I thought about this and I think I have a plausible theory: legacy users.
Like most things, people tend to find a search engine and stick with it - if its the one that always worked for them. Back when iNetNow got started, not many people knew about Google, but sites like Yahoo and Lycos advertised all the time on television.
Back in 99 or 98, the most likely way you would know about Google is if you read about it in a magazine - probably Wired or Playboy or perhaps GQ. You kind of already had to know how to use the internet to have the minimalistic Google even be worth it to you.
Now Yahoo took the opposite tack, a" be everything to everyone" portal - and as such, advertised to everyone. It has kind of succeeded, and is so much better than AOL could ever hope to be.
Sure, Google is better. But you still don't see it on television. Most people don't chat on it. It doesn't have games and built in yellow pages (although its contextual map listings are far superior - but I digress). Yahoo will get the benefit of the doubt from people who do not have many more media choices - because it is a portal that does everything and it advertises on TV. And it will continue to get the business of people that started using it way back in the late 90s.
Google will continue to attract people who already know how to use the internet, who don't need a portal, probably educated, some users that are legacy and some that are new and like its approach.
I hope that didn't sound elitist. But does it sound plausible?
1 comment:
I thought about this and I think I have a plausible theory: legacy users.
Like most things, people tend to find a search engine and stick with it - if its the one that always worked for them. Back when iNetNow got started, not many people knew about Google, but sites like Yahoo and Lycos advertised all the time on television.
Back in 99 or 98, the most likely way you would know about Google is if you read about it in a magazine - probably Wired or Playboy or perhaps GQ. You kind of already had to know how to use the internet to have the minimalistic Google even be worth it to you.
Now Yahoo took the opposite tack, a" be everything to everyone" portal - and as such, advertised to everyone. It has kind of succeeded, and is so much better than AOL could ever hope to be.
Sure, Google is better. But you still don't see it on television. Most people don't chat on it. It doesn't have games and built in yellow pages (although its contextual map listings are far superior - but I digress). Yahoo will get the benefit of the doubt from people who do not have many more media choices - because it is a portal that does everything and it advertises on TV. And it will continue to get the business of people that started using it way back in the late 90s.
Google will continue to attract people who already know how to use the internet, who don't need a portal, probably educated, some users that are legacy and some that are new and like its approach.
I hope that didn't sound elitist. But does it sound plausible?
Post a Comment