4 ms·

>would nitpick slightly. Google core DNA is advertising. Search is a huge component to driving their advertising business, but let's not pretend that they are d

>would nitpick slightly. Google core DNA is advertising. Search is a huge component to driving their advertising business, but let's not pretend that they are driven by anything other than ad revenue. How quick people are to forget the 20 page research paper by Larry Wall and Sergey Brin that started all this: "anatomy of an ad engine", I think it was called.[1] Google could exist even if it was just an empty page with banner ads, as long as it could get people to visit it, for example if it paid Firefox to set it as the default startup ad page. It doesn't really need to offer any services and has never been about that. /s/s/s/s/s/s/s/s/s/ssssss in case you need it [1] http://infolab.stanford.edu/pub/papers/google.pdf http://infolab.stanford.edu/pub/papers/google.pdf

logicallee 9y ago
I'm very surprised to see this downvoted to -4. So, the actual history is that they came up with the technology first, and when they needed to monetize, they were against the invasive banner ads at the time, introducing text ads instead. Google has been about technological innovation (for example, the introduction of maps was a technological innovation and then required massive acquisition of map sources) and they have done huge amounts of technical work. They've scanned millions of books, turning one page after another. The idea that Google's core DNA is advertising is simply laughable on its face.
- musage 9y ago
  Being against banner and for text ads is still monetizing through advertising from day #1. And on some level, even a full screen, brightly flashing, dumb banner ad that gets displayed randomly or to every visitor, could be argued to be less invasive on a certain level than the user tracking, micro-auctioning, RAM and CPU cycles gobbling stuff that's the norm now. It's also easier to distinguish a banner from an item on a list of text items, contrast that to barely visited "sponsored content" headers over an text item designed to blend in. So that's laying it on quite thickly even before you get to "turning one page after another". Tuning out banner ads is easier than tuning out text, and blocking images based on their dimensions (banner ads came in a bunch of dimensions mostly) was a thing before ad blockers were. They maybe said some nice things and maybe you believe those things, but if we look at the actions and don't equate "technical work" with a little girl selling matches in the freezing cold just once, I'm not seeing any of it. That they didn't have ads before monetizing (like someone by definition would "not have soda" before they "have any sort of liquid at all"), and that that don't just display ads, but also make things to monetize, goes without saying, rather than being this huge rebuttal.

logicallee 9y ago

I'm very surprised to see this downvoted to -4. So, the actual history is that they came up with the technology first, and when they needed to monetize, they were against the invasive banner ads at the time, introducing text ads instead. Google has been about technological innovation (for example, the introduction of maps was a technological innovation and then required massive acquisition of map sources) and they have done huge amounts of technical work. They've scanned millions of books, turning one page after another. The idea that Google's core DNA is advertising is simply laughable on its face.

musage 9y ago
Being against banner and for text ads is still monetizing through advertising from day #1. And on some level, even a full screen, brightly flashing, dumb banner ad that gets displayed randomly or to every visitor, could be argued to be less invasive on a certain level than the user tracking, micro-auctioning, RAM and CPU cycles gobbling stuff that's the norm now. It's also easier to distinguish a banner from an item on a list of text items, contrast that to barely visited "sponsored content" headers over an text item designed to blend in. So that's laying it on quite thickly even before you get to "turning one page after another". Tuning out banner ads is easier than tuning out text, and blocking images based on their dimensions (banner ads came in a bunch of dimensions mostly) was a thing before ad blockers were. They maybe said some nice things and maybe you believe those things, but if we look at the actions and don't equate "technical work" with a little girl selling matches in the freezing cold just once, I'm not seeing any of it. That they didn't have ads before monetizing (like someone by definition would "not have soda" before they "have any sort of liquid at all"), and that that don't just display ads, but also make things to monetize, goes without saying, rather than being this huge rebuttal.