On the drive into work today, the CBC had an interview with Corey Doctorow about Google, which is attracting an increasing amount of negative attention. This includes a story in the New York Times yesterday that looked at how even large companies such as Wal-Mart are adopting a wary approach to Google's growing economic presence and strength. When Doctorow was asked what Google might look like in 10 years, he quasi-ducked the question by suggesting the need for an open-source search engine that would give people an alternative to Google. He also mentioned his hope that new search engines will emerge to attack Google's dominance.  The biggest problem that I see is whether there's a legitimate opportunity for a "new" Google to establish a foothold. In other words, is there a Firefox out there that can be different and good enough to grab 10% of the market? At this point, I just don't see how Google can be knocked off its perch. If Yahoo and Microsoft are still battling it out for second and third place, how can a new entrant have any chance? Of course, I thought Hotbot and Alta Vista owned the search engine market a few years ago - and they're almost out of the picture now. Google's biggest strength is the widespread acceptance  it offers the best service - an "asset" that keeps people from even trying Lycos, Teoma or All the Web. To test this theory, I'm taking a personal vow not to use Google this week. I know it's a tough addiction but I think I have the internal fortitude to do it - wish me luck anyway.

Another thought about Google is how it is increasing been as evil despite its "Don't be evil" corporate motto. Among the hot buttons are privacy issues, copyright concerns, and sudden changes in search algorithmics and advertising policies. It's almost like Google is becoming the new Microsoft in which a dominant market player starts to attract detractors even though most of these people use their products. It's like hockey fans in Toronto used to boo Bobby Orr even though he was the sport's best player. This must be a difficult strategic balancing act for Google because it has no choice but to press ahead aggressively to maintain its dominance. This will, no doubt, ruffle some feathers but when the competition is only a click away, there is no room for complacency or a half-assed strategic approach.
Update: Just came across a recent post by Nicholas Carr who argues base Internet search has become a commodity, and that Google has lost its lead. It's certainly a provocative position that does little to explain why Google is such a stronger player even though it the pain of switching to a rival search engine is low.