Relevancy + Targeting = $123,490,000,000


Although this article suggests “infinite” reasons for Google’s success, I’d say there are only two that have made Google worth about 123 billion dollar bills.
The article supports that there have only been two truly notable reasons: A superb PPC model of advertising combined with the most relevant= best search engine to date.

Both the engine and the ad model were largely built by the time of huge expansion.   The story is nicely chronicles in John Battelle’s “The Search”, which also notes how Google’s ad model came about somewhat serindipitously, and basically as a copy of the Goto.com model developed by Bill Gross.  This serendipitous refinement of good ideas  lies at the heart of many great innovations and challenges the idea that greatness comes from stable, consistent, well organized forces of change.

Sure Google has the best technologists, leadership, and corporate culture, but it was the PPC model that was necessary for the success and that is largely ignored in most external analyses (Google knows this all too well).

Good points that without relevancy you’ll lose the audience and the PPC revenues. *Together* these two factors lie at the heart of Google’s success and both are unstable territory, so all are in for more fun in the search sun.

The Ghost in the Machine … is a Human Being!


Last week or so Matt was asking what new gadgets we’d see in the future. Some suggested Star Trek style devices, but I think they (and Star Trek) are wrong to suggest that we’ll continue with our current model of humans using separate function, hand-held devices. Rather we’ll soon see human integration with devices in ways analogous to the evolution from spectacle to contact lens to corneal implant. When that corneal implant can go online you can sign me up for one whether I need it or not.
Although many people cringe at the idea that we’d implant chips in ourselves and connect them to our brains they are ignoring the logical progression of biology and technology. The recent invention of a bionic arm controlled by nerve feedback is only the beginning.

Seems to me that we want to *completely* erase the physical distinction between gadgets – especially phones and computers – and ourselves. In fact I think most sci -fi treatments really miss this as an inevitability of our technologically innovative future lifestyle.

I’m Hoping to see more human/gadget interfaces so we can directly access computerized info with our non-computerized brains. This would really enhance creativity, and I’d even suggest we’ll see a lot of spin off benefits.

For example if world leaders can instantly access extensive, encyclopedic treatment of history, languages, and other topics their ability to make wise decisions will be elevated.

Well, maybe that’s too optimistic.