4 ms·
The article also failed to mention Branding (which is related to our habits). If you aren't using _Google_, you're using some other "crappy" search engine.
by russ 19y ago
The article also failed to mention Branding (which is related to our habits). If you aren't using _Google_, you're using some other "crappy" search engine.
- ntoshev 19y agoGoogle is a black swan. People keep trying to explain its success in ways Google founders never thought about. I remember that Google Story cited a branding expert saying something close to "These guys don't know what their brand stands for; they are just coders".
- eusman 19y agotell that to their billions
- ntoshev 19y agoThere's nothing wrong with being just coder, although they seem to be scientists too. To me their approach to data demonstrates that scientific method has become a viable way of doing business. The recent bestseller Super Crunchers seems to try to establish this as a trend: http://www.amazon.com/gp/redirect.html?ie=UTF8&location=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.com%2FSuper-Crunchers-Thinking-Numbers-Smart%2Fdp%2F0553805401&tag=descidecom-20&linkCode=ur2&camp=1789&creative=9325 http://www.amazon.com/gp/redirect.html?ie=UTF8&location=...
- pchristensen 19y agoThank you! I always say that they have one of the most profitable products in the history of the world. By definition, there aren't many "most profitable products in the history of the world", so trying to duplicate their product is a waste of time. So many things went perfectly, both in execution and timing (for instance, they could afford to hire everyone that got laid off after the bust).