Five reasons no one will replace Google

The point is not to replace Google, but to change the rules so Google's strengths are neutralized. I didn't dream this up, it's straight from Clayton Christensen. Since nobody knows what the next rule changes will take effect, anyone can be replaced insofar as any company can have only a limited number of strengths, no matter how much they're diversified.

No one ever said anything like this about IBM or Microsoft. This time I'm sure the empire will stay _forever_.

A linkjack from Valleywag in 2006 [http://valleywag.com/tech/google/five-reasons-no-one-will-re...]?

Anyway, companies as big and brilliant as Google don't fail, exactly. They create ecosystems that can keep chugging along for years, as their armies of geniuses build up layer after layer of mind-bogglingly profitable infrastructure. Then one day they wake up and realize the market's moved to something else and they'd have to dismantle everything to compete. Few companies survive that phase.

It is fascinating to me that Google's main campus block (buildings 40-43) is just a part of the old SGI campus. And there really were more than 43 buildings built by SGI. They were occupying them even into the early years of Google's ascendancy, wondering why these Google kids didn't have to pay for their lunch.

Their reasons:

- Google knows semantics

- Google has the smartest people in the world

- Google has Marissa Mayer

- Google is filthy rich

- Google says it's working on AI

- Google is not distracted

Hmm.. that's six reasons.. perhaps they should come on in again?

As a Googler, I want to say that I don't agree with a single statement in this article.

Things like "Google says it's working on AI" represents a fundamental misunderstanding of what AI is.

Survey: Will Google become self-aware first or will it be able to let you find the missing socks you lost in the laundry?