Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

While your thesis may be correct, some of your assumptions are a bit off:

1) Bing has stopped investing in travel tech, they now use Kayak for search. So do we still believe in the value prop?

2) Farecast (fare predictor) turns out to be not very valuable. So much so, that Bing couldn't even sustain development of their own search tool. Can Google do a better job of it? Maybe. Can they do a good enough job of if that it's ROI positive? I'm skeptical.

I agree that Google believes many of your assertions. I don't agree that this makes it true. Do people really need more sophisticated travel search functionality? Sure, you can imagine lots of cool stuff -- bells and whistles. But ask Kayak if their "Explore" feature (perhaps a lite version of what you can imagine Google doing with ITA) drives their business? I'd argue it's neat, good for branding and loyalty, but not at the end of the day, a major source of value.

That being said -- the key thesis of: Google trying to hold onto relevance in travel search -- is true. However, they are still pretty much a one-horse show (search revenue), and travel is one of (if not the) biggest vertical today.



Microsoft butchered Farecast, it never really had a chance there.


Citations?

I didn't know Bing was using Kayak now, and Farecast has been quite useful for me (fairly accurate) in the past.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: