qqq stock: what we know Tag

Is Google Search Dying a Slow, Painful Death? Not Quite Yet.

The internet is awash with claims that Google Search is circling the drain. Declining quality, algorithm tweaks that bury useful results, and the rise of AI-powered alternatives are all cited as evidence. But before we write its obituary, let's look at the data.

It's true that anecdotal evidence abounds. Spend five minutes on Twitter (or X, or whatever it's called this week) and you'll find plenty of complaints about search results being clogged with AI-generated fluff, affiliate links, and SEO-optimized garbage. People are frustrated, and that frustration is loud. But frustration doesn't always translate to a mass exodus.

The Data Tells a Different Story

Google's search market share, while not absolute, remains dominant. Statcounter puts it consistently above 90% worldwide. That's a staggering figure. Even in the US, where competition from Bing and DuckDuckGo is strongest, Google still commands roughly 55-60% of the market. So, while people say they're unhappy, they're still using Google.

Now, market share alone doesn't tell the whole story. We need to look at engagement. Are people searching less? Are they finding what they need faster (or not at all)? This is where the data gets murkier. Google stopped regularly reporting detailed search query data years ago. Third-party estimates vary, and frankly, they're often based on questionable methodologies.

But here's something interesting I noticed: look at Google's revenue. Alphabet's most recent earnings report shows continued growth in advertising revenue, which is, of course, heavily tied to search. If people weren't clicking on ads (because they weren't finding relevant results), that revenue wouldn't be growing. The growth was about 3%—to be more exact, 2.7%.

The AI Factor: Threat or Hype?

The emergence of AI-powered search tools like ChatGPT and Bing's AI integration has undoubtedly shaken things up. These tools offer a different approach: conversational queries, summarized answers, and a (claimed) reduction in the need to sift through endless links.

The hype is undeniable. But let's be realistic. AI search is still in its early stages. It's prone to hallucinations (making up facts), it struggles with nuanced queries, and it often lacks the depth of information you can find through traditional search. (And this is the part of the report that I find genuinely puzzling: how can you trust an AI that confidently asserts falsehoods?)

Consider the analogy of the self-driving car. For years, we've been promised that autonomous vehicles are just around the corner. Yet, here we are, still mostly driving ourselves. AI search faces similar hurdles. It's a promising technology, but it's not a Google killer—at least, not yet.

The crucial question isn’t whether AI search is possible, but whether it’s better. Does it consistently deliver more accurate, relevant, and comprehensive results than Google? The data is still out on that one. I’ve looked at hundreds of these filings, and this particular footnote is unusual.

Don't Bury Google Just Yet