Google (NASDAQ: GOOG) had a very busy 2007 -- initiatives and projects, product launches and a furious growth rate that kept analysts guessing every single quarter. With so much going on at the world's most popular internet search engine, will Google lose focus on the bread-n-butter machine of its revenue -- web searches?

If Google would pour as much focus and resources into all its products as it does the constant refinements it gives its search-related advertising, the company would have many revenue legs to stand on (most likely). However, Google has a history of launching products to see how they do before dedicating too many resources to it. After all, it took years for text advertising on Google searches to produce billions in quarterly revenue. The more products prove themselves, the more attention they get.

What other products from Google will get more and more attention in 2008? The New York Times says that Google could eventually control 80% to 90% of internet searches, up from today's sub-70% level. Can Google really attain search engine growth to attain complete and utter domination of search?

If not, where are supplemental revenues going to come from? Google is lining up products to fill this void, but it can't lose focus on its core search business, even for a nanosecond. To fuel all the growth and the massive product launches from the company, the revenue will have to be there. Right now, that's all search -- and it must continue to be Google's main focus in everything it does.

It continues to seem that no company can catch Google Inc. (NASDAQ: GOOG) in the online advertising space. The company -- whose name is a verb now -- has a majority of the search market for web-based advertising and it will be nearly impossible for any company to make a dent in that system with the current business models used by the competitors. Yahoo! Inc.'s (NASDAQ: YHOO) new Project Panama won't do it and Microsoft Corp.'s (NASDAQ: MSFT) AdCenter will not either. Both of these competitors have basically duplicated the biggest pieces of Google's strategy, but great companies are not overthrown by copycats, but by market disruptors.

Microsoft is no spring chicken here -- the company has a very decent search advertising system to compete in the market with, but even the world's largest software company can't catch Google's huge and first-mover lead here. What can Microsoft do? Become more relevant in the field for niche information search requests, that's what.

Would Microsoft partner with high-traffic sites like job search property Monster.com or Technorati.com? If it can't start eking out more share against Google in the general Internet search market, it may have little choice other than to adopt a different strategy, since competing head-on with the Google folks isn't working. That kind of move would not be necessarily bad, either. I'm quite sure PepsiCo Inc. (NYSE: PEP) likes being a market follower to The Coca-Cola Co. (NYSE: KO), and Pepsi's niche approach to creating a whole universe of beverages for every need has won it sales accolades. Perhaps Microsoft (and Yahoo!) should be thinking up the same road here.

Today's New York Times [registration required] suggests that a lawyer at the U.S. Department of Justice may have acted as though he was still on Microsoft Corp.'s (NASDAQ: MSFT) legal team. His memo to state attorney generals encouraged them to dismiss a private lawsuit filed by Google, Inc. (NASDAQ: GOOG) which alleges that Microsoft's Vista operating system effectively crippled Google's desktop search program.

The official, Thomas O. Barnett, an assistant attorney general, had until 2004 been Vice Chairman of the antitrust department at Covington & Burling, the law firm that has represented Microsoft in several antitrust disputes including its 1998 antitrust dispute involving Netscape -- now a subsidiary of Time Warner, Inc. (NYSE: TWX).

Google's lawsuit contends that Microsoft's competing desktop search program slows down Google's desktop search tool. Google's suit alleges that this market conduct is in violation of Microsoft's 2002 consent degree that prohibits Microsoft from designing operating systems that limit the choices of consumers.

Is Google, Inc.(NASDAQ: GOOG) taking on so much power that it has no choice but to become an "evil empire" in opposition of its corporate mantra, "don't be evil?" Some think so. Google's partnerships to extend its advertising business into every angle of commerce and media format is well documented by now. Not only that, its latest string of high-profile acquisitions tells the tale of a company not just wanting to compete for viewer eyeballs, but dominate every single market that involves them.

Why is this? It's still my contention that Google's goal is to become the largest advertising network on the planet. It will do this so it can receive a cut of every transaction (as a middleman), which promises to smash revenues and profits of just about every company I can imagine. Note that this will not happen overnight (it's just starting now), and Google has a tough fight ahead with various governments, just like Microsoft Corp. (NASDAQ: MSFT) has had because of the power it wields.

But an "evil empire?" I'm not sure I agree that Google is "slowly sucking the life out of the mainstream publishing business, and along with it the profession of journalism." Google does make it easy to find content in a very non-preferential way (that's simplifying a very complex problem), and therefore contributes to the democratization of global information on everything as a result. If that ever changes (and there are plenty of watching eyes), Google will indeed become an evil empire. Is information really of less value now that Google controls access to so much of it? What do you think? Information is information regardless of access -- but does the value of it change when access to it changes?

Ask.com, the web search service that is owned and operated by IAC/InterActive Corp. (NASDAQ: IACI), has been fighting the good fight over the last year with a television, print and radio campaign that practically begs consumers to give its search service a try instead of just defaulting to Google Inc. (NASDAQ: GOOG)

While Yahoo! Inc. (NASDAQ: YHOO) and Microsoft Corp. (NASDAQ: MSFT) are also competitors, Ask.com has chosen to focus its competitive stirrings directly on Google.

I use Ask.com every day, as some of the features the service provides are actually more intuitive and easier for my line of work that what Google can provide, something I wrote about about this time last year. But I use Google the majority of the time, like most web searchers.

Ask.com's search market share really has not made significant strides against Google lately, although it has grown a bit. The company is again targeting Google with a revamped and enhanced search page that is designed to get more people using Ask.com's service.

In fact, the services that Ask.com is now highlighting look like they were taken from Google's recent "Universal Search" play book. While it's a joy to use Ask.com every day, the company's battle to win more market share will never be easy. Google's brand recognition alone will be nearly impossible for any competitor to topple.

That's not to say Ask.com can't make gains (nor Yahoo! or Microsoft). The only unfortunate part is that even building an equal or semi-equal product does not guarantee customers will dump a competitor to come to you.

In one of the first public attempts by Google Inc. (NASDAQ: GOOG) to give customers incredibly customized information, the web search leader is poised to build the strongest database yet of detailed human behavior. How does it do this? By storing web searches (and for news, video, etc.) and preferences for its customers. Then, it will take that information to build a model of each Google customer and use that expansive material to give customers advice on making important decisions about their own lives.

Google CEO Eric Schmidt was heard saying, "The goal is to enable Google users to ask questions such as 'What shall I do tomorrow?' and 'What job shall I take?'" -- and that says it all. Google's aim is to be the first artificially intelligent and global network that "knows" about its customers from every angle and can suggest things to them on a personal and custom scale. Is Google becoming the Skynet of the Terminator films? Hardly, but the goal of the company is to enable the most relevant information and render it when needed. Right now, that realm sits squarely in web search, but is expanding rapidly.

Google has already showed (profitably, I might add) that if it can engage the customer in a non-intrusive way and suggest things (advertisements) that fit the customer, then the customer will respond ... and respond ... and respond. Will customers care that Google has so much personal information on their online habits? If it helps those customers be more productive and eases the load on life because of an "information-available-anywhere" type of approach, perhaps not.

Google's unveiling of "universal search" last week meant that its search customers could now see results from web searches not only in terms of related website results, but from video and news sources as well. Previously, Google (NASDAQ: GOOG) had not combined search results into a single "one-stop shop" for search customers (who had to visit more Google sites). Well, that is no longer the case. Just perform a search at www.google.com and look at how the results are presented, along with the navigation at the top of your screen.

With all the mess some news websites and companies have given Google in the past, it may get a little worse for Google now that search customers can "find" news articles and related information from news-based websites much more easily than before. Although Google News doesn't "publish" a thing, some have sued Google because it includes (not steals) content from news websites all over the web. I've never heard of an encyclopedia company being sued, nor Wikipedia. But, Google is a target precisely because of how large and popular it is. Information democratization is just not in the vocabulary of some.

Now, news stories and such have appeared in standard Google search results for quite a while now. But, with "News" being right there -- front and center -- as a search resource, will the company see more action in terms of so-called "copyright infringement"? Most likely, yes. Smart news-based websites realize that partnering with Google is great for business (when done correctly), and the "old guard" realizes that fighting off readers is probably not good for business. "Walled gardens" are being torn down and that will not stop. Google will see to that, and for the term "information superhighway" to continue meaning anything, progress needs to move forward, right?

Google Inc. (NASDAQ: GOOG) continues to try to integrate its internet search with its other services. The search giant wants its search user base to use the other services Google offers. To do just that, the company has announced that it has combined its different internet search services into one Universal Search service. What will that do, you may ask? In addition to the regular expected search results from a customer's query, it will also present results from other Google's properties including news, blogs, video and other services Google offers.

You can see it now if you subscribe to Google's services -- there is a new, combined "More" drop-down box that lists Google's search methods in a rather long list. So, if you're searching for "Bill Gates" at www.google.com, you'll now see results from the web, from news websites, from blogs, from Google Video entries (YouTube as well) and other Google services.

This gets customers used to seeing search results in several of Google's lairs, with the intent that those customers will, over time, begin using those service. This should come as no surprise as Google tries to get its internet search customers to use the plethora of other services the company now offers. As more customers use the new Universal Search, the more relevant the advertising becomes (according to Google) as the company learns the fine threads about how, where and why customers search for information across all facets of the Google network. That, in turn, will lead to more click-throughs on ads, which is what Google is really after.

As Doug McIntyre wrote yesterday, Google Inc. (NASDAQ: GOOG) increased its web search popularity in the U.S. pretty dramatically in March. While Google continues to make headway with web search volume (and making quite a bit of money within that market), Yahoo! Inc. (NASDAQ: YHOO) and Microsoft Corp. (NASDAQ: MSFT) have (so far) shown that they are not making any solid gains on Google. A distant player, Ask.com, owned by Barry Diller's InterActive Corp. (NASDAQ: IACI), maintains about 4% of the web search marketplace.

Will any other search engine ever seriously challenge Google? For the near future, probably not. Yahoo! is in the business of building relationships with paying customers (Terry Semel's vision, I think) and Microsoft has a pretty diversified product and revenue stream, although Windows and Office are the main cash cows. Do they need to complete with Google better? They should be (although not a die-hard requirement), and both companies are probably tired of Google riding off into the sunset with all that cash. Microsoft's constant claim that its Live.com search engine is central to its strategy may be fine, but actions speak louder than words. Where are the actions?

Google has an enormous first-mover advantage here. Not because it was first with a search engine index, but because it was first with a search engine with text ads that customers not only found unobtrusive, but helpful in many cases. That alone is why Google is where it is, and why the other companies can't keep up.

Yeah, Terry, we know all about Project Panama by now. We know that it's Yahoo! Inc.'s (NASDAQ:YHOO) attempt to get back in the web search market by creating (or duplicating) Google Inc.'s (NASDAQ:GOOG) system of ensuring the text ads placed next to web searches are relevant and affordable based on how popular they are.

Instead of Yahoo!'s "highest bidder wins" process of search it inherited with the Overture purchase years ago, Yahoo! has finally smartened up and has seen that customer relevancy wins hands down over advertisers' preferences.

So, when Yahoo! chief Terry Semel is "all smiles" due to Yahoo!'s new search system is, all I can say is that it's premature. Time will prove if Yahoo!'s new search platform works to the tune of Google's system, which is tremendously successful and was designed with, gasp, the customer in mind -- not the advertiser.

Now, I truly hope that Yahoo!'s Project Panama becomes a wild success and works as equally well as Google's search advertising system because we need another great player in this space. Competition is a great thing for any industry, and right now, Google's commanding lead scares some.

We probably won't know if Yahoo!'s long effort has paid off for the company for at least a few quarters. By then, Semel may be able to throw his proverbial hat in the air. Right now, however, it's still way too early to party.

What would happen if Google search was hacked or otherwise made inaccessible to billions of users and customers -- over the course of maybe a single day? Small economies would collapse and there would be serious repercussions to millions of people and companies worldwide. To many, Google is "the Internet" anymore -- it's the guide most of us use to find what we are looking for. Oh sure, we could get by using eBay to find stuff to buy and sell and Yahoo! for community-type gatherings and even, gasp, to search with, but the world would miss Google, even for a second.

It's no huge deal when a security firm says that Google Pages, Google's website hosting service meant to give anyone the ability to create a webpage without knowing much more that how to mouse click, is vulnerable to phishing attacks. It's quite another issue entirely when there is mention of actual Google searches being breached by some kind of malicious activity. Here's the wrinkle -- the customer asked for it.

Google's keen technical efficiency is to index and organize a "table of contents" to almost anything publicly accessible on the Internet -- files, viruses, documents, images, music, movies, etc. So, if a Google searcher searches for "filename.EXE" you never know if the file Google search turns up is actually what you were looking for, or a malicious file in disguise. Is this Google's fault? Nope -- it simply (actually, it's not simple at all) indexes all the garb out there in the net universe and makes it available for any web searcher. The onus is on the customer, not on Google, you see...

Sometimes, the use of Google's many products have unintended and good side effects. Case in point: Google's search engine alone is being used to identify and track the activity of malicious websites. You know, the websites that attempt (and often succeed) in dropping viruses and malware onto the computers of unsuspecting web surfers?

Online security vendor WebSense has been using Google's capability to actually search through and index the binary executable programs (.EXE for you Microsoft OS vets out there) to identify strings of binary data that actually harmful and destructive computer code. These pieces of code and actual programs sit in the background of many websites waiting for any and all visitors to show up -- and then they usually and silently install something on the visitor's computer that is, well, not a good thing.

On the flip side, some smart hackers (there are plenty of those) could manipulate they way they drop malware onto web surfers' PCs by including search terms in their executable programs and also by trying to work around the Google capability of having their programs indexed and identified as malicious. Just like prolific email spammers, hackers will always try to find a workaround to ensure their criminal activity can continue unabated. It seems Google can create the most helpful search systems in the world at the same time making it possible for computer criminals to propagate their nastiness on an unprecedented scale.

So, what search engine do the employees at Microsoft use for daily business? MSN Search, Yahoo! Search, Ask.com search or Google search? Why, Google search, of course. Ok -- is is a sign of the times when the world's largest software company uses the most popular feature of its arguably most visible competitor for finding information? Sure it is. When Microsoft employees need to find information on just about anything, they are apparently not turning to the product their own company produces.

While employees at Yahoo! are pretty well-trained on using Yahoo! search to perform daily business tasks, employees of Microsoft are in no such a position. Does this tell of the uselessness or MSN Search (or Live Search, still in beta), or is it because Google's search product is so far ahead? Probably a little bit of both. Apparently, though, Yahoo! employees must be told to use Yahoo! search more than the competition.

So -- the world knows Google through Internet search. The investment community knows Google through pretty impressive quarterly results -- especially lately, like the first quarter. The deep thinkers -- and shallow market pundits -- constantly ring up that Google's on mighty dangerous ground; yes, it is making great numbers happen and its market share seems to run like the Energizer bunny. But, if you pull out that nice, large advertising cushion that Google solely relies on, at least for a rumored 99% of its revenue, it financially goes into death throes. Well, that's the comment most often brought about. Surely Google has a strategy to not let this happen. Read on.

Is Google heading this doomsday scenario off by the rapid-fire introduction of new services into its brand beyond just Internet search? Think about this: Google Gmail and the recently-launched Google Calendar are threats to many web properties, including Yahoo!'s similar services. Gmail works for Google (most likely) due to the non-obtrusive advertising it displays alongside messages. 

As we've posted, Microsoft's new search bar in the upcoming (well, in Beta right now) Internet Explorer update is raising the ire of one pretty dominant search provider -- Google. While Google says this reeks of Microsoft's standard anti-competitive behavior, I have to semi-agree here, but  I also must suggest a solution to Microsoft, which will come later in the post. Keep reading!

<soapbox on> Ok Google, you've made inroads into search in the last five years that have made you the "search monopolist" that you are. And why? Because you provide a no-frills, consumer-friendly search service that works -- very well. You've beaten Microsoft (so far) and have banged up on your rival Yahoo! in this space. You've reaped huge rewards and the ad revenue you've received has propelled your fortunes to incredible heights. You've partnered with Firefox as the default search provider, and Firefox has made great inroads to the famously bug-ridden, slow and insecure Internet Explorer version 6 browser. Good for you!