The key misunderstanding of google here was in thinking that google was merely "better algorithmic search" and nothing more. In truth Google's unique advantages come down to competency in three unique areas: state of the art algorithmic search; cutting edge software engineering; and revolutionary data center management.
Google didn't win the search provider war by providing merely better search results. It won by providing better results faster with greater reliability and at lower cost than the competition. Better due to better algorithms and smarter filtering. Faster due to solid software engineering (sharding, map reduce) using distributed computing. Cheaper because the distributed computing aspect was enabled not via traditional beefy and expensive servers managed largely manually by humans but by larger numbers of low cost commodity hardware based systems largely managed via automated processes.
Each of these aspects is a strong asset for any company, but google had all 3. What's more, each of these competencies are complementary and self-reinforcing with the others. State of the art distributed computing systems and revolutionarily cheap clustered computing systems go together like peanut butter and chocolate. What's more, low cost/high performance server infrastructure means that it's possible to dedicate more of the profits towards improving the search algorithms and the software engineering expertise, creating a positive feedback loop that allows google to out-accelerate its competition.
A lot of companies have been able to match google roughly on a few aspects, but no company has been able to clone google's complete triumvirate of core skills to any significant degree.
Many of the strongest companies in the tech field have a similar array of synergistic but unlikely multiple core competencies. Apple has strong engineering and strong aesthetic and design sensibilities. Amazon has strong software and IT engineering abilities and strong logistics management at scale (to the same degree, perhaps even more so, that led walmart to such success).
Google didn't win the search provider war by providing merely better search results. It won by providing better results faster with greater reliability and at lower cost than the competition. Better due to better algorithms and smarter filtering. Faster due to solid software engineering (sharding, map reduce) using distributed computing. Cheaper because the distributed computing aspect was enabled not via traditional beefy and expensive servers managed largely manually by humans but by larger numbers of low cost commodity hardware based systems largely managed via automated processes.
Each of these aspects is a strong asset for any company, but google had all 3. What's more, each of these competencies are complementary and self-reinforcing with the others. State of the art distributed computing systems and revolutionarily cheap clustered computing systems go together like peanut butter and chocolate. What's more, low cost/high performance server infrastructure means that it's possible to dedicate more of the profits towards improving the search algorithms and the software engineering expertise, creating a positive feedback loop that allows google to out-accelerate its competition.
A lot of companies have been able to match google roughly on a few aspects, but no company has been able to clone google's complete triumvirate of core skills to any significant degree.
Many of the strongest companies in the tech field have a similar array of synergistic but unlikely multiple core competencies. Apple has strong engineering and strong aesthetic and design sensibilities. Amazon has strong software and IT engineering abilities and strong logistics management at scale (to the same degree, perhaps even more so, that led walmart to such success).