[simbalion]

I agree with what you've said but I wanted to add that there is room for improvement on Google's model. For example, selling page 1 results is unfair, but that is something google does.

I think DuckDuckGo is an example of how Google's methodology can be refined and improved upon, specifically by not spying on users. It's a subtle improvement, but I find the results I receive are actually superior and more relevant than Google's, plus I don't have to worry about who is watching my traffic.

[FT_intern]

I don't think it's sustainable to not spy on users or to not serve ads. Keeping user data adds to relevancy and if there is no revenue, there are no relevancy engineers.

[simbalion]

That might be true, but web-search is an absolutely vital service for cultural health in the information age, like the telephone system used to be.

Every search engine does sell ads, which seems to be working for them all so far. If that ever stops working, we might see web-search become a public utility funded by tax dollars.

[paulcole]

> plus I don't have to worry about who is watching my traffic.

Millions of people (myself included) use google and don't worry about this already. Online privacy isn't an issue (or a deal breaking feature) for the overwhelming majority of people.

DuckDuckGo may get niche business because their privacy stance, but it's not going to help them unseat Google.

[simbalion]

No you are right. It will be Google's continued inching toward a revised "do evil whenever it's profitable" business model that is going to unseat google. I mentioned DuckDuckGo because it seems it would be most likely to take the top search spot if Google were to die today.