4 ms·

Adwords came MUCH MUCH later, when Google dominated the landscape. Of course, by all words, I don't mean useless words like conjunctions. When people think bac

by jeb 16y ago

Adwords came MUCH MUCH later, when Google dominated the landscape. Of course, by all words, I don't mean useless words like conjunctions. When people think back, they blur factors (like you are blurring adwords with googles initial success). I was there when Google took over, and it WAS as simple as I said. They first had a popular search engine, and they built a good business on top of that. The business building part was complex, probably, but getting the search engine to be popular was just a front-end thing. Googles speed was not relevant, Altavista and many other search engines prominently displayed how fast they were. There was a sort of speed competition at the time, so Google was not significantly faster than the others. Those other engines (like altavista) did not even have websites with lots of images or so, so it loaded just as fast as google. Picking the right user-interface has been the reason for success for many companies. People will come and overcomplicate it later, but in the end, it was just the user-interface that made them win.

lisper 16y ago
> Adwards came MUCH MUCH later It's AdWords, not Adwards. And it launched in September of 2000, when Google absolutely did not "dominate the landscape." Do you even bother to check your facts, or do you just make shit up?
- jeb 16y ago
  In September 2000, Google was already the most important search engine out there. It was already successful, and adwords had nothing to do with its success. It had 20million in the bank already. Please avoid the personal attacks, it's not good form.
  - lisper 16y ago
    In September 2000 Google had money in the bank only because it had closed a $25M VC round just over a year before. Its revenues were tiny. Its market share was tiny. It was not profitable. Its success was far from assured. By the time Google turned its first profit, the vast majority of its revenues came from AdWords. To say that AdWords had nothing to do with Google's success is akin to saying that Windows had nothing to do with Microsoft's success. And personal attacks are not nearly as bad a form as promulgating demonstrable falsehoods as if they were facts.
    - jeb 16y ago
      It's market share was not tiny. It was growing rapidly, and was already dominating. I think I've had enough of this argument. People like you are never wrong - you are arguing absolutely orthogonal to me, and punctuating it with personal attacks.
      - deleted 16y ago
        [deleted]
      - lisper 16y ago
        Growing rapidly is not mutually exclusive with being small. In fact, it's much easier to grow rapidly when you're small than when you're big. Here's a reference in support of my position: http://searchenginewatch.com/2165081 http://searchenginewatch.com/2165081 This article is from October of 2002, two years later than the time frame in question. At that time, after two years of exponential growth, Google's market share was 30%. In September 2000, Google was still an upstart. Three months earlier the big news was that Google had beat out Inktomi for a contract with Yahoo: http://news.cnet.com/2100-1023-242392.html http://news.cnet.com/2100-1023-242392.html Google's overall market share at the time was so small that the press reports don't even mention it. Google didn't even register on anyone's radar as a major player. Can you cite any references to support your claim that Google was "already dominating"? No, you can't. Because they weren't. > I think I've had enough of this argument A common tactic from someone trying to defend an untenable position. > People like you Excuse me? Weren't you saying something earlier about personal attacks?
        jeb 16y ago
        Here: http://www.google.com/press/pressrel/pressrelease25.html http://www.google.com/press/pressrel/pressrelease25.html Google was supplying the search results for Yahoo in the year 2000, long before Adwords. Yahoo was one of the biggest portals at the time. I really don't understand how you can say Google was not relevant before Adwords. Google was the king of the search business back then, and that was long before Adwords came along. Adwords was not critical to Googles share when it came to searches. Google was growing massively, everyone was paying attention to Google long before Adwords came on the scene. Adwords allowed Google make money, but it did not contribute to growth in search. Who was the major player in search at the time Adwords was introduced? Ask.com? Lycos? Altavista? Or perhaps, Yahoo, powered by Google? Your position has gotten a bit blurred the more you argue. To clarify again: - My statement is that Google was a rapidly growing search engine because they made the right UI decisions - Your statement seems to be that without adwords, Google would have stopped growing and ultimately failed Am I understanding your argument wrongly? Because it does not make much sense.
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]

by jeb 16y ago

lisper 16y ago

> Adwards came MUCH MUCH later It's AdWords, not Adwards. And it launched in September of 2000, when Google absolutely did not "dominate the landscape." Do you even bother to check your facts, or do you just make shit up?

jeb 16y ago
In September 2000, Google was already the most important search engine out there. It was already successful, and adwords had nothing to do with its success. It had 20million in the bank already. Please avoid the personal attacks, it's not good form.
- lisper 16y ago
  In September 2000 Google had money in the bank only because it had closed a $25M VC round just over a year before. Its revenues were tiny. Its market share was tiny. It was not profitable. Its success was far from assured. By the time Google turned its first profit, the vast majority of its revenues came from AdWords. To say that AdWords had nothing to do with Google's success is akin to saying that Windows had nothing to do with Microsoft's success. And personal attacks are not nearly as bad a form as promulgating demonstrable falsehoods as if they were facts.
  - jeb 16y ago
    It's market share was not tiny. It was growing rapidly, and was already dominating. I think I've had enough of this argument. People like you are never wrong - you are arguing absolutely orthogonal to me, and punctuating it with personal attacks.
    - deleted 16y ago
      [deleted]
    - lisper 16y ago
      Growing rapidly is not mutually exclusive with being small. In fact, it's much easier to grow rapidly when you're small than when you're big. Here's a reference in support of my position: http://searchenginewatch.com/2165081 http://searchenginewatch.com/2165081 This article is from October of 2002, two years later than the time frame in question. At that time, after two years of exponential growth, Google's market share was 30%. In September 2000, Google was still an upstart. Three months earlier the big news was that Google had beat out Inktomi for a contract with Yahoo: http://news.cnet.com/2100-1023-242392.html http://news.cnet.com/2100-1023-242392.html Google's overall market share at the time was so small that the press reports don't even mention it. Google didn't even register on anyone's radar as a major player. Can you cite any references to support your claim that Google was "already dominating"? No, you can't. Because they weren't. > I think I've had enough of this argument A common tactic from someone trying to defend an untenable position. > People like you Excuse me? Weren't you saying something earlier about personal attacks?
      - jeb 16y ago
        Here: http://www.google.com/press/pressrel/pressrelease25.html http://www.google.com/press/pressrel/pressrelease25.html Google was supplying the search results for Yahoo in the year 2000, long before Adwords. Yahoo was one of the biggest portals at the time. I really don't understand how you can say Google was not relevant before Adwords. Google was the king of the search business back then, and that was long before Adwords came along. Adwords was not critical to Googles share when it came to searches. Google was growing massively, everyone was paying attention to Google long before Adwords came on the scene. Adwords allowed Google make money, but it did not contribute to growth in search. Who was the major player in search at the time Adwords was introduced? Ask.com? Lycos? Altavista? Or perhaps, Yahoo, powered by Google? Your position has gotten a bit blurred the more you argue. To clarify again: - My statement is that Google was a rapidly growing search engine because they made the right UI decisions - Your statement seems to be that without adwords, Google would have stopped growing and ultimately failed Am I understanding your argument wrongly? Because it does not make much sense.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]