So Google search just got the biggest upgrade in nearly three decades at Google I/O — killing off your standard page of links and replacing it with a redesigned search box giving way to AI agents and a generative UI.
I got to take a closer look, and I must admit it’s a love/hate relationship.
On the one hand, this is a generational leap for search that will surely make the ever-crowded internet much more personalized and curated to everyone using it. But on the other, it’s another potential death blow to tech journalism — or even journalism at large. I’m so conflicted, and therefore need to rant in written form to figure out where my head is on it. So please, join me, won’t you?
Making search make sense
The two live demos I saw with Google were keeping up-to-date on indie concerts in my local area and planning a weekend. The former was done on a phone with the latter on a laptop, and the results were seriously impressive.
It’s easy with a rudimentary page of links to fall down clickbait rabbit holes and not actually get an answer to the original question you had, and to see an AI agent work to not only ask you clarifying questions to specify the search but also keep abreast of the information proactively makes this feel like a generational leap. Shout-out to even jumping on Reddit’s rumored indie concerts sub too, so you never miss a beat!
Then there’s the generative UI element of the weekend planner, which takes context and memory from what Google already knows about you to build a schedule that knows your tastes and availability. Plus you can share these as pages that others can see too — it’s a really nice, curated way to scythe your way through what is becoming an increasingly noisy internet.
We’re so cooked
But here’s where my problems lie, and I must take you behind-the-scenes a little of how a business like Tom’s Guide works. Like many tech publications, we rely on eyeballs on our website — ads give us a decent chunk of revenue, while the rest is made up of sponsorships and affiliate revenue (when you buy a deal we recommend, we make a little on the side).
Talking in the media lounge, I noticed a definite anxiety amongst my friends from other publications. AI overviews have already shown a sharp decline in traffic referrals to many sites, and by eliminating links for an AI-powered search agent, it’s looking very likely that this downward trend will continue.
In fact, after asking Google about what their expectations are for referral traffic, the answer was essentially to repeat that “more people are searching than ever before,” which is great — but it doesn’t really answer the challenging question here.
A plea to Google
Now, I’m not going to sit here and beg Google to go back to the page of ten blue links. That era is officially dead and for what we get in its place, taking my “protecting the business” hat off, I’m happy it’s gone.
What I will ask for, however, is a more equitable use of it — maybe the memory of it can remember key sites people go to for stories and maintain those referrals. We could even go wild and have a pay-per-referral model to keep the original creativity of the internet alive.
Because while there are certainly ways that publications like ours can adapt (and if you’re not yet, you should join our Tom’s Guide club for free), these can only realistically go so far in making up for the inevitable shortfall of a key site referrer dropping to zero.
For Google to exist, it needs a financially viable, active internet to source from, search across and show its ads on too, which this would surely actively harm. This is a generational leap for search, but one that has some serious problems that need addressing fast.
Follow Tom’s Guide on Google News and add us as a preferred source to get our up-to-date news, analysis, and reviews in your feeds. Subscribe to Tom’s Guide on YouTube and follow us on TikTok. Finally, you can visit our dedicated Tom’s Guide Savings Squad hub for expert help on getting the best products for less.