Hacker News Reader

Comment by ma2rten | Hacker News Reader

Google wasn't the first search engine.

I said first killer (market defining and expanding product) product, iPhone wasn't the first smartphone either, but they pushed them from cool towards ubiquitous

I remember trying out Google in the early days and deciding that it is about the same quality as other search engines. I might be wrong, but I would say that it's continuous improvement that gave them their current position. Later that history was kind of rewritten that it was the genius invention of PageRank.

> I remember trying out Google in the early days ... it [was] about the same quality as other search engines... continuous improvement that gave them their current position... history was kind of rewritten that it was the genius invention of PageRank.

I had the same thought too. If memory serves me right google was not magnitudes of scale better than other engines just better marketed, more accessible, and easier to use(interface).

Even now, despite Googles distinct capabilities, I almost exclusively use DuckDuckGo as I find that it is good enough for me, and doesn't leave me spooked after a search with its insidious snooping. So much for 'Don't be Evil'

Not having ads and bs all over the page helped a TON too.

I remember when this was the big debate as to which site was better: http://www.madisonavenuejournal.com/images/crystalball-7.jpg

Alfa Vista started as a clean interface too. But their failed monetisation efforts (ads etc) on the search home page I seem to rember triggered me to move to Google.

That is fascinating to me. I feel like there have been numerous instances of design having a huge impact on success, but many of these instances have been overlooked because people attribute success to other factors. I always assumed Google won because it was b was better technically, but to think that it was due to other reasons is very interesting.

I think it was due to having a sales model that worked, and a decent design. In ye olden days, Altavista and Yahoo were alternatives. Yahoo faded fast, as it was more of an aol type portal, and the business model (which required a large sales team and heavy analytics to price the ads) wasn't as friendly as Google. Altavista died with DEC. Google continued to print money without hiring a huge sales team.

Just to clarify, I am not saying Google wasn't better at that time. It's just that subjectively they weren't better for the queries I tried. They might have been a little bit better, but kept improving until a point where other search engines can't keep up anymore.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com