![]() ![]() That allows it to programmatically pick ads it thinks are likely to be relevant and interesting to you based on the sorts of stuff you've looked at over time. That profile then determines which ads you see around the web - in a completely programmatic and privacy-conscious way.Ĭritically, Google uses such data only internally and as part of an automated system. Whereas competing companies would like us to believe the search giant is dangling our most sensitive data out to anyone who'll cough up cash for it, in actuality, all that's happening is that Google is using your search and web browsing activity to develop a private profile of your interests. We've talked about the Google privacy perception vs. By and large, the issue is more theoretical than practical. In reality - and in a sharp contrast to the misleading marketing campaigns constructed by companies that stand to profit from that manner of messaging - Google doesn't do anything shady or particularly problematic with data. That sounds plenty nice on the surface, right? I mean, really: Who wouldn't want more privacy - or to avoid having their data gobbled up by the Big Tech Monster and shared with the highest bidder?īut that's where the problem with the Neeva model begins. And so you, as an enlightened appreciator of optimal technology, should see enough value in that to be willing to shell out six clams a month to have it. And that's exactly what makes the service's failure so fascinating.įor context, Neeva's primary pitch revolved around the fact that it provided capital-P Privacy™ in a way Google did not. The model is admirable enough, and it certainly played into the current marketing-driven frenzy around privacy and in particular Google's practices in that area. It cost six bucks a month for that privilege. If you never used Neeva - and statistically speaking, odds are, you probably didn't - the service's primary selling point and raison d'etre was to offer a Google-like search experience that emphasized privacy and didn't include ads. In this instance, though, I can't help but wonder if there's a broader message to be considered about Neeva's core purpose and the crux of its pitch to online search consumers. In any field, competition is a good thing for us as end users, and it's always a shame to see a promising new challenger call in quits. According to the website The Information, that firm has now signed a letter of intent to buy Neeva, with the goal of turning its product into a mere feature that'd give Snowflake clients a more effective way of "search for information in internal documents and data." Signs suggest Neeva's new area of focus could involve selling its underlying technology to a database software company called Snowflake. As a result, over the next few weeks, we will be shutting down and our consumer search product and shifting to a new area of focus. These headwinds, combined with the different economic environment, have made it clear that there is no longer a path towards creating a sustainable business in consumer search. Contrary to popular belief, convincing users to pay for a better experience was actually a less difficult problem compared to getting them to try a new search engine in the first place. From the unnecessary friction required to change default search settings, to the challenges in helping people understand the difference between a search engine and a browser, acquiring users has been really hard. We’ve discovered that it is one thing to build a search engine and an entirely different thing to convince regular users of the need to switch to a better choice.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |