---
title: "Comment of the Day: Google Vulnerable, But Not From Lack of Features"
date: 2008-02-21
author: "Richard MacManus"
categories:
  - name: "ReadWriteWeb"
    url: "/category/readwriteweb.md"
tags:
  - name: "2008"
    url: "/tag/2008.md"
---

# Comment of the Day: Google Vulnerable, But Not From Lack of Features

![](https://web.archive.org/web/20090104152831im_/http://www.readwriteweb.com/images/comments_comp_gold_star.jpg)We had a lot of great comments today, but the winner is from our post [How Vulnerable is Google on Search?](https://web.archive.org/web/20090104152831/http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/how_vulverable_is_google_on_se.php). The premise was that Google hasn’t changed search in 7 or 8 years, so they are vulnerable to search innovators – like the companies profiled at [AltSearchEngines](https://web.archive.org/web/20090104152831/http://altsearchengines.com/). Gabe Morris agreed with the premise, but he argued that it has little to do with Google’s lack of features. Well done Gabe, you’ve won a $30 Amazon voucher – courtesy of our competition sponsors AdaptiveBlue and their [Amazon WishList Widget](https://web.archive.org/web/20090104152831/http://www.adaptiveblue.com/widgets_auto.html?section=amz&name=Your%20Wish%20List). Here is Gabe’s [full comment](https://web.archive.org/web/20090104152831/http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/how_vulverable_is_google_on_se.php#comment-47342):

> ![](https://web.archive.org/web/20090104152831im_/http://www.readwriteweb.com/images/google150.jpg)“Marshall – I agree with your overall point. Google is vulnerable in search. Every technology-based company is vulnerable. It’s a truism (albeit one that needs to be repeated whenever overwrought fears surface related to the Borg Du Jour)… There’s a reason the best performing stock over the last 50 years is, I believe, Phillip Morris/Altria, makers of a product whose technology has remained virtually unchanged over that time period.
> 
> So while I agree with you about the overall vulnerability of Google, I don’t agree with Doc Searls’ rant at all.
> 
> “There are so many ways search can be improved… There’s so many ways to granulate search and make it conditional and do a much better job.”
> 
> I think a chapter in “Getting Real” serves as a good riposte to that (excerpted at length below).
> 
> Finally, to respond more practically to Mr. Searls, I think that in the future Google will continue to expand the Google Custom Search product to precisely enable “the many ways to granulate search and make it conditional”.
> 
> —[http://gettingreal.37signals.com/ch04\_Make\_Opinionated\_Software.php](https://web.archive.org/web/20090104152831/http://gettingreal.37signals.com/ch04_Make_Opinionated_Software.php)
> 
> “Some people argue software should be agnostic. They say it’s arrogant for developers to limit features or ignore feature requests. They say software should always be as flexible as possible.
> 
> We think that’s bullshit. The best software has a vision. The best software takes sides. When someone uses software, they’re not just looking for features, they’re looking for an approach. They’re looking for a vision. Decide what your vision is and run with it.
> 
> And remember, if they don’t like your vision there are plenty of other visions out there for people. Don’t go chasing people you’ll never make happy.”
> 
> I could have thrown a dart at any chapter in Getting Real and it would have been just as relevant to exposing the weakness in DS’s rant.”

*Originally published on ReadWriteWeb ([archived copy](https://web.archive.org/web/20020204040018/http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/red_hat_sends_cd_to_dataportab.php))*