>'You can see this on your desktop by doing a search for “used iPhone.” The majority of the screen real estate is now ads! In the example above 11 of the 12 links are advertisements!'
If someone is typing "used iPhone", I think the correct response would be to show them adverts for used iPhones. This is really poorly written.
And to take this example to Spotlight, when I search for "used iPhone" with Spotlight today I get.... absolutely nothing of value. The top hit on my Mac is an Ember.js JavaScript file. Certainly not what I wanted. Paid used iPhone ads would be infinitely more valuable, as they actually have some value.
Could Apple compete with Google in search? Yes. Are they today? Not really.
I always struggle with this. On the one hand, advertising used iPhones after searching for "used iPhone" is the most relevant of relevant advertising. It presents information that's actually interesting and useful. If we are sitting around acknowledging that we're hitching our wagons to ad revenue, this is what everybody wants.
On the other hand, those ads might be burying a search result that offers a better, cheaper, or more reputable place to buy that used iPhone. This is a win for the advertiser since the game is influencing behavior, but that consumer might kick themselves for missing a better alternative because the ads were in the way. This reality subverts the ideal mission of an Internet search engine: to return the most relevant and interesting result first. It's not as if Google hasn't been working hard since its inception to improve this, too.
Disclosure: I work for a company that makes (almost) all of its money from ad sales.
I don't know if Apple really wants or needs to become a search engine for the web like Google. That could become true, but other than the fact that they have a native search feature that (big surprise here) they iterate on and improve, there's nothing that I can see pointing to it.
Of course, it's the right step for Apple because they own user's platform.
Also - losing business because business was depending on the other guy platform - is the lesson that didn't have to be learned.
There are no free lunches served by free platforms.
10 comments
[ 3.4 ms ] story [ 41.1 ms ] threadIf someone is typing "used iPhone", I think the correct response would be to show them adverts for used iPhones. This is really poorly written.
Could Apple compete with Google in search? Yes. Are they today? Not really.
On the other hand, those ads might be burying a search result that offers a better, cheaper, or more reputable place to buy that used iPhone. This is a win for the advertiser since the game is influencing behavior, but that consumer might kick themselves for missing a better alternative because the ads were in the way. This reality subverts the ideal mission of an Internet search engine: to return the most relevant and interesting result first. It's not as if Google hasn't been working hard since its inception to improve this, too.
Disclosure: I work for a company that makes (almost) all of its money from ad sales.
I don't know if Apple really wants or needs to become a search engine for the web like Google. That could become true, but other than the fact that they have a native search feature that (big surprise here) they iterate on and improve, there's nothing that I can see pointing to it.
So yeah, basically quality writing there.
The same arguments have steered speculation wrong when we thought touch was coming to the MacBook or that Apple would release an iPhone Nano.
Also - losing business because business was depending on the other guy platform - is the lesson that didn't have to be learned. There are no free lunches served by free platforms.