6 ms·

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

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.

sgift 9y ago
> Google had search and used that to prop the rest. Simple. 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?
- Melk 9y ago
  He didn't say what they did was simple. He said it's a simple explanation for what they did. Google created a great search engine at the right place and time. Since then Google's products have been a hit but mostly a miss by a company with endless money.
  - icebraining 9y ago
    Having many misses is just a result of trying many times. Hell, we're in the forum of the epitome of the idea that having many misses and a few hits can be a tremendously successful strategy.
  - JustSomeNobody 9y ago
    The line should always be moving. Either up or down, hopefully mostly up, but moving nonetheless. It is perfectly fine for the line to go down, failing is learning. But if the line continues to go down, you're not learning, you're just failing. Fix that. Same as when the line continues to go up. If it goes up with no dips down, you're not learning either. Fix that. The line should never be level. This is the worst position to be in. It means you're not doing anything at all.
- mistermann 9y ago
  I can't imagine anyone who's used the YouTube Android app would think it is skill rather than a massive existing userbase & network effect that's led to YouTube's success. 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.
  - emiliobumachar 9y ago
    What do you think about the UI of their flagship search website, goggle.com?
    - JustSomeNobody 9y ago
      It's rubbish! 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.
    - mistermann 9y ago
      It's fast, but it has many shortcomings.
- basseq 9y ago
  >> Google had search and used that to prop the rest. Simple. > If it's so simple why aren't there other companies doing the same? 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".
user5994461 9y ago
As it turns out the engineers are good at business. 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).
- no1youknowz 9y ago
  Nevermind...
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
JustSomeNobody 9y ago
> Google had search and used that to prop the rest. Simple. Simple? Tell that to anyone else doing search.

sgift 9y ago

> Google had search and used that to prop the rest. Simple. 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?

Melk 9y ago
He didn't say what they did was simple. He said it's a simple explanation for what they did. Google created a great search engine at the right place and time. Since then Google's products have been a hit but mostly a miss by a company with endless money.
- icebraining 9y ago
  Having many misses is just a result of trying many times. Hell, we're in the forum of the epitome of the idea that having many misses and a few hits can be a tremendously successful strategy.
- JustSomeNobody 9y ago
  The line should always be moving. Either up or down, hopefully mostly up, but moving nonetheless. It is perfectly fine for the line to go down, failing is learning. But if the line continues to go down, you're not learning, you're just failing. Fix that. Same as when the line continues to go up. If it goes up with no dips down, you're not learning either. Fix that. The line should never be level. This is the worst position to be in. It means you're not doing anything at all.
mistermann 9y ago
I can't imagine anyone who's used the YouTube Android app would think it is skill rather than a massive existing userbase & network effect that's led to YouTube's success. 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.
- emiliobumachar 9y ago
  What do you think about the UI of their flagship search website, goggle.com?
  - JustSomeNobody 9y ago
    It's rubbish! 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.
  - mistermann 9y ago
    It's fast, but it has many shortcomings.
basseq 9y ago
>> Google had search and used that to prop the rest. Simple. > If it's so simple why aren't there other companies doing the same? 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".

user5994461 9y ago

As it turns out the engineers are good at business. 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).

no1youknowz 9y ago
Nevermind...
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]

JustSomeNobody 9y ago

> Google had search and used that to prop the rest. Simple. Simple? Tell that to anyone else doing search.