Shortly before the age of two, the creators of the Neeva search enginewhich promised to be a paid, privacy-focused alternative to Google search, has announced that it ceases its activity practically immediatelyFounded, according to Computerworld, by two former Google executives, has already stopped working, according to an announcement that has not made too much noise.
According to its creators, “It is one thing to develop a search engine, and quite another to convince regular users to switch to a better option. From the unnecessary inconvenience of changing the default search settings, to the problems in helping people understand the difference between a search engine and a browser, getting users has been really difficult. Contrary to what it seems, convincing users to pay for a better experience was, in fact, a less complicated problem than making them try a new search engine.«.
These problems, coupled with a different economic environment than the one they thought they would have when they started their project, have made it clear to Neeva’s team that there is no future in the search for a sustainable business model in the consumer search industry.
Shortly after confirming the closure of the browser, the database software company Snowflake confirmed that it intended to buy Neeva, with the aim of converting its product into a function to offer customers of its products a more efficient way. search for information in documents and internal data. He hasn’t waited long to do it. The purchase is now complete, and the Neeva team has joined Snowflake
For those who have never used Neeva, that is, the majority of Internet users, judging by their numbers, its strength and raison d’être was to offer a search experience similar to that of Google but with a focus on privacy, and without including advertising, in exchange for a subscription of six dollars a month.
Their approach, therefore, was to pay for more privacy than with Google. But that is precisely where his problems begin. Because, again, theory is not the same as practice, and practice has to do with Google’s perception of privacy and what it actually is. Many Internet companies and entities want to convince users that Google sells users’ most private and sensitive data to anyone who pays for it. But in reality, Google doesn’t do anything with that data that is particularly problematic.
What Google does is use users’ search and web browsing activity to develop a private profile of their interests. This profile is then the one that determines what advertising appears to those users while they browse, programmatically and respecting the privacy of their most personal data.
Google ensures that it only uses the data internally, and as part of an automated system. This system programmatically chooses advertising that it believes will be relevant and of interest to a specific user, based on what they have been seeing over time. It acts in this way instead of randomly serving you advertising that in principle has nothing to do with what concerns or interests you.
Therefore, this non-targeted advertising would be, on the one hand, less useful and interesting for the user, and on the other, less effective in terms of performance. Of course, Google also does this to make money and offer services to its users for free. Neeva’s problem, therefore, seems to have been there: it’s one thing for people not to like their habits being used to send them advertising, and quite another to get them to change those habits.
In addition, when using Neeva, it would not be possible to appreciate that the results obtained when searching with its engine were much better than those obtained with Google. In fact, they were very similar, so many of its users must have concluded that having personalized advertising in exchange for looking for free information was not such a problem that they would pay six dollars a month not to see ads with similar results. .
Privacy, yes, is very important when it comes to protecting personal data from applications and services that sell and share information in even unknown ways, something that may be due in many cases to the software integrated into a mobile phone and not to Google. But paying for not receiving programmatic advertising, which happens with the Google search engine, is another issue, much more complicated to fit for a conventional user. In those cases, you have to offer something in return that sets you apart.
Neeva hasn’t made it, even though began a few months ago to integrate Artificial Intelligence into its search offer. This even led its users to think that it was a reaction to current trends and not a distinctive feature of the server. Because the rest of the search engines began more or less around the same dates to incorporate AI into their systems. Neeva’s central proposition, moreover, remained focused on privacy and a lack of trust in advertising.
Google, of course, is not invincible, and Neeva is just a small company that hasn’t quite achieved its goal. But his story makes it clear that advertising alone may not be able to convince people to change their search engine and also pay to use one.
