (Score:2)
Re:Not exactly pay-per-search (Score:2)
Precisely. Think of this more as Lexis-Nexis for the rest of us instead of pay-for-google.
I would guess they'll continue to use google to search the free part of the web.
Ummm (Score:3, Interesting)
1. Use Northern Light
2. Use Yahoo! and pay more than Northern Light for the same service.
Hmm
Northern Light/CIA? (Score:3, Interesting)
How is this any different (Score:2)
I don't think Yahoo's going to reap any profits from this venture. After checking (haven't been there in a while) it looks like "pay for search" didn't turn out to be a very lucrative business model for NL.
Re:How is this any different (Score:2)
Remuneration...? (Score:3, Insightful)
Are their any law-officianada that are familiar with the potential copyright issues involved?
This smacks of the old AOL model, where part of the benefit of going through them as an ISP is access to their exclusive content. I doubt that yahoo has the presence to generate a "sub-internet" of exclusive documents available only for pay.
What ever are/were they thinking!
Re:Remuneration...? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Remuneration...? (Score:2)
Re:Remuneration...? (Score:2)
Re:Remuneration...? (Score:2)
No, but then again those restaurants and businesses didn't create the map. If however, a restaurant discovered that a document it created was being copied and re-sold by a third party vendor, then their might be room for legal action.
Re:Remuneration...? (Score:2)
A more useful analogy would be if somebody constructed a toll road leading to some nice-to-be place. People could still get there for free by using the old roads.
Re:Remuneration...? (Score:2)
Re:Remuneration...? (Score:2)
I don't consider the issues "sticky," myself. Either the work is in the public domain, or it isn't. If it is, they can charge for access. If it isn't, they don't have legal authority to even distribute the article, so the question is academic.
I suspect that this service is charging for access to things that often aren't on the net at all: like complete research papers and so forth. As long as it's all on the up and up, I wouldn't mind that.
C//
Re:same as Red Hat? (Score:2, Interesting)
Here's an interesting scenario :
1) People run the search through Yahoo's allegedly awesome search engine.
2) They see the search hits, and the (presumably) little snippet of text that interests you in purchase-downloading the content.
3) They open up a google window, and surgically search for that content snippet.
4) They find it themselves through google, for free.
I wonder if this went into their initial business plan...
-----
WWJD? JWRTFM!
Google making money? (Score:4, Interesting)
Maybe it's just me, but if people can already find the most relevant results on Google, what are the chances anyone's gonna use this service?
Has google shown a profit yet? The thousands of CPUs, disks, and massive bandwidth have to be paid for by someone.
Re:Google making money? (Score:2)
GOOGLE AT A GLANCE
Google is a privately held and profitable company focused on search services. Named for the mathematical term "googol", Google operates a web site at www.google.com that is widely recognized as the "World's Best Search Engine" and is fast, accurate and easy to use. The company also serves corporate clients with cost-effective advertising targeted by keyword and with breakthrough search technology that makes it easy for visitors to find the information they need, whether on a client s web site or elsewhere on the Internet....
Re:Google making money? (Score:2)
So? (Score:2)
Kjella
Google is profitable (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, my new copy of Linux Journal [linuxjournal.com] came in the mail today. Doc Searls interviews Google's Director of Marketing in one of his columns. In it, he asks if Google makes money, and she says that they are in fact profitable. She goes on to say that their revenue is split 50/50 from ad sales and technology licensing (like with Yahoo and such). She said that have 130-odd customers for their search technology, and European and Asian sales offices opening soon. Customers pay for the bandwidth and servers. Actual customers who buy an actual product. A novel business model, wouldn't you say?
Anyway, since she was interviewed before the magazine went to press, I'd be comfortable in saying that Google has been profitable for at least 45 days.
-B
Re:Google is profitable (Score:2)
Re:Google making money? (Score:2)
Re:Google making money? (Score:2)
Well, it's proof of concept and a testing and development platform. Google also makes money by selling the little highlighted advertisements you'll get with many search terms.
Google is one of the few internet businesses that I just adore. It's fast, free, and the advertising is functional and unintrusive. The more flashy and annoying an advertisement is, the less interested I am in following it. The more intrusive it is, the more I'll actively avoid the seller's services. With Google's search term results, I believe I've clicked through dozens of adverts, and I've spent several thousand with their advertisers.
Re:Google making money? (Score:2)
Yup, google rocks my world.
I hope no one is taking my comments as a troll, but sometimes it's wise to detach yourself, take a step back and question what you like.
If you can get it, you can get it for free. (Score:5, Interesting)
That's the creedo I used whenever I explained things to my internet-newbie friends and family a few years ago. If it exists online, it exists in a free format and you shouldn't pay for it. Video game news? Plenty of fan sites. Web hosting? If you're just putting up photos of your dog there are free hosting sites. And now, search...
My concern is this: Is there going to be a time when it WON'T be available for free? Already free resources are buckling under the weight of their hosting fees and the popularity that drives their bandwidth through the roof. Free sites are no longer considered totally stable. Some have corporate allies -- IMDB, for instance. Some just buckle.
Whether the answer is subscriptions or micropayments or allies or whatever, the question is what will free sites do in order to stay afloat? Or will the future of the internet have a few stable commercial services and lots of hobby sites that yo-yo in and out of existence?
If it's worth something, pay for it. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:If you can get it, you can get it for free. (Score:2, Troll)
That depends on what your dog is doing in those pictures. I'm sure certain things would violate the TOSes of certain providers. =]
P2P? (Score:3, Insightful)
Academic papers (Score:2, Insightful)
Seem to target research/academic papers mainly.
I can see one or two advantages:
- no static. Only the research papers are searched.
- Could make a strong negotiating position to get access (and retrieve via the portal) from archives not connected to the internet
However the article doesn't actually name things like that
It's not about google... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:It's not about google... (Score:2)
Re:It's not about google... (Score:2)
Re:It's not about google... (Score:2)
Ya Who? (Score:4, Funny)
Google Ads (Score:2)
What are peoples thoughts on the google text ads in the right hand of the results pages? Any experience as a buyer of these? Click through rates etc...?
Search Engines have to pay the rent somehow - if the google model works for advertisers it'll work for google. Personally I seldom click on them.
This is just Yahoo trying to claw some money back. I wont be using this service - even if I was inclined to pay for results it wouldn't be Yahoo getting my money for oh so many reasons.
Re:Google Ads (Score:2)
The payment model is quite reasonable, too -- the advertiser pays so much per display (can't remember the rates, but it wasn't very much), and you can specify the maximum you want to pay in a given month, so if search criteria that cough up your ad are more popular than you thought, you won't get an unexpectely-large bill. I figure it might cost me $15/month tops, and I have reason to expect it will more effective than any other currently-available advertising for my business.
There's usually a link below the text ads that goes to information about the service.
Re:Google Ads (Score:2)
an alternative... (Score:2, Informative)
For any of you considering paying for this service (none hopefully
Read article - this IS Northern Light data (Score:5, Informative)
Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org) [sethf.com]
google revenue stream (Score:2)
Lexis Nexus competition (Score:4, Informative)
If it is this is a good thing for Yahoo and its users, IF they are going to charge for documents already in the Yahoo search database then it sucks and they are ruining their core business.
Yahoo is one of the oldest, although I could never ever figure out why people liked it , I can never find a damm thing Im looking for there, google, no problem, prior to that HotBot,
Lexis-Nexus used to charge big bucks for this same type of "premeium" indexing, Im not sure anymore, but I doubt it has changed, this has been an invaluable tool for projects I worked on involving trade journals, and Industry specific news, much of which is still not publised to the web.
Yahoo Pay-per-Search != Commercial Google (Score:5, Interesting)
So, unless Google actually offer a significant document base (in terms of quality, not of quantity), there is no concurrence, here.
this service could be invaluable for students, researchers documentalists, librarians, journalists who want to know more about the tech info they want to publish...
So, yeah, this could work, if the money is also used to retribute the documents authors (which'd authorize their indexation/publication).
Of course, such a functionality is not aimed at the public but just at its scientific subset.
I just hope they'll offer some test queries to try-and-eventually-adopt such thing.
Re:Yahoo Pay-per-Search != Commercial Google (Score:2)
http://researchindex.com/
Re:Yahoo Pay-per-Search != Commercial Google (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Yahoo Pay-per-Search != Commercial Google (Score:2)
Pay for listing, pay for search=Failed scheme (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't think that worked then, nor will this work now. Yahoo, instead of advancing the technology of their search engine, or marketing the integrity of their category listings (you get less hits but the sites that you find from Yahoo were quality ones), they are trying to suck every cent out of what they have.
Google has FAR passed them by. Their search algorhythm seems to be able to offer the best of both worlds, automated indexing AND good quality results.
Yahoo needs to either find a better form of that (which would greatly reduce their labor costs), or else BUY Google.
Already, their pay for listing has destroyed the integrity of their category listings. Pay for search will just eat up what little respectibility they have left.
Fate of the search engines (Score:2)
If yahoo really wanted to make a profit on its search engine capabilities, it should have advertising like google, but it would point to yahoo sponsored sites, such as its shopping network or yahoo member pages. Then yahoo should charge a small commission for each sale done through its site (ala ebay)...
Paying for the documents, NOT the search (Score:4, Informative)
The way this is worded, it seems you can freely search for documents, and if you find a document you'd like to view, then you pay to see it. The article specifically cites academic journals, so this is probably more like LexisNexis in that the documents are electronic versions of print journal articles.
Are people willing to pay for this? Compared to the alternatives of subscribing to LexisNexis (if their journal databases overlap), or obtaining the print copy, the convenience of being able to download the article is probably worth it to many people. As someone who does academic research, I know I would. Fortunately, my alma matter (which I have access to as an alumnus) has a subscription to NexisLexis. If Yahoo's offering complements or surpasses that, then they have a probable customer in me.
I think this is a good thing, not just for Yahoo, but for the Internet as a whole. This lays down the beginnings of some infrastructure for a possible future involving micropayments. We're getting a step closer to Ted Nelson's docuverse.
Remember the stock news? (Score:2)
Anybody read the article? Anybody? (Score:3, Insightful)
According to the site, Yahoo plans to charge consumers between $1 and $4 to retrieve files from a specialized database of some 25 million research documents culled from 7,100 publications, including academic periodicals. Yahoo also expects to offer a "Premium Discount Search" option of 50 documents a month for $4.95.
No, you can't get that for free from Google.
Re:Anybody read the article? Anybody? (Score:2)
There is one *free* source of premium online info that is often not well known: Your local library.
By entering in my PIN # from my library card, the New York City [nypl.org], Westchester [westchesterlibraries.org] and White Plains [lib.ny.us] library systems have some decent online tools.
They may not be Nexis/Lexis, but they are free, have some pretty decent information available, both in breadth and depth.
Secret Google (Score:5, Interesting)
What really gets me is the way Google keeps introducing major improvements with a minimum of publicity. Yeah, they attract attention when they add conspicuous features like the Usenet archive and image searching. But it's really a bigger deal when they quietly improve their stop-word and wildcard handling. Contrast this with their competitors, which announce every little tweak as if it were the Return of the King.
Maybe Google is afraid their competitors will notice what Google is doing right and the others are doing wrong. But they can't hide the fact that they're the only search engine turning a profit!
"Second Rate Search?" (Score:2)
Why doesn't Yahoo do consulting or custom systems? (Score:2)
I'm sure there are some businesses that would love to have an intranet that used Yahoo technology. And I'm sure there are also a lot that would love to outsource their extranet filesharing to someone with a good infrastructure and known how-to.
It seems like a better idea than trying to make money off the internet itself.
Refunds for Searches with No Results? (Score:2)
You start charging for content -- searches, text, whatever -- you suddenly raise the bar. You can't expect people to "pay for searching" if the success rate isn't incredibly high.
Besides -- with very few exceptions -- does anyone actually buy into the idea of "premium content?" Lately, I see a lot of sites charging for premium content. But when you actually poke around and try to figure out the content, you discover a lot of lame videos, lame games, and generally uninspired content. (I'm thinking here of some of Real.com's "premium" offerings.)
True, the Wall Street Journal -- and other content specific sites like it -- are exceptions, but a *search engine?*
Cripes, you're not even paying for the content, as I understand this -- you're paying for some sort of advanced search algorithm. I mean, if you're paying for the content -- and they actually know where the content is -- then why not simply offer up the content and skip the whole "premium search" idea?
I don't get it. But I do know this: whenever most websites start talking about "premium" stuff, it usually means that they're close to going bankrupt.
Another example:
Salon.com. I went ahead and signed up a one-month subscription. I figued it'd be nice to get all of Salon in a single PDF file. Well, it *was* nice. But now I realize that size of "Salon Daily" in PDF is shrinking -- drastically. Yesterday, I think it was down to about 8 pages -- and not even all the stories on their website were actually in the PDF. (And the formatting for interviews is non-existent, so there's no way to distinguish the question from the answer -- which, in the case of last week's Noam Chomsky interview, was incredibly disconcerting (since Noam sounded as though he'd drunk a six-pack of Pabst and was spouting off any old shit that zipped through his head. One of the weirdest interviews I've ever read. But I digress...)
And yet another example of screwed up premium content:
Tivo. I hear now Tivo has partnered up with Real (I thought it was a joke, too, but then I read the press release) and see that they're going to recycle the stale videos and stale audio on Real's site into my Tivo. Wonderful. And then -- as if that wasn't enough to make you lose all faith in Tivo -- they've partnered up with (drum roll) some company that makes the 'You Don't Know Jack' game. Please. Like I want some 5 year old game being pumped down my wires just so Tivo can say they've conquered the living room?
It's interesting, but the real premium content -- the stuff that would actually make "premium" worth a premium price, IMHO -- is nowhere near being available -- and that's the "jukebox in the sky" idea (any song, on any computer, anywhere) or the "any concert, anytime, anywhere" idea. I'd gladly pay 10 bucks a month to see quality concerts streamed on-line. But not stale old recycled stuff. Up-to-the-minute stuff. Like being able to catch Dylan from the night before. Or whoever. Concert-at-glance type stuff. That's interesting. It's not worth a *lot* of money, but it'd be compelling content.
Ditto for the jukebox-in-the-sky.
But paying for some search engine?
Please. I bet even the Yahoo suits are scratching their heads and wondering how, exactly, to deliver "premium searching." I mean, maybe someone tries it out once because they're looking for a specific document -- like I coulda used a premium search not long ago when I was looking to compare miniDV cameras and wanted to see all the PDF manuals of my top-3 wishlist cameras -- but that's about it. (Of course, I couldn't find any of the manuals on-line.)
Or maybe to find some old on-line manual for the garbage disposal underneath your sink that has that little button on the bottom of the disposal unit and you wonder what the hell that button is for because it doesn't seem to do anything when you press it.
I don't think Yahoo is screwed, and here is why. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:I don't think Yahoo is screwed, and here is why (Score:2)
Nutty Simpson's Professor Says (Score:2)
Ah, ahcohordingaling to my expert, with the TI calculator and the number crunching, calculations the chances are 3.
Though some of your concerns are valid... (Score:2)
Wow! thats amazing (Score:2)
Please pull back your wrong and misleading article (Score:3, Interesting)
Yahoo will not offer a pay-per search (ZDNet's mistake, repeated by Slashdot) but a pay-per-view service for academic papers.
Since most academic papers are copyrighted by publishers and charged for, there is no way that Yahoo or Google or Slashdot anybody else could offer such a service for free. (without throwing away money)
Re:Please pull back your wrong and misleading arti (Score:2)
Please mod the parent up.
Next story on Slashdot: "Slashdot editors fail to do basic fucking research into their own stories again: News at 11"
-Legion
I Found it... (Score:3, Informative)
yahoo premium search [yahoo.com] is a nice thing to have. They have a collaboration with some sites, whose documents can be bought as mentioned in the news. Help [yahoo.com] on premium document search can be found here. And a list of all "qualifying documents" can be found here [yahoo.com]
Good move (Score:2)
Hopefully the benefit will also trickle down to the general public as the lowered cost of access to research makes it easier to apply research in practice.
Not what you think it is... (Score:5, Informative)
Yahoo isn't planning on charging for the searches that you do on its portal now, like the searches for the web pages. What they are offering for a fee is the stuff that you cannot find on any websites out there, where the publishers make them unavailable for free. Yahoo is moving towards the market that Lexis-Nexis [lexis-nexis.com] is in now.
Many of you claim that this plan is unprofitable or nobody is going to pay for it. Think about this. Lexis Nexis charges $9/law review articles, $3/newspaper article, $4-12/SEC filings, or $129/week for Business news package. My school is paying into the 10K+ range for a site license per year.
This is definitely a highly profitable area.
Re:Not what you think it is... (Score:3, Informative)
Searching Journals (Score:2, Interesting)
When there's steak at home... (Score:4, Insightful)
why go out for hamburgers?
Yahoo is sitting on a gold mine of data. By creating a group of engineers to data mine their link database, Yahoo could make a bloody fortune. Users aren't the cash cow here -- corporations are. Companies regular throw goofy sums of cash into marketing and Yahoo could get fat feeding at that corporate tit. I wrote more about this in my use.perl.org journal [perl.org] some months ago.
Punishing users who only make their data richer makes about as much sense as interstate tariffs.
Why sell academic publications to the public??? (Score:2, Insightful)
Who is going to use this? If these "research documents" are truely from "academic publications" shouldn't the biggest audience these "documents" already have access to them through their respective academic institutions or research firms.
Even as a graduate student who reads at least a dozen reaserch articles per week I wouldn't consider using this service. It is much easier to use the FREE service provided by my academic institution. Also, I highly doubt that Joe Normal desires to read the research articles in this week's Science. So where are the customers?
IMHO, This sounds like another nail in the coffin for Yahoo.
Any comments?
Am I the only one... (Score:3, Insightful)
People only going to be paying for documents that can be found, and every failed search is going to lose them money.
Given that these are technical/research documents it is a fair bet that the target audience already know how to get access to them, probably for free as well.
How do you compete with that and make money out of it?
Well you could license in better technology to improve your hit rate - Google is one of the best search engines out there and yet that still has holes in its ability to get what everyone wants every time...
e.g.
Try searching for a phrase in quotes and watch as good strips out the common words rendering your phrase useless. (yes i know you can counter this by using +'s but why should i have to do this for a phrase search?)
If you try hard enough you can find a phrase that when google is done with it results in just one word. And i'll be damned if i can remember the phrase i wanted searched for...
At the moment IMHO search engine technology is very good but it is just being outgrown by the increase in content that needs to be captured to provide a top-notch search-to-hit ratio.
Maybe the solution is to have a two tiered search concept;
the free searches are just like they are now - you get a response in real-time and take your chances that the results do not match what you actually wanted.
the paid searches are not real-time, but depending on how much you are willing to pay you get a corresponding fast result ranging anywhere from a few hours up to a few days.
for your money you get a better service (including the ever popular boolean searches, regular expressions etc if you just want to use this like a big full-text index) which you could focus much tighter than is currently possible to get a decent set of urls, summaries, and reports at the end of the process.
We've all been there - we want something very hard to find and which results in a lot of mis-matches on search engines. if someone said they could get me a few urls which are directly related to my search in a few days then I'd pay a few dollars for that!
Google Isn't Immune (Score:5, Informative)
Two-thirds [searchenginewatch.com] of Google's revenue is from ads. They are opening new sales offices (e.g. Germany), but slowing down tech hiring. That suggests they are betting on increasing ad revenue at a time when their competitors have decided that ads alone can't sustain search-engines. Google's techie hiring cutback also suggests that they don't think additional software R&D can help them grow as much as investing in non-tech areas. [Estimates I've seen of Google's revenues are US$30M - $70M a year, with their CEO saying that makes them just about profitable.]
Worse for Google, they hold few patents for their basic technological advantage, and their infrastructure (including their huge database) could be rebuilt in a few weeks by a cash-rich M$. The only protection they have against Teoma et al is their staff -- but loyalty can be bought. (Google uses options to encourage employees to stay. If the options cease to look promising, some people will leave.)
Another problem facing Google is their staff itself. 50 of their 250 employees are PhD's. That means they have lots of valuable technical knowledge, but it also means that 50 of their highest-paid employees have a collective 0 years experience in business planning. Consider that their senior management lacks a CFO at all, and is loaded with CS doctors who tend (like normal geeks) to want to work on "cool" things instead of profitable ones.
Google's proud of its lack of advertising -- but don't they also lack the marketing that would produce such advertising? Look at two of recent new products: the USENET database (cool, but what good does it do for *Google*?), and the shopping-catalog database (a possible money source...but very risky, requiring licensees to share their revenue stream and catalog-shoppers to change their habits.)
Being private means Google can avoid stockholder demand for quick profits...sort of. Their only source of funds is two VC firms, since the founders had little money of their own. The two firms [1 [kpcb.com]][2 [sequoiacap.com]]-- each of whom has a seat on Google's board -- will eventually demand return on their $25 million investment. Remember, the folks who gave Google its money want to see profits, and have *lots* of experience in tweaking start-ups to generate them.
Don't get me wrong -- Google's great;Brin & Page deserve copious kudos & cash. However, I'm watching for some danger signs:
info services I'd pay for (Score:2)
(2) Google - gets me there quickly; also usenet portal; $0.25 / day
Listing in the Yahoo! directory also now for-pay (Score:3, Informative)
Now they've gone to a $299/year RECURRING fee for listing.
Yahoo is using northern light (Score:2, Informative)
If you do a very specific search (someting that produces limited hits) on both sites the result is exactly the same, right down to the price, Doc size and ID, citation info and so on.
Even the order that they list the results is the same.
-Lou
Re:Simple Answer (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Why pay? (Score:4, Informative)
T
Not Yahoo, NL (URL) (Score:4, Interesting)
http://premium.search.yahoo.com/ [yahoo.com]
Re:Why pay? (Score:4, Interesting)
However, this stuff probably isn't stuff you could find in a normal Google search. I imagine this would have direct access to various newspaper and other archives. People who's job is research (not like scientific research, like think tanks and "research" companies...or when your boss says "I need to find out everything you know about by Tuesday") use engines like that where they need reliable quick access to the relevant information online as opposed to sifting through the piles of dross you get with a normal search. I believe Northern Light was built around something like this as it's base model originally, but I don't personally know as I never really used it.
Re:Why pay? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Why pay? (Score:3, Interesting)
Many of the opinions here are being misled by the name, hence the debates about search engine technology. But this isn't a search of the Internet; it's a search of a finite database of publications, a database that's under the control of Yahoo! Any searchable corporate database would be similar, and making such an animal easy and effective isn't nearly as hard as making a good Internet search.
The ultimate question is whether there would be enough users. The price isn't half bad, if it's 50 documents for $4.95 and not 50 searches for $4.95. If you don't have easy access to InfoTrac or Lexis-Nexis or other such sources, that's a great deal; it's certainly a hell of a lot cheaper than buying your own Lexis-Nexis account.
But Yahoo is making a major marketing mistake by calling it "premium search." People who see that phrase make the immediate assumption that they'll be charged to use a search engine. Nobody would pay for that. But if they can deliver quality proprietary information at a cost that makes it more convenient than a trip to any library, they should change the name. Because they would then have a winner.
Re:Why? (Score:3, Insightful)
If Yahoo pushes this hard to all their search users, then their volume will likely be a lot higher.
Imagine every Yahoo search resulting in a few hits to premium documents first, and then the normal search results. If you choose to click on the links for the premium documents, you go to a page with the abstract, the price, and information about the service (sort of what Northern Light does now). This is an incredible marketing channel if you happen to have the traffic volume Yahoo has.
Re:target marketing (Score:2)
I'd love to pay, for instance to have instant access to all back articles from Dr Dobbs Journal or C/C++ Users Journal over the internet, as that is stuff that isn't available on the net today (both of them only publish a small number of their articles online). Today, if you want electronic access to back issues of those journals, you need to buy their CDs. Which is fine when you happen to have the CD around when you need it. But having access to it over the net would be so much more convenient.
Re:There is too kind of people... on the net (Score:2)
-l