Google had search and used that to prop the rest. Simple.
And Google is making money by removing more and more "free" listings and replacing them ads and their content. Morality aside, eventually they'll lose their effectiveness.
And Google is making money by removing more and more "free" listings and replacing them ads and their content. Morality aside, eventually they'll lose their effectiveness.
If it's so simple why aren't there other companies doing the same?
> Morality aside, eventually they'll lose their effectiveness.
People have said this for the last ten years. Sure, if you cry wolf long enough you will probably be correct at some point, but does this offer any insight?
The line should never be level. This is the worst position to be in. It means you're not doing anything at all.
Google is absolutely horrible at UI and application design, I can't think of any product that doesn't mostly suck from a UI perspective. Scale & speed is obviously a different story.
When I load Google.com, I should see the Google logo and at the bottom of a page a "click to continue reading" button that I should, well, click. Then as I continue to scroll down the search entry field should scroll up the page as the Google logo slowly fades out behind it. Searching should feel like an event.
But seriously, I love that Google keeps their search website so minimal. I think that takes courage.
Because the "simple" strategy is predicated on a market-dominant search product. It was simple for them, but extremely hard for anyone else—because Step 1 is "supplant Google with 75% market share".
Using your established brand to propel a new product is business 101 and building a whole web of closely related products is business 302.
The synergy between their many major products is quite astonishing (though it is not public knowledge).
Simple? Tell that to anyone else doing search.