October 22nd, 2006
How Has Google Changed the Software Industry?
Google has clearly transformed the software industry’s approach to business models, as evident in the hundreds of online software companes (i.e Web 2.0) planning to “monetize” through advertising. But Google may also be influencing the software industry in less obvious but equally significant ways, through its ethos of simplicity and its obsessive (and often hyped) focus on user experience.
I saw Danny Sullivan’s conversation with Google CEO Eric Schmidt at Search Engine Strategies this past summer, and one exchange has stuck in my mind:
Danny: In some ways search feels like it’s marginally boring in that we’ve got these new…
Eric: Boring to you.
Q: Well, not boring. It’s never boring to me, but the experience of, I go to this page, there’s still a box. I put in the words. I know we’ve got new verticals that are coming out and the results have gotten much better. But the way I dialogue with a search engine on Google might as well be Open Text or AltaVista in the basic of I’m putting words into a box, I push a button, I get results that come back.
Eric: People actually like that. They like the simple interface. They tell me this all the time. Do you not?
Danny: That’s my question – I agree with you, people are largely comfortable with it. And when I’m asked about that, all of the analysts and reporters, they’ll say to me, “Well, what’s the next big thing?” And I’m like, “Well, it’s like saying what’s the next big thing in television sets.” You went from black and white. And then you went to color. You had a long period where we didn’t feel like it was working. I could put all sorts of things but then they’d confuse you. And we’ve made a jump to HD, but a television set largely works as a television set and it feels like that’s because people are comfortable with it. So I’m wondering, is search like television sets where we get HD search or are we going to have an “Oh, wow!” moment which just completely changes and we have something different in how we dialogue with them?
Eric: For many people, many people are very, very happy with the very simple Google search. And we think that’s wonderful. There’s a set of people who want to personalize it. And so we have a version which is currently known as iGoogle, where you have a login name and a password, and then if you personalize your homepage, you can add what are called gadgets. We started off with a number of gadgets that we wrote. But more importantly we created a developer program and the developer program enables people to build gadgets. The first gadgets were the obvious ones: What’s the weather in this town and the stock prices and so forth. [But now] the gadgets are getting much more sophisticated. So my personalized Google homepage, for example, has information sources, newspapers, magazines that I care about. It has pictures; it has video and so forth.
The importance of this exchange is even more apparent if you watch Eric Schmidt (26 minutes in).
When Danny suggests that there’s an opportunity to innovate the basic search interface, Schmidt looks at Danny like he has three heads and jumps in to insist that most people like it that way — no, they REALLY like it that way. Schmidt then goes on to talk about Google’s customizable home page, which has absolutely nothing to do with the question that Danny asked.
What’s evident in this exchange is that despite all the lipservice about customization, Google is deeply invested in keeping the basic search application simple and with limited (or no) customization.
Why? Because they realized that they could get away with it. Google dominates search with a ridiculously simple application interface, with advanced features that almost no one uses. Google gets away with this because getting search results is fast, easy, and, in almost every case, the results are good enough.
Until recently, the software industry was dominated by applications that made it easy to do complex tasks and complex to do easy tasks (think Microsoft Office), and by software that required massive customization (think enterprise software).
But the software industy has taken note of Google’s success with its one-size-fit-all search application — perhaps even Microsoft, as Preston Gralla observes in Why Has Microsoft Abandoned the Power User?:
The upcoming final releases of Windows Vista and Internet Explorer 7 make one thing exceedingly clear: Microsoft has abandoned the power user, allowing fewer and fewer customizations and tweaks. By doing this, they’re leaving behind a very loyal audience.
Internally, Microsoft has created a mythical typical user it calls “Abby†who knows very little about computers. It now targets the operating system and browser at this imaginary Abby, potentially leaving the rest of us out in the cold.
I think Microsoft has abandoned the power user because Google has shown that, in the age of Web as platform and software as a service, it’s much more profitable to create applications that err on the side of simplicity — even to the point of significantly limiting user options.
Just look at Gmail, the email program of choice for nearly every early adopter. Customization and other “power user” features (such as integration with other email programs) are nearly non-existent, but still everyone uses it. Why? Search. That one feature is so useful that we put up with all of the other limitations. And Google gets away with it. Google’s new word processor and spreadsheet package are also a bet that less is more.
The Googlization of the software industry may make many applications easier to use — but it may also lead software companies to develop applications based on the belief that less is more in every case. That is a good thing when an application makes it really simply to do what you want — but maybe not so good when the application simply won’t do what you want.
Powered by 
Design by 
I feel like the guy just wants to say:
“99.9% is the world is NOT GEEKS. Get it? N-O-T G-E-E-K-S. They want something simple and robust, we give it to them, we make a mint.”
I agree it’s pity from the power-user point of view. But it’s hard to argue with success.
This is hilariously wrong. Google gave power users an API; Microsoft’s Vista will (finally) have a decent shell. The fact that, on the surface, things are simpler for the end user speaks nothing about how complex the user’s interaction with that software CAN be.
Sounds more like Google and Microsoft are just taking Apple’s approach to computing.
I disagree with what you say that power users are abandoned by Microsoft or not served at all by Google.
I think that Google Search has one big advantage: The search box is enough for searching. Normal users are comfortable with not having unnecessary choice, but power users can find out shortcuts to tweak their search results, getting better and more robust results.
I think it’s good that Google doesn’t give its other search engines (Image, Video, etc.) too much attention, as everything’s integrated with the normal Google Web Search.
If there’s a search term that shows relevant news, I get OneBox-results from Google News. If it thinks there are relevant images, I get OneBox-results form Google Images.
I like that approach, because it makes search easier.
Just because power users have more knowledge of computers, or know better how to handle a web page, it doesn’t mean that everything has to be more complicated.
As with Gmail, I think that early adopters love it not because of search, but simply because of its simple user interface, because it threads e-mails, because it tags them, because its fast and responsive, because it uploads attachments while typing the message, because it has easy key shortcuts, etc.
I use search sometimes and that’s cool, too. But it’s much more that I love about it.
It’s simply rethinking the old model of how to look at e-mails, and this is what everybody loves. Power users as well as the ordinary Joe.
Goran, the rise of the API only demonsrates the point — rather than have that application designer build in the features FOR you, now you have to build any feature that you want yourself. But even that’s not really true — “power users” are not all developers. And the purpose of the API is more about allowing NEW applications to tap into the data, not tweaking the functionaity of the original application.
Sebastian, the whole idea that the simple search box is “enough” represents a sea change. And I don’t think Google is pleased with the lack of adoption of its vertical search — see here. As for Gmail, I guess the beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but the fact remains that Gmail does not allow much customization.
David, I thought Microsoft already took Apple’s approach to computing — twenty years ago. Never really worked out though
HI…I think you bring up some great points. His responses are similar to what every CEO of a dominant company would say about their product…”Gee, Henry, I think what people really want are faster horses.”
Time will tell if there is a better searching method.
The Gmail example is flawed - one of it’s killer features has always been free pop access - if you don’t like the Gmail interface, it’s trivial to use any other client out there. I know more people that use Thunderbird to access it than people who use the web interface (Though personally I love the web interface).
[…] How Has Google Changed the Software Industry? [Publishing 2.0 Blog - 23 Oct 2006 03:32 BST] Google has clearly transformed the software industry’s approach to business models, as evident in the hundreds of online software companes (i.e Web 2.0) planning to “monetize” through advertising. But Google may also be influencing the…[more] […]
Scott, you know it takes Microsoft three tries to get things usable. First came Windows 95, then Microsoft Bob, now we’ll have Vista soon. Wow, that’s a frightening lineage.
Eric, yes, but if I want to use the Gmail interface to manage my corporate email and access my corporate address book, I’m SOL. Forwarding my other email to Gmail just doesn’t cut the mustard. And yet still I use Gmail.
[…] Scott Karp: How Has Google Changed the Software Industry? » Publishing 2.0 […]
Of course, Gmail also offered 10 times more free storage than Yahoo, without subjecting users to intrusive graphical ads (I find the text ads easy to ignore).
And, Gmail offered threaded conversations - something previously popular in forums, but not in email interfaces.
In fact, threaded conversations is a feature that Cooper, in his usability book “The Lunatics are Taking over the Asylum”, cried out for several years ago, but no-one listened - until Google made gmail.
In fact, I think this focus usability is at the heart of Google’s design philosophy. It’s no co-incidence that Jakob Neilsen was one of Google’s early advisers.
Getting back to Cooper’s book - it’s central premise is that the geek culture of the software industry has made it insensitive, if not sadistic, towards “normal” non-geek users. He says this is because geeks design software for other geeks - power users, if you like. But most people aren’t geeks. Most people are like Abby.
7 hours 56 min old Does All Advertising Want to Be Free? 18 hours 35 min old Google Wants To Own the Business of Content 1 day 17 hours old If The Users Are In Control Then Let Them Define Web 2.0 2 days 7 hours old How Has Google Changed the Software Industry? 3 days 6 hours old