Let's face it, when a search for "iPhone" returns 4.2 billion possibilities on Google, no matter how fair Google wants to be to everyone, the notion of being fair is almost wishful thinking. So then we become bloggers, we blog, we blog, and blog again, with the hope of providing useful information that matches a searcher's queries. The Internet has somewhat become a platform of non-specific data hoping to be found/categorized by Google (and Bing). We've noticed that a search for "iPhone" or other electronics returns the same multi-billion-dollar corporations on the first pages of Google. Their concept of fairness is: whoever is more popular/important is shown first. But is that veritably "fair"? Is it not that same catch-22 of being asked for experience when looking for your first job; or asked for credit when trying to build credit? How does the little guy see fairness faced with an At&t or a Walmart? Can the little guy, indeed, get to the first page, when specific consumer products are searched, or is it sadly an unrealistic hope. Yes, the little guy gets to the first page, had he blogged a lot, and a search for say "removing iphon battery w/out tools" were made. But where is fairness if the little guy doesn't blog? The good thing about this fairly aged, blog-based physiology of the Web is that information is now everywhere. The searcher now has no shortage of information, as very useful information -- that one might have to pay for, had the categorizing pattern of the Web been different -- is being made available for free in the hope of being found. Is there something wrong with this picture? Could Google have employed another system of listing websites? Could there be a algorithm that truly make it fair to the little guy -- fair, meaning that his website, too, is important (because it's a business too), and not considered unimportant by Google with a PageRank of -1? Oh well, this is the capitalist aspect or the Web!
I think Google is too big right now to become irrelevant. But maybe in 5 or 10 years, Google will be less relevant than it is now.
Small websites can be the top of search results... but the reality is that in your example someone searching generically for "iPhone" is probably going to be more interested in the results Google gives (you know, things like Apple, AT&T, Verizon, Sprint, etc... If I was searching for "iPhone", those are the results *I* would want.
I don't think so atleast for now. Because Google provides most relevant search results. It also depends on the query searched for.
iphone is a general word, people generally search for getting information, if you want to get more targeted result then you have to add more words in your search phrase.
google still provides good search results, you must have to be more specific to get a much more "accurate and related results"...in your example, lets say i want to know the latest features of an "iphone" then rather than just typing "iphone", i would be more specific and type "iphone latest features"...its not that hard to do so isnt it?