Will Google Make the Same Mistake Kodak Did?
Why success under the old rules is the biggest liability in the new game.
We’re living through the biggest shift in web search since Google launched.
Ignore it, and you’ll be left behind.
It’s a paradigm shift.
Paradigm shifts are not gradual improvements. Nor are they sudden, isolated changes. They are foundational resets - shifts in assumptions so deep, they’re often invisible to those benefiting from the old way. They do not merely alter the playing field; they redefine the game itself.
A classic example is Kodak. Once a dominant force in photography, Kodak failed to adapt to the rise of digital cameras. This was not for lack of foresight—the first digital camera prototype was developed by a Kodak engineer in 1975. However, Kodak’s leadership feared that digital would undermine its highly profitable film business.
The idea that photographs could exist without film was, at the time, inconceivable to most. Even after digital cameras became mainstream, remnants of the film-based mindset lingered. For years, people continued to say things like “save a few shots for later” or “develop the roll,” despite using devices with virtually unlimited storage.
Kodak’s mistake was not technical—it was psychological and organizational. It failed to recognize that the assumptions underpinning its business model had become obsolete.
Google may be standing where Kodak once stood—armed with the future, but chained to the past. Its core product—search—is optimized for a behavior that is starting to change. The traditional model assumes a user types a query, receives a ranked list of hyperlinks, and clicks through. This has been the dominant paradigm for two decades. But increasingly, users—especially younger ones—are bypassing traditional search engines altogether. They turn to platforms like TikTok for discovery, Reddit for recommendations, and AI chatbots like ChatGPT for direct answers.
This is more than just a change in interface—it’s a shift in user intent. Instead of navigating information themselves, users increasingly expect synthesized, context-aware responses. This threatens not only Google’s search relevance but also its advertising model, which depends on users clicking through a network of monetized web pages.
Like Kodak, Google possesses the technology that could drive this shift—its AI capabilities are world-class. But paradigm shifts do not wait for quarterly reports or internal alignment. They rewrite the landscape with or without the incumbents. And despite clear warning signs, recognizing such shifts is notoriously difficult—especially from within the very system that stands to lose the most. This brings us to the challenge of recognizing black swan events before it’s too late.
Why Predicting Black Swan Events Is Hard
Black swan events are defined by their rarity, high impact, and retrospective predictability. They are not just unexpected; they often fall outside the scope of what decision-makers consider possible. This makes them difficult to anticipate—particularly for organizations deeply entrenched in a dominant paradigm.
Most institutions rely on models built from past data and incremental trends. These models work well under stable conditions, but they fail when the underlying assumptions change. In the case of Kodak, decades of success with film-based photography reinforced a belief that the core business was unshakable. Similarly, Google has refined and optimized its search engine for over two decades, creating a self-reinforcing loop where past success justifies further investment in the same direction.
Another reason black swan events are difficult to predict is organizational inertia. Even when the signals are visible—such as the rapid adoption of AI assistants or the shift in user behavior toward non-traditional discovery platforms—large organizations often struggle to respond. Internal incentives, legacy systems, and risk-averse cultures discourage radical change.
Moreover, true paradigm shifts often start as fringe behaviors. Early adopters of digital photography or AI chatbots are frequently dismissed as outliers. But in hindsight, these fringe behaviors become leading indicators.
Not all paradigm shifts are Black Swans—but when they catch incumbents off guard, they feel like it. While paradigm shifts and Black Swans share unpredictability, the former often emerge through trend evolution, whereas Black Swans are more disruptive by definition.
The shift happens gradually at first, and then all at once.
The real danger lies not in missing the early signals, but in dismissing them as irrelevant. By the time the change becomes measurable at scale, it is usually too late to react without disruption.
Staying Relevant in a Shifting Landscape
Paradigm shifts and black swan events are inherently unpredictable, making precise forecasting impractical. However, organizations and individuals can prepare by building systems and mindsets designed to adapt and thrive amid uncertainty. Rather than attempting to predict the exact nature of future disruptions, the focus should be on cultivating resilience and flexibility.
A key concept in this regard is antifragility. Unlike robustness, which implies resistance to shocks, antifragility refers to the ability to benefit and improve when exposed to volatility, stress, or disorder.
Companies that embrace antifragility encourage experimentation, tolerate failure, and leverage disruption as an opportunity for growth. Antifragility focuses on learning from stress; the barbell strategy balances extremes to hedge against it.
By fostering internal competition between diverse projects and allowing small-scale failures without risking the core business, organizations can become stronger through change rather than merely surviving it.
Complementing this approach is the barbell strategy, which combines a conservative core with aggressive, high-risk experimentation. For example, maintaining stable, revenue-generating products while simultaneously investing heavily in innovative initiatives provides optionality—the chance to capitalize on emerging paradigms without jeopardizing existing strengths. This dual focus allows organizations to navigate uncertainty by balancing security and exploration.
Closely related to these approaches is the importance of paying attention to signals from the fringe. Paradigm shifts frequently originate from unconventional users, niche communities, or unexpected use cases outside the mainstream focus of established organizations. Monitoring these early indicators—such as emerging AI applications in hobbyist circles or alternative platforms for information discovery—can provide valuable insights into the direction of future change.
By embracing antifragility, applying the barbell strategy, and monitoring signals from the fringe, organizations can better position themselves to remain relevant in an environment defined by rapid, unforeseen transformations.
Antifragility focuses on learning from stress; the barbell strategy balances extremes to hedge against it.
Can Google Adapt in Time?
Kodak had the technology to lead the digital photography revolution. Google has the talent and infrastructure to define the future of AI-driven interaction. But technology alone is not enough. Survival depends on how early and how seriously the shift is recognized—and what actions are taken in response.
That said, the comparison isn’t one-to-one. Unlike Kodak, which clung to its legacy business until it was too late, Google has taken visible steps to adapt. Its “AI-first” strategy is not just rhetoric—AI-generated summaries and contextual enhancements are already being integrated into search results.
Yet preparedness does not guarantee dominance—especially when the pace of change exceeds organizational adaptability.
The company continues to release state-of-the-art language models that consistently perform at or above the level of leading alternatives. Tools like NotebookLM, which enable users to curate information and engage with it in novel ways—such as generating audio-based learning experiences—demonstrate a willingness to rethink user interaction from the ground up.
These moves may not guarantee that Google will dominate the next paradigm, but they increase the odds that it remains a central force in shaping it.
Google's Advantages and Challenges
Advantages:
Infrastructure Scale: Google's computational resources and data access create significant barriers to entry
Talent Density: The company continues to attract top AI researchers and engineers
Ecosystem Integration: Android, Chrome, and other platforms provide multiple touchpoints for AI integration
Financial Resources: Unlike many challengers, Google can afford to invest heavily in long-term R&D without immediate revenue pressure
Challenges:
Revenue Model Dependency: The advertising model creates inherent tension with AI that provides direct answers
Organizational Complexity: Large-scale coordination becomes increasingly difficult as the pace of change accelerates
Regulatory Scrutiny: Antitrust concerns may limit Google's ability to aggressively integrate AI across its ecosystem
Cultural Momentum: Success in search optimization may create blind spots for different interaction paradigms
The Broader Ecosystem Impact
Google's adaptation (or failure to adapt) will have implications far beyond the company itself. The modern internet is architected around Google's indexing and ranking systems. A fundamental shift in how people access information could reshape:
Content Creation: How websites are designed and optimized
Publishing Models: How media companies think about audience development
E-commerce: How products are discovered and compared
Education: How information literacy is taught and practiced
Though not foolproof, these steps suggest Google intends to shape—rather than merely survive—the next digital frontier. The question is not whether Google will survive—it’s whether it will lead the transformation or be transformed by it.
The shift from search to synthesis represents more than a technological upgrade—it’s a fundamental reimagining of how humans and information systems interact. Whether Google becomes the next Kodak depends not just on its technical capabilities, but on its willingness to cannibalize its own success in service of a larger transformation.
The companies that thrive through paradigm shifts don't just adapt to change—they shape it. They recognize that their current success is not a guarantee of future relevance, and they build organizations capable of reinventing themselves before external forces require it.
In an age of accelerating change, the most dangerous assumption is that any competitive advantage is permanent. The future belongs to those who can navigate uncertainty not just by predicting what comes next, but by building the capability to thrive regardless of what emerges.
How This Article Was Born:
This idea came mid-conversation with my friend Srini, during one of our usual deep dives into AI and its impact on search.
I rudely interrupted him, yelling:
“Srini! Srini! Article idea! We must write on paradigm shift on web sesarch”
So, credit where it’s due—Srini’s the kind of mind that sparks ideas on the fly.
He writes at BuildRobotz, and if you’re into AI, Robots, tech, and where the world’s headed, you’ll want to follow his work.
 | A guest post by
|