• by Tameka Kee , December 14, 2007

So many startups step up to the plate claiming to be the next best thing to Google, or the next Google-killer. But will any of them ever succeed?

Bob Heyman said NO! And anyone who labels themselves a "Google-killer" or "iPhone-killer" or anything like that is pretty much slated to fail miserably.

Aaron Copeland said it depends on whether being "better than Google" means delivering better search results, or bringing multiple kinds of digital info into one format that can be searched. If competitors can leverage their experience (i.e. MSFT with its software background, or Yahoo with consumer insights) in areas that all that Google can't, then they'll have an advantage. "But I don't see anyone overtaking Google at what it does best."

Gord said that as long as search stays the way it is now -- no one will take Google's dominant spot. But it's misleading to think that search will not evolve from simple links on a page in the next few years.

David said that he's tried using a number of so-called "Google-killers" like Hakia and Powerlabs, and he can't figure out how they work at all -- let alone be better at search than Google. So for something to bump users out of the habit of "Googling" things (and getting highly relevant, or even just average results) it would have to be so inherently usable, and phenomenally better than anything we've seen before. And that's hard. Just look at Ask 3D. Bob added that with non-traditional search -- competitors can definitely usurp Google, especially because the giant doesn't have the top spot when it comes to mobile and video. With mobile "Yahoo has as much traction as Google, if not more." And companies like Truveo and Blinkx have a significant opportunity to become the leaders in video search.