Unless Jamie Fox someday starts giving speeches about Django framework, this sounds like a pretty weak excuse to use a google-style (i.e. 'personalised') search engine.
> I think option 1 is more likely for Apple.
Google's business model is basically selling aggregated user data - not in the form of raw data but in the form of targeted ads - for $0 (note, they aren't "free") services.
Apple's business model is about selling hardware and software, and providing a fairly complete ecosystem to use those products in/with.
Given that Apple's iOS+ecosystem accounts for close to 90% of the profits in the smartphone market, I don't understand this claim by people "Apple will have to adopt google's strategy to remain competitive".
If anything people are becoming more sensitive and more aware about the "creepy" factor of having all your personal information in the hands of some corporation that uses it for profit.
Well, the search engine I'm using not being able to find what I'm looking for is also a not a good thing.
I quite like DuckDuckGo, but 10% of the time DuckDuckGo falters on a search and I have to put in a '!g'. Clearly, you can't be the absolute no. 1 search engine accross almost all queries without using some degree of personalisation.
As for a search bubble, Google and DuckDuckGo just take two highly opposing views. In reality, I'd love to be able to turn personalised search on and off at will, but neither DuckDuckGo or Google are going to let me do that any time soon.
I don't get the argument being presented there. In either situation, some information is visible, and other information is buried. Presenting the same top results to everyone is just as bad of a bubble.
> everyone seeing the same results for the same search terms is inherently not a "bubble"
Sure it is; the difference is its a search-provider-specific bubble, rather than a user-specific bubble. Both isolate you from information which exists and potentially distort your view of reality.
Its analogous to the difference provided by the information bubbles provided from the (highly-selective, often-biased-in-the-same-way, rather homogenous) mainstream media in the pre-internet era and those provided by the much more heterogenous, audience-specific online media outlets from which people increasingly get news today.
Sure it is. Everyone's exposed to the "average" person's top 10 or so results. With personalized results, potentially millions of different pages are exposed as the top 10 or so results depending on who's searching.
You get stuff that's a little more relevant to your usual interests, which places you in your own bubble, but IMO that's better than everyone in the world being in the same shared bubble.
I don't think you understand the term "search bubble". It's a bubble because you're cut off from the rest of the world, like the boy in the bubble.
The only way everyone getting the same results is a "bubble" is if you consider us living within the atmosphere of Earth as being in a "bubble".
> You get stuff that's a little more relevant to your usual interests
Did you even read the linked page?
Claiming that getting results that are in-line with your pre-disposed ideas (which are expressed through the profile Google/etc have of you) is like claiming that a board of directors full of yes-men is a great recipe for success.
> It's a bubble because you're cut off from the rest of the world, like the boy in the bubble.
Everyone getting the same narrow set of search results for a term based on global popularity means everyone's cut off from more diverse search results. We've seen research that indicates people click only the top couple results. IMO, that's a big bubble.
> Claiming that getting results that are in-line with your pre-disposed ideas (which are expressed through the profile Google/etc have of you) is like claiming that a board of directors full of yes-men is a great recipe for success.
And giving everyone the same results is like having a single board of directors for everyone.
I have duck duck go set as my default, but when I want to get something specific and quickly, I often have to use the "g!" option. DDG works well for more "mainstream" searches but for niche stuff the results are not as good.
That isn't a good thing. http://dontbubble.us
Unless Jamie Fox someday starts giving speeches about Django framework, this sounds like a pretty weak excuse to use a google-style (i.e. 'personalised') search engine.
> I think option 1 is more likely for Apple.
Google's business model is basically selling aggregated user data - not in the form of raw data but in the form of targeted ads - for $0 (note, they aren't "free") services.
Apple's business model is about selling hardware and software, and providing a fairly complete ecosystem to use those products in/with.
Given that Apple's iOS+ecosystem accounts for close to 90% of the profits in the smartphone market, I don't understand this claim by people "Apple will have to adopt google's strategy to remain competitive".
If anything people are becoming more sensitive and more aware about the "creepy" factor of having all your personal information in the hands of some corporation that uses it for profit.