As closing arguments of the Google Search trial proceed, there are two things I would like to flag.
First, the way in which search works on the web is stuck in the 90s. We need not stay there and can imagine alternatives (that aren't crappy AI): https://berjon.com/fixing-search/.
@robin Just wanted to say I really enjoyed the article, and think your outlining of how the dynamic has shifted between content production and search providers was succinct and super insightful!
I'm not entirely sure if I agree that engines providing APIs are big part of the solution. Brave, Bing, Mojeek, etc.. all have search APIs and I don't think integrating them in the browser would greatly change the dynamic you describe (and if it did, I suspect APIs would suddenly be turned off).
@jszym Glad you enjoyed it and it's of course perfectly fine to disagree, my goal is to hopefully trigger some thinking!
Note that:
Bing having an API has helped some alternatives emerge.
It's impossible for anyone to make any kind of dent so long as Google is allowed to just buy the market. Everything in that post assumes that that has to change first (by legal intervention most likely).
APIs are useful as part of a bigger solution, notably that there is no other browser default.
@jszym 4) I don't think the APIs would disappear if that's the primary way in which a search engine can make money. Keep in mind that browser defaults matter a lot.
5) The new UX that APIs enable (and that browsers are largely not allowed to do under the current system) could IMHO be a game changer, and can't happen without them. It would be worth prototyping to show it.
And second, the default slot and royalties deals have a dreadful effect on competition, the web, and society, but some of the money levied that way is deployed usefully and we should preserve that.
Add comment