3 ms·

They did it by focusing on an absolutely minimal experience. The main search engines of the time, like Altavista, gave you a busy, cluttered, experience as the

They did it by focusing on an absolutely minimal experience. The main search engines of the time, like Altavista, gave you a busy, cluttered, experience as they pursued monetisation. http://web.archive.org/web/20000308224033/http://www.altavista.com/ http://web.archive.org/web/20000308224033/http://www.altavis... Google gave you a search box: http://web.archive.org/web/20000815052943/http://www.google.com/ http://web.archive.org/web/20000815052943/http://www.google.... Over time they stripped even that down. Just as significantly, the search results were also uncluttered, and "good enough". This approach was absolutely critical when they started out, when people would most often be using 56k modems, where every byte had a real impact on the end user experience.

baccheion 7y ago
Yes, every byte mattered. I was there. Only "early adopter" types were "in it for the speed." Everyone else used what was there. Everyone that was online, as most weren't. They got larger maybe because they also kept going (didn't have a choice; tried to sell early on for pennies, though they spin the story to distract from what happened). The other engines were bought or sold out. The death of many companies during the bust also made room for them and they were likely the face of a group effort to "keep it all moving." Facebook was a similar face. It's funny how knowing makes it seem you don't know. You sound naive and brainwashed. But all it does is once again show how powerful an illusion can really be. I'd (and did) say similar things if I didn't dig deeper.