Google’s beta release of their desktop search tool was their shot across the bow of the USS Microsoft Search. Following hard of the heels of promising technology releases from Blinkx and Copernic, Google is staking their claim to the desktop search space. And Microsoft seems to have been caught flat footed, as they continue to push back the deadline for the release of Longhorn, which will integrate desktop search with the operating system. Many seem to think a search related announcement out of Redmond is imminent.
So, if one looks at what’s come out of the labs of the major search engines lately, you see a rush of new technologies centered on the ideas of desktop search, local search, indexing of rich media and personalized search. It seems that everything we’ve been talking about in the past 3 years is suddenly coming on the market in one fell swoop.
This has prompted a number of analysts to start asking where search is going. I’ve been firmly seated on that particular bandwagon, adding my own prognostications to the many that are out there. But sometime last week, I slapped my forehead and pronounced myself an idiot (beating several others to the punch). It really isn’t the release of technology that will dictate where search is going. It’s the public’s acceptance of that technology. And I’m not speaking about a few techno geeks huddled in the cool blue glow of a LCD flat screen. I’m talking about the masses.
Innovation Only Makes a Difference when it’s Accepted
There is a dilemma that is inherent in technical innovation. As the innovators, we tend to get caught up in the possibilities of technology and base our business decisions on it. But the fact is that the success of technology only takes place with widespread adoption by the general public.
In the high tech business, we tend to be surrounded with others like ourselves. We are the classic early adopters, looking for the latest technological gizmo. We tweak our computers and other various electronic gadgets, spend hours tracking down problems with drivers and happily put up with bug after bug to gain an edge over the less technically savvy. In our biz, we all tend to be members of this relatively small segment of the real world. Unfortunately, we sometimes make decisions that seem valid because everyone we talk to agrees with us. It’s not until the public flatly rejects our innovations that we realize it was never capable of going beyond the research lab.
Search, or the Internet in general, ultimately doesn’t move forward until the public adopts new innovations in sufficient numbers to develop critical mass. If that mass never happens, the innovation withers and dies.
So, if you ask me, or any of the others who have been writing about this, which of the emerging search innovations will make the difference in the industry, you might be asking the wrong person. I’m a geek. Go ask your Aunt Mildred, but be prepared to spend some time explaining what you’re talking about.
Revisiting the Chasm
Of course, none of this is new. The dilemma of technology adoption has been known since the 80’s and was thoroughly explored in Geoffery Moore’s books “Crossing the Chasm” and “Inside the Tornado” In the case after case, Moore has shown how promising technological innovations gobbled up rapid market acceptance with early adopters, only to stall and die when trying to cross the chasm to the main stream.
The chasm is created by radical differences between early adopters and the next group in line in the technology adoption process, the pragmatists. Pragmatists aren’t in love with innovation just for innovation’s sake. There has to be a clear cut advantage in it for them, and it has to be relatively painless to adopt. They won’t take hours to trouble shoot a new program. In fact, they won’t even install it until they’ve heard from other pragmatists that it works and is dependable.
And it’s the pragmatists, and the group that follows, the late adopters, that make up over 80 % of the consumer market. You can’t gain critical mass without them.
Public Adoption Can’t be Rushed
As early adopters, we work on a radically different time line than the general public. We tend to leap into new technology before it’s fully tested. We move in a matter of weeks or months to try the latest new thing. The rest of the world takes years. So as we try out local search, desktop search and personalized search, remember that the latest developments in search will probably take a long time to trickle down to the average Joe.
Unless You Leave No Options!
This opens up a rather interesting advantage for Microsoft in the search game. Because of their domination of so many parts of our interaction with our computers, they can force adoption of a new technology to an extent no one else can. Every other player, including Google, has to convince us that their technological innovations are worth using. Microsoft can leave us with no choice.
This will become an increasingly important factor as search moves forward. Integration into our common activities is essential to assure adoption. Search has to always be in our face and the functionality has to be transparent. If innovations are continuous, meaning we don’t have to undertake some significant new pain (i.e. go through an extensive installation process) the public tends to adopt them readily. But discontinuous innovation requires a much bigger buy in on the part of the public.
Take Google’s new desktop search tool, for example. Google has done a rather good job of making installation rather painless. But it still requires installation. And then there’s other issues, such as privacy and performance. If Google is indexing everything on your hard drive, what is it doing with that information? Does it always stay on your desktop, or is it being sent back to a Google server somewhere? Is there a performance hit as Google indexes your hard drive. An early adopter will take the time to track down these questions by sifting through FAQ’s on a site (or maybe they won’t care). The average person can’t be bothered, so the software doesn’t get installed. The risk vs reward balance isn’t great enough to convince them to install software they’ve never tried before.
But when Microsoft integrates search at the OS level, they can roll out new features and pretty much force every Windows user to adopt them. They’ll come bundled in a major service pack update and we’ll click the auto install button because you just don’t question Microsoft. How many of us installed the Service Pack 2 update without thinking and have been regretting it ever since?
As Microsoft uses the zero option strategy to force adoption, they can gain the critical mass quickly to force a chasm crossing on their own timeline. None of the other search players have this kind of clout. Google and Yahoo would have to force adoption of integrated search through downloads and installations, and the fact is that the vast majority of pragmatists just won’t do this.
Google will continue to roll things out of their search lab, and we early adopters will eagerly install the latest beta. Someday (probably soon) a major development will come out of Redmond about Microsoft Search. We “in the know” will rush to pronounce it a failure, or success, but the judgment isn’t really ours to make. It’s the millions of people who have no idea that Google now has a desktop search tool, or that Microsoft is integrating search into their operating system, that will ultimately make the difference. And they will only bestow that success when they’re good and ready, or when they have no choice. The winner of search will be the one who is the shrewdest about controlling that timeline.
Gord Hotchkiss is the President and CEO of Enquiro, whose goal is to push the search engine optimization industry forward both in terms of measurable results and client satisfaction.
