Google Hasn't Killed Anyone

Last week, Google announced Knol, a site that allows trusted authors to create content around specific subjects. As with anything Google does, the media leapt to crown Knol as the next big thing since the domestication of fire.

Hell, just look at what Steve Rubel said: Wikipedia and Wikia are Dead. Google Just Killed Them

I have posted before about my ire over any article that uses the words "Google" and "Killer" in the same sentence. (Start here, for an overview.) Usually, it's the media trying to crown some new search engine as a "Google killer," but in this case it's in Google's favor. It doesn't matter though, because it's still crap.

Anyone saying Knol will be a Wiki-killer must not know much about Knol or Wikipedia. Knol isn't and won't be a Wikipedia killer. Saying Knol is a Wikipedia killer is like saying the Segway is a Ford killer. Sure, they both have wheels, but that's about it.

Knol and Wikipedia are not the same thing. If anything, Knol is more like Squidoo, About.com, or even iVillage. But the media will try to tie Knol-Pedia together in a knot because it makes for a better article.

Let's also be clear about one thing. Google has only created one application that ever "killed" anything -- the search algorithm. There were plenty of search engines before Google, now there are only three others of mention - Yahoo, MSN, and Ask. Other than that, no other Google product has ever put fear into anyone.

Let's review:

• Orkut didn't hurt MySpace or Friendster (Friendster killed itself). When Facebook launched, Orkut wasn't worth a second thought. But hey, Orkut is the most popular site in Brazil, so maybe they are onto something.
• People continue to flock to Yahoo Answers, while Google Answers died a slow death and was eventually shut down.
• GMail didn't harm Hotmail, Yahoo Mail, or any other free email application. In fact the other free email applications didn't even bother to copy anything from Gmail. It seems to be the other way around. Yahoo added in an IM/Chat function into their mail application months ago. But when Google (copied) did it a few weeks ago, it received much press.
• Google Talk was launched with lots of press coverage and fan fair. But it's usage is tiny and has never budged. It hasn't come close to "killing" Yahoo IM, AOL IM, or for that fact MSN Messenger.
• Google Docs was touted as an "Office Killer". (See here and here, for two of many examples.) All these months later, where are all the stories about Microsoft's falling market share for Office? Even after the addition of a presentation portion of Google Docs, it is still a poor version of StarOffice, not Microsoft Office. (I wonder if anyone referred to Google's Presentation addition as a PowerPoint Killer? ... oh, dear lord!)
• Google Checkout has not slowed down PayPal.
• Google purchased Blogger.com a long time ago, and is still the "not Typepad or Wordpress" application for blogging.
• Google's Universal Search gets lots of press. But Ask.com did it months beforehand, and did it much, much better.

I could go on, but I don't need to.

I will, however, agree with one thing Steve Rubel said.

The search engine will prioritize content from its own system and rank the most credible articles more highly than anything in the open source encyclopedia.

He is correct about that. When Google acquired YouTube, suddenly YouTube videos were elevated in the rankings much higher than ever before, whereas videos from any other source are rarely, if ever, shown. To me, that sounds like something Microsoft would do.