Searching for a few search technologies

I got this email blurb this afternoon:

The long-awaited arrival of heavyweight Google to the desktop-search arena came last week, as the firm unveiled its free technology. But the consensus appears to be that start-ups already operating in the field - such as X1 Technologies and Blinkx - won't be too affected, although companies looking to break into the area may now have a much tougher time.
Existing start-ups cite a number of reasons for their optimism. For one, they say their search technology is better. Blinkx points out that its technology is active, rather than passive, while X1 says its technology can search types of files that Google's can't yet. They also point to niche markets that remain ripe for exploitation: Google's tool is aimed at general consumers, leaving the enterprise market wide-open...

I could not disagree more. I have downloaded and started to use the Google desktop search, and:

- It works
- It's well integrated, the integration with the Google bar that was already there is great...
- It's fast; much faster than my old MS desktop search...
- It's free

Yes, it does not work with all type of file, but I’m sure it will improve though time, and as far as I’m concern (as a far as my small company is concern...) we are pretty happy with the Google search, and you would have to provide significant incremental functionality (at no cost, since the other one is free) to convinced me to move. If you also consider that the other big guys will sooner or later move into that field, it will put a lot of elephant on the small path that X1 and Copernicus and the other small guys were treading one... ... so unless they are smoking, they better worry, and worry a lot (contrary to what the email said today)

Good coverage on the Google tools can be found on the Jason Calacanis, googleblog, Om Malik, and John Battelle

I'm happy to see i'm not the only one that does not buy the it valides our market crap...

On a similar note, good posting on how VC money is searching search technology in the wrong place, I agree that VC teams are fooling themself if they think they can be successful by funding yet-another-taxonomy-builder company (when the KM field is litter with dead or half-dead companies (we at RVC try to build a few, we successful in several cases, and not in others...), but i'm not sure where Tom thinks VC money should go?

Comments

[julien]

100% with you

[Tom Foremski]

Thank you for the mention of my Google piece.

BTW, I am in a bit of a quandry, because if I say where the VC investments should be going, I might be giving away too much!

I'm sorry to be such a tease, but, you'll have to keep reading. I promise, it will be worth it!