Tom Foremski: IMHO

Tom Foremski

Schmidt resignation: Is Apple search on the way?

By Tom Foremski | August 4, 2009, 8:00am PDT

When the first iPhone came out two years ago I was astounded that there was no way to search its contents: Searching For Search On the iPhone

One year later, in 2008, after many updates to the software and new hardware: still no search function! Only now, in the most recent iPhone 3.0 version is there a search function, two years late.

That’s not accidental it has to be deliberate. A year ago I wrote: Is Apple About To Launch Apple Search?

And it makes sense. It has its own browser and having its own search site makes perfect sense.

The browser and search service are essentially the operating system for our modern times. Apple knows all about owning the OS and that has been a winning strategy for Apple.

Take a look at how Apple would be able to quickly build a large search engine business:

1: The Apple fanboy market would leave Google in a heartbeat. No question. That’s about 5 per cent of the computer market, and that’s not counting the iPod, iPhone users.

2) All the users of Safari, the Apple web browser on Macs and Windows systems would be default users of Apple search.

3) Search is all about brand. Tests have shown little difference in the quality of search results between search engines. Microsoft rebranded its search service Bing and it now has traction. Apple knows “brand” very well and it knows how to parlay that expertise into new businesses.

Study: Good Brand Can Make Search Seem More Relevant

The study showed that when a searcher was given an identical result set across Google, Yahoo, Windows Live Search and an in house search engine, Google and Yahoo came out as more relevant. Why? Because of the brand of the search engine.

Despite the results pages being identical in content and presentation, participants indicated that Yahoo! and Google outperformed MSN Live Search and the in-house search engine.

http://www.pcworld.idg.com.au/index.php/id;229165979

One drawback for Apple is that GOOG pays Apple for placing its search engine in the search bar in Safari. Industry whispers report that this payment is enough to fund development of Mac OS X.

However, that revenue is jeopardized by Google’s announcement of its Chrome browser, and also there is competition from Google’s ChromeOS, and its Android cell phone software.

While the industry focuses on Microsoft and Google competition, Google and Apple are becoming ever more competitive with each other. That’s why Eric Schmidt is leaving Apple’s board of directors.

- - -

Please see:

Since There Is No Objective Way To Gauge Search . . . Brand Will Win

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily e-mail newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

More from “Tom Foremski: IMHO”

Chip industry's boom/bust cycles and the failure of business intelligence

Wired's Editor Chris Anderson bans words "journalism" and "media"

Topics

Google Inc., Brand, Search Engine, Apple Inc., Search, Branding, Marketing, Tom Foremski

Tom Foremski reports on the business and culture of Silicon Valley at the intersection of technology and media.

Full Bio
Disclosure
Contact

Vendor HotSpot

Here to help you with your Document Management Needs

Read the DocuMentor blog now

Learn More »

Talkback Most Recent of 22 Talkback(s)

Follow via:: RSS; Email Alert

Add to that the fact that

Apple could "remotely" remove any competing search engine from the iPhone/iPod, and you have yet another "locked-in" money maker for the company.
GuidingLight
4th Aug 2009
- Reply to
- Flag
Anti-Trust

Don't you think using the remote feature to change the search engine would trigger an Anti-Trust case? Apple already has locked down the device and the carrier. Now they are going to dictate the search engine?

They cannot claim the old one doesn't work, or is inferior. I think they are smarter than that. They will probably just rely on the Apple Culture to pull Apple users to MacSearch (or whatever it's called).
Fark
4th Aug 2009
- Reply to
- Flag
RE: you mean like Amazon?

Apple hasn't done anything like this on the iPhone that I'm aware of. I
know there have been apps that they've pulled from their store for a
variety of reasons, but never once have they reached into user's
iPhones/iPods to remove any offending applications.

I still have one of those very apps on my iPhone right now... the Tetris
clone named "Tris."
JakAttak
4th Aug 2009
- Reply to
- Flag
search technology

"Search is all about brand. Tests have shown little difference
in the quality of search results between search engines."

to the contrary!

my search results differ heavily on google, yahoo or bing. i
still prefer google (find their results more relevant in all the
test i made for checking out which search engine is the best
for me) but i am open to use any new search machine that
promises to have better results.

if it all about brand how come they all have to invest billions
in their search technology?
bannedfromzdnetagain
4th Aug 2009
- Reply to
- Flag
For the advertising money

not all that money goes into their search algorithms, a large part goes into advetising link technology and the like.
John Zern
4th Aug 2009
- Reply to
- Flag
All highly speculative, with zero evidence...

I don't even think mac rumors have surfaced with a search engine rumor.

Renaming a search engine is not likely to vet any more search market share, as MS did with Bing. It did vet what an 8% increase like the first month? So if they for instance had 10 users an 8 percent increase is less than 1 person. Now obviously MS will gain some share with this recent deal with Yahoo, but that doesn't give the rebranding any merit at all.

Search is something that I doubt Apple will enter into. It could be possible, but I won't hold my breath on it. Of course if they did, people would scream that Apple would be uncompetitive as it would load such a search engine into all of its products... Oh wait that is MS...
xXSpeedzXx
4th Aug 2009
- Reply to
- Flag
Blogger adds 1 and 1, comes up with 3...

Google recently announced that they were developing an OS.
Apple already make an OS. Google make a cellular phone OS.
Apple make a cellular phone. Apple also recently denied
Google's Voice app entry into the App store. The rest, when
common sense is applied, is simple. I do wish that your think
about this before you publish your pointless, byte wasting
conjecture...
SimonUK2
4th Aug 2009
- Reply to
- Flag
Mis-read of fanboy motivation

Our dear writer suggests that Apple fanboys will
abandon Google to jump to Apple in a heartbeat...and
they might....at least to try it out. But, if it
doesn't deliver those fanboys will jump right back to
Google. In watching Apple fan boys it's my impression
that they are fans of Apple only because of what
Apple's products have done for them...in other words,
Apple earned their loyalty the old-fashioned way and,
as a result of experience, they're predisposed
towards Apple. However, it's like a lot like genetics
... a predisposition does not equate to a compulsion
...if an Apple search product didn't at least match
Google's product then they'd move back in a
heartbeat.
To repeat...the vast majority of Apple's fans are
fans because of what their products do for them...if
a particular Apple product doesn't float their boat,
they'll move on. Hence the Cube, Newton, and the
small handful of other Apple products that didn't
have the success of so many other Apple products.

I, for one, don't see Apple in search and I don't see
an Apple Tablet...at least not one with the feature
set we've become accustomed to from Tablets and I'm
not smart enough to see what the killer feature would
be. But...I've been wrong before.
UGottaBKidding
4th Aug 2009
- Reply to
- Flag
Definition of Fanboy

I don't think he's mistaking what the Apple Fanboys will do, but I think he's mistaking how many of them there really are. At five percent, he's saying that more than half of Apple's userbase is made up of fanboys. In reality, the fanboys are really REALLY vocal (and annoying, and deserving of all the pain Jobs and Co. put them through), but they are a very sparse minority, and like you said, in not so many words, most of Apple's users are far more pragmatic than Tom gives them credit for.

Having said that, there are two technologies that give Apple a head start toward entering the search market:

1) They have been knee-deep in search on the desktop since Tiger was released. Windows search and Google search have been playing catch-up ever since. They have some VERY powerful technology under the hood of their own operating system, and the expertise to make it work, and the loyal following to get a foot in the door quickly.

2) Remember Sherlock? Before there was Google and all its relevant search results, the search engines of the world kindof sucked and were very hit-and-miss. Sherlock had some very good algorithms to take the results of all these engines, bring them together, and rank them for you. You didn't even have to be bothered with the ads (Sherlock filtered those out for you). Again, the technology is already there at Apple and has already been proven.

On top of this, Google's stranglehold on the search business is becoming weaker. With the close integration between Macs, iPhones, iPods, and iTunes, Apple has a very huge presence in most peoples' computing lives, and can very quickly disrupt that market.
daftkey
4th Aug 2009
- Reply to
- Flag
Thanks for a well thought out response.

I'm not sure I'm totally convinced, but you have
demonstrated that there's more to this that I had
thought.
Thanks for taking the time to respond.
UGottaBKidding
5th Aug 2009
- Flag
I agree

Google is still the predominant Brand in search.
I'd be surprised that people would move away from Google just because it had the Apple brand. It would have to be at least on par with Google.

The two factors I princiaplly care about in a search engine
1) Quality/Relevance of the result
2) Speed (search, click throughs, paging)
brian.ward
5th Aug 2009
- Reply to
- Flag
Point by point.

I agree with the other comment about search quality: Google does better for me in almost every case. I am trying Bing right now, doing parallel searches to many of the ones I do in Google. That contributes to their "market share" uptick, and I suspect many others are doing the same. But unless something *really* improves on Bing, it will be short-lived.

Google is starting to compete with Apple on multiple fronts, just like it does with Microsoft. Apple is responding by keeping Google at a little more distance, which is all well and good.

Getting into search is a massive undertaking in two areas: building the infrastructure needed, and selling the advertising that makes search profitable. Apple isn't ignorant about either subject due to iTunes experience, but they certainly don't have the chops that Google has. It will be a long hard road for them to go down, with no guarantee of success.

To me, if Apple wants to branch out, they should continue to address the content and communications space. Apple Store has lots of growth potential in digital content, they should branch out into a whole series of handheld devices to compete in gaming platforms and lower-end kids devices, and they should invest in social apps to drive up device and service usage even more.

Finally, the agreement with AT&T was expedient at the time considering the risk they were taking getting into the cellphone market, but it's a big monkey-on-the-back problem now. They need to get out of it.
terry flores
4th Aug 2009
- Reply to
- Flag
What terms are you searching for?

To my surprise, Bing matches or does better than Google in the VAST majority of my searches.

Can you give examples of things you search for that you think Google does wildly better at?
de-void-21165590650301806002836337787023
4th Aug 2009
- Reply to
- Flag
I have at least one, I haven't searched

it out completely, but Zune Theme is one. Google brings me right to the download location at Microsofts website. Bing gives me zune.net, zunewallpaper.com, cnet, softpedia, and the list goes on. Yahoo even gives me the download second on the list. Bing nowhere to be found.

Search email. Bing gives me live mail 3rd in its list, where google and yahoo give me their email links at the top of the list.

Now grant it be this isn't an extensive list or one that I expect to hold much clout for most. But for me Google tends to have the most relevant results at the top of the list.

I have one more "Science Museum". With Google the Science Museum of MN is the first on the list. Bing and Yahoo second on the list. This is only relevant as I live in MN. But you would think that Yahoo and Bing could at least calculate that my search is originating in MN and brings up the most relevant search result to the top of the list. Yahoo and Bing some museum in the UK. The one for the UK isn't even on the list in google, only science museums in the US are, and starting with my home state. Now to me that is more relevant. I live in MN, make mediocre wages, and would not likely ever make it to London any time soon.
xXSpeedzXx
4th Aug 2009
- Flag
the Science Museum in London

isn't just "some museum"!
SimonUK2
4th Aug 2009
- Flag