Hacker News Reader

Comment by cmrdporcupine | Hacker News Reader

But that's the thing. "Search" was not a great business problem. It still isn't. I used Google for years before their IPO and people were always like "how is this thing going to make money" and believe it or not there was a lot of skepticism even at IPO time that they even had a possible reasonable business model. (Same for Facebook at their IPO, too.)

Search is not a good business. Ad sales over top of search turned out to be. AdWords is the thing that catapulted Google towards (insane) profitability. And for the first few years, Google didn't really sell ads, or market themselves as even aiming to sell ads. But AdWords could only be successful because they had already captured the market on search, and so had a captive audience to show ads to (and relevance information based on their searches).

AdWords rolled out in 2000. Many of us had been using Google as a search engine since before the company had even been founded (1998).

View on HN

Totally agree. What I mean is many research topics can be very interesting from a technical perspective but don't translate into solving problems that are frequent and important enough to build a business around. In the case of Search many business gurus didn't understand at the time that you can make a fortune with a free product. What matters is who has the traffic and who they're selling it to = eyeball meets ad. Page and Brin initially "expected that advertising funded search engines will be inherently biased towards the advertisers and away from the needs of the consumers" (foreshadowing). Also they tried to sell to Yahoo for $1M so it took time to see the full potential, as you describe.

When Google started, you didn't need a business model for a "dotcom" (as we called them, before "tech stocks" became the "tech" that we now call ourselves).

We already realized the necessity of finding information amongst the exponentially growing wealth of Web servers (sites).

And Google obviously worked much better than the existing crawler-based search indexes and curated directories.

And lots of people thought a "portal" was a good place to be, if you could manage it.

> And Google obviously worked much better than the existing crawler-based search indexes and curated directories.

Funny thing is I recall using Google from the very day I first saw it come across Slashdot -- probably late 1997 -- before they were incorporated even... but I also recall that at some point around 1999 I actually switched back to using AltaVista or something similar for a bit. Because I preferred the search results I got.

It was actually a more competitive situation than people might remember in hindsight.

The big difference is that Google made it through the .com crash filter better than anybody else. That and they kept the good will of their customers by keeping minimal and straightforward and (for a while) ad free.

I recall once google came on the scene I ditched altavista and never looked back. I was a teen but my recollection was that Google included the relevant paragraph of text from the page shown in in the search results whereas altavista showed one line that was often indecipherable gobbledygook - perhaps the page title matched a keyword - and it made it so much easier to scroll through ten results and identify the one that was the highest quality

Plus the no fast no clutter homepage for google compared to how many links can we fit in one screen for the portals

I switched to using Google as soon as I saw it in the late '90s, because of much more relevant hits ranked at/near top.

Maybe AltaVista improved after that, which could explain how the parent commenter could go back to it.

There was a brief window where AltaVista improved and I went back to it after being Google since 98. Probably only for a few months. I often preferred the query hints you could give it to get very specific output. No matter, they went out of business.

The turning point that brought me fulltime to Google from then on (until recently switching to Kagi) was when they started having almost live results. It's hard to remember or imagine but search indices were often days, weeks out of sync for critical things like news, etc and Google was really the first to fix that.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com