6 ms·

I spent a good amount of my teenage using Yahoo services - Yahoo Messenger, Yahoo Groups, Geocities, Yahoo Mail and of course Yahoo search. It's really sad to s

I spent a good amount of my teenage using Yahoo services - Yahoo Messenger, Yahoo Groups, Geocities, Yahoo Mail and of course Yahoo search. It's really sad to see them fade into oblivion. I wonder what will happen to Google and Facebook in the next twenty years.

kilroy123 6y ago
Personally, I think this will happen to Google. They seem to have lost their way.
- Cthulhu_ 6y ago
  It will only happen if competitors rise up and take over to be honest. I do believe that's doable for most of their services (they're losing a lot of market share to Office365 for their mail and office offerings), but services like search, advertising and translate, and purchases like youtube and android will take a lot longer. Not sure about Maps, I think that's still going strong even though I don't know about their income model. That one's mainly getting gnawed at due to Apple Maps and probably Microsoft's offering being defaults on a lot of devices. But it'll be slow attrition, it felt a lot quicker for Yahoo once Google caught traction in search.
  - woofie11 6y ago
    I think search will be quick. There isn't much stickiness there. It will be a disruptive S-curve, as soon as an upstart starts gaining traction. Given how much of a cash cow that is for Google, I think when that happens, things will spiral. I'm not sure what this spiral will look like -- it's different for each company -- but an example: * Revenue goes down. * Beancounters at Google can't continue to offer $500k compensation, especially when so much of that are RSUs. * A lot of top engineers company-wide leave for greener pastures. Worse decisions get made company-wide. * Google finds it needs more money, and starts milking its customers more effectively. Data privacy goes down. Pricing goes up. Etc. * Customers start to leave for free offerings from vendors with leaner cost structures. ... and so on. I think a little bit of this kicked off when the qualified executives left. Schmidt/Larry/Sergey were quite good. Fundamentally, though, Google seems brittle right now. It has a massive cost structure, which leaves them vulnerable (the problem isn't salaries; it's headcount). It's too big to be nimble. And it's not nearly as competent as it used to be. Or as it's competitors. Amazon and Apple are both more competent and more nimble.
    - bachmeier 6y ago
      > I think search will be quick. There isn't much stickiness there. It will be a disruptive S-curve, as soon as an upstart starts gaining traction. It's unlikely that any other company will outcompete Google on search. What will happen is that something better than search will come along. That wouldn't be hard, given that today's search tends to return a combination of useless garbage and paid results. A better system will emerge - it has to, because what we have today is so bad.
      - woofie11 6y ago
        > It's unlikely that any other company will outcompete Google on search. Why? I understand Google has a big database, but note that we're talking products, not just technologies. A "good enough" product in one dimension can still disrupt existing products if it's better in other dimensions.
        gameman144 6y ago
        I think this is the point; what we call search today is likely to be dominated by Google, but what we call search tomorrow could be dominated by a newcomer. For instance, map-based search is already a huge step above traditional Google searches for real-world locations and there's no reason to think there won't be more significant shifts in the future as well.
        woofie11 6y ago
        What we call search was dominated by Altavista before Google. It really didn't take much to break that dominance. Stable dominance is characterized by things like network effects or similar. Google, despite being willing to use anticompetitive tactics, hasn't really successfully built much of a moat. Bing didn't do it since at the time, everyone liked Google and hated Microsoft, and Google was an epsilon better. Today, Google doesn't have that do-no-evil reputation, and it's hard to know what would happen.
        deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
- Jetrel 6y ago
  Yeah, I'm pretty concerned about them (and several others like Apple, but we'll focus on google in this comment). I'm baffled at how google fell into this trap, because it really seems like Larry/Sergey "got it" but the thing that basically crowned google king was that unlike almost all other major tech companies, they were willing to do R&D as a massive loss-leader. And when I say R&D, most people think of just boffins in the lab, cooking up some crazy new thing - and they don't realize that the beefiest part of R&D happens in the market. You build a giant new thing, and only when it's actually in the hands of tons of people do you really figure out what the hell it's "for". When the web first came out it was useless. Things like webmail, wikipedia, online video - these made the web useful. But these took another 20-30 years to build! MULTIPLE DECADES! People don't realize how insanely slow technology develops - everyone thinks tech is moving really fast, but it's actually a very slow industry. What's scared me about Google - and the first really "black mark" was Wave, was them starting to pull the life support on these fundamentally viable products years, even decades, before the world had a chance to figure out what the hell they were for. Google was uniquely suited to try these things, in a way almost no other companies can, because they, uniquely, had an almost evergreen fountainhead of revenue. Ads are not going away, and if Google ever lost its hegemony over them, no amount of cost-control would save the company. So cost-control is completely useless for them - it cannot help them if they're in trouble, and it's only a negative if they're not in trouble. The only sensible behavior is to fanatically defend that revenue stream, but then to also be completely, ludicrously promiscuous with the cash they've got. To spend money in ways that would give business management schools heartattacks. Because that is something they, alone, can do. There's a similar tragedy with Glass - and that one, at least, I can clearly see what it was for, but google axed it because decision-makers in the company thought it was another useless toy. Glass would have been a godsend for a ton of working, specialist professions, to essentially have a pilot-like HUD giving them critical information. Imagine a surgeon using glass to get live vitals on the patient - hell - imagine a surgeon using glass with an adaptive machine-learning program that matches prior CAT scans to the living tissues the surgeon is operating on, and helps guide them to the site of i.e. a cancerous tumor, or a foreign object in a wound. Or imagine a construction worker using Glass to place pieces of the wooden framework of a house they're building - guiding themselves with an AR projection of the blueprint. The possibilities are absolutely wild. But then, before the proverbial plane was even allowed to do its first flight, they cut the funding and just chopped everything. Glass was just, gone. --- That's the thing that scares me about Google right now - as long as they're tight-fisted (or really: not promiscuous) about money like this, they've lost their ability to meaningfully innovate. At the rate things are going, nothing weird enough to be game-changing is gonna get a chance. That aspect of having a "useless toy" phase isn't an accident - it pretty much is absolutely mandatory for every product that's been a civilization changer. We don't know what they're for, because we haven't "changed our culture" yet. For example - people had no analogous behavior to "making a quick phone call" before it existed. Phones had to be out there - and be in the hands of enough people you'd want to call, before the average person reflexively thought "oh, gosh, I could just call that person!". Before teenagers could kill half-hours sitting by the window with a phone to their ear; the time-cost of walking, beforehand, just made casual conversations like that impossible (unless the person was literally in your neighborhood). It changed our culture; just like cars did. Or TV. This, by the way, is why all those old-timey predictions of the future are always comedically inaccurate - it's because they're blind to a change in future culture. The other thing is we haven't "built the infrastructure" - if you build something like Glass, if it's gonna be worth a damn you have to wait the full decade or two that it takes to build out all those pipe-dream apps like Surgery AR. They just take a long time to build. (Analogy: cars were useless until you could reasonably expect to be able to buy gasoline at, and have flat roads leading to, your destination). And furthermore - you've gotta build the "economic ecosystem" so that all the people making those apps believe that your platform - your google glass - is going to be a firm "bedrock" to build what's basically going to be their entire career, on. If they're building a serious, professional tool like that hypothetical Surgeon's AR, it's as deep of a rabbit-hole dive as something like ProTools or Photoshop. It's like getting married. If you start an app like that you're gonna be building that for the rest of your life, if it's going to be any good. So the platform vendor has to convince you and everybody that this platform is going to be around "forever". --- And that trust - that trust of "support something forever" is something Google's torpedoed. If they come up with something genuinely cool, you'll get some kooky startups messing around with it but you're going to scare away all the lifers. And as a result, you're never going to get the god-tier professional tools that create a new industry. You'll never get the equivalent of ProTools, or Photoshop, or Blender. Which means they're doomed to stay toys, fizzle out after a few years, and quietly get put out to pasture. It's very similar to what happened to Xerox. Crazy stuff getting built in the labs, but a company struggling to understand it needs that product to be artificially spoon-fed to the public for multiple years before humanity understands what the hell they're supposed to do with it. It bugs me partly because I don't want them to have the same sort of business troubles Xerox had, but it also bugs me because this sort of behavior stagnates the human race's tech development. Because if google isn't doing these sorts of "grand experiments" - nobody else can. Nobody else can operate on that scale.
- magma17 6y ago
  A $1T company is in the wrong way... Please, tell them what to do.
- tim333 6y ago
  Google seem to be doing pretty well to me. Search, Chrome, Android etc all seem to have dominant market shares, all the stuff seems to work quite well.
pmachinery 6y ago
> It's really sad to see them fade into oblivion. I agree, if only for one you didn't mention, Yahoo Games, which I have some fond memories of. I didn't use the other Yahoo stuff much, but it's a shame, and quite strange, that such a big name from the late 1990s/early 2000s, that I don't remember/know of as being evil in the way other internet giants seem to be, has just withered away. TBH, I thought Yahoo Groups was shut down years ago.
- krisgenre 6y ago
  Oh yes Yahoo Games! I used to play Pool and Chess for long hours. Didn't mention it because I mostly played from within Messenger.
INTPenis 6y ago
As curious Swedish teenagers Yahoo groups was one of the places where we could talk to sub-cultures from the US and learn about underground music. Which we later pirated from Audiogalaxy or XDCC.
netcan 6y ago
A lesson to learn is that numbers aren't everything. Yahoo mail was irrelevant well before gmail surpassed them in users. The Yahoo comments sections (on news) were as active as reddit until months ago... but boomerland. A topic might have 1,000 yahoo comments, 1,000 reddit comments and 1,000 tweets but what happens on twitter is the culturally relevant one. Reddit's weirdo-land is better than Yahoo's boomerland, but Twitter is where politicians, journalists, CEOs, artists and such hang out. Of course, money matters too. But, yahoo lost mindshare well before they lost users. IDK if Google will go this way, but FB probably will. Remember that fb's growth strategy was (1)Harvard (2) Ivy League (3) Colleges (4) High schools & everyone. I suspect that whatever fb decides to do vis-a-vid censorship, politics & such... they will be thinking of who, not just how many, user like and dislike it.
- massysett 6y ago
  Writing off a huge swath of the population as culturally irrelevant is exactly why some people wind up so stunned when events like Trump’s election occur.
  - netcan 6y ago
    True. No disagreement. I'm not writing anyone off. Both are true at once though. There is such a thing as "cultural centre of gravity." Ignoring what and why so much of society is outside of that is elitist by definition. I'm not saying that it is good that yahoo comments was (despite being large) was largely invisible and ignored. I'm just acknowledging that it was. That may be a terrible thing about society, but it still is. HN case in point. If a good sized reddit getting shut down for whatever reason, HN would know about it. Yahoo comments (which was massive) got shut down, and it didn't even crossed our consciousness. Bloggers didn't blog about it. etc. This is the definition of cultural visibility (relevance is more emotive, but harder to define). We don't see much of it. That's demographic. If Trump, Taylor Swift & Elon Musk or even people they know were reading Yahoo comments, the cultural cache would be more like Twitter's. BTW, the thing I'm describing exists whether or not it maps to social or political demographics. Yahoo mail was irrelevant long before gmail actually passed them. Cool, in the know people were on gmail. Your auntie was on yahoo or hotmail.

kilroy123 6y ago

Personally, I think this will happen to Google. They seem to have lost their way.

Cthulhu_ 6y ago
It will only happen if competitors rise up and take over to be honest. I do believe that's doable for most of their services (they're losing a lot of market share to Office365 for their mail and office offerings), but services like search, advertising and translate, and purchases like youtube and android will take a lot longer. Not sure about Maps, I think that's still going strong even though I don't know about their income model. That one's mainly getting gnawed at due to Apple Maps and probably Microsoft's offering being defaults on a lot of devices. But it'll be slow attrition, it felt a lot quicker for Yahoo once Google caught traction in search.
- woofie11 6y ago
  I think search will be quick. There isn't much stickiness there. It will be a disruptive S-curve, as soon as an upstart starts gaining traction. Given how much of a cash cow that is for Google, I think when that happens, things will spiral. I'm not sure what this spiral will look like -- it's different for each company -- but an example: * Revenue goes down. * Beancounters at Google can't continue to offer $500k compensation, especially when so much of that are RSUs. * A lot of top engineers company-wide leave for greener pastures. Worse decisions get made company-wide. * Google finds it needs more money, and starts milking its customers more effectively. Data privacy goes down. Pricing goes up. Etc. * Customers start to leave for free offerings from vendors with leaner cost structures. ... and so on. I think a little bit of this kicked off when the qualified executives left. Schmidt/Larry/Sergey were quite good. Fundamentally, though, Google seems brittle right now. It has a massive cost structure, which leaves them vulnerable (the problem isn't salaries; it's headcount). It's too big to be nimble. And it's not nearly as competent as it used to be. Or as it's competitors. Amazon and Apple are both more competent and more nimble.
  - bachmeier 6y ago
    > I think search will be quick. There isn't much stickiness there. It will be a disruptive S-curve, as soon as an upstart starts gaining traction. It's unlikely that any other company will outcompete Google on search. What will happen is that something better than search will come along. That wouldn't be hard, given that today's search tends to return a combination of useless garbage and paid results. A better system will emerge - it has to, because what we have today is so bad.
    - woofie11 6y ago
      > It's unlikely that any other company will outcompete Google on search. Why? I understand Google has a big database, but note that we're talking products, not just technologies. A "good enough" product in one dimension can still disrupt existing products if it's better in other dimensions.
      - gameman144 6y ago
        I think this is the point; what we call search today is likely to be dominated by Google, but what we call search tomorrow could be dominated by a newcomer. For instance, map-based search is already a huge step above traditional Google searches for real-world locations and there's no reason to think there won't be more significant shifts in the future as well.
        woofie11 6y ago
        What we call search was dominated by Altavista before Google. It really didn't take much to break that dominance. Stable dominance is characterized by things like network effects or similar. Google, despite being willing to use anticompetitive tactics, hasn't really successfully built much of a moat. Bing didn't do it since at the time, everyone liked Google and hated Microsoft, and Google was an epsilon better. Today, Google doesn't have that do-no-evil reputation, and it's hard to know what would happen.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
Jetrel 6y ago
Yeah, I'm pretty concerned about them (and several others like Apple, but we'll focus on google in this comment). I'm baffled at how google fell into this trap, because it really seems like Larry/Sergey "got it" but the thing that basically crowned google king was that unlike almost all other major tech companies, they were willing to do R&D as a massive loss-leader. And when I say R&D, most people think of just boffins in the lab, cooking up some crazy new thing - and they don't realize that the beefiest part of R&D happens in the market. You build a giant new thing, and only when it's actually in the hands of tons of people do you really figure out what the hell it's "for". When the web first came out it was useless. Things like webmail, wikipedia, online video - these made the web useful. But these took another 20-30 years to build! MULTIPLE DECADES! People don't realize how insanely slow technology develops - everyone thinks tech is moving really fast, but it's actually a very slow industry. What's scared me about Google - and the first really "black mark" was Wave, was them starting to pull the life support on these fundamentally viable products years, even decades, before the world had a chance to figure out what the hell they were for. Google was uniquely suited to try these things, in a way almost no other companies can, because they, uniquely, had an almost evergreen fountainhead of revenue. Ads are not going away, and if Google ever lost its hegemony over them, no amount of cost-control would save the company. So cost-control is completely useless for them - it cannot help them if they're in trouble, and it's only a negative if they're not in trouble. The only sensible behavior is to fanatically defend that revenue stream, but then to also be completely, ludicrously promiscuous with the cash they've got. To spend money in ways that would give business management schools heartattacks. Because that is something they, alone, can do. There's a similar tragedy with Glass - and that one, at least, I can clearly see what it was for, but google axed it because decision-makers in the company thought it was another useless toy. Glass would have been a godsend for a ton of working, specialist professions, to essentially have a pilot-like HUD giving them critical information. Imagine a surgeon using glass to get live vitals on the patient - hell - imagine a surgeon using glass with an adaptive machine-learning program that matches prior CAT scans to the living tissues the surgeon is operating on, and helps guide them to the site of i.e. a cancerous tumor, or a foreign object in a wound. Or imagine a construction worker using Glass to place pieces of the wooden framework of a house they're building - guiding themselves with an AR projection of the blueprint. The possibilities are absolutely wild. But then, before the proverbial plane was even allowed to do its first flight, they cut the funding and just chopped everything. Glass was just, gone. --- That's the thing that scares me about Google right now - as long as they're tight-fisted (or really: not promiscuous) about money like this, they've lost their ability to meaningfully innovate. At the rate things are going, nothing weird enough to be game-changing is gonna get a chance. That aspect of having a "useless toy" phase isn't an accident - it pretty much is absolutely mandatory for every product that's been a civilization changer. We don't know what they're for, because we haven't "changed our culture" yet. For example - people had no analogous behavior to "making a quick phone call" before it existed. Phones had to be out there - and be in the hands of enough people you'd want to call, before the average person reflexively thought "oh, gosh, I could just call that person!". Before teenagers could kill half-hours sitting by the window with a phone to their ear; the time-cost of walking, beforehand, just made casual conversations like that impossible (unless the person was literally in your neighborhood). It changed our culture; just like cars did. Or TV. This, by the way, is why all those old-timey predictions of the future are always comedically inaccurate - it's because they're blind to a change in future culture. The other thing is we haven't "built the infrastructure" - if you build something like Glass, if it's gonna be worth a damn you have to wait the full decade or two that it takes to build out all those pipe-dream apps like Surgery AR. They just take a long time to build. (Analogy: cars were useless until you could reasonably expect to be able to buy gasoline at, and have flat roads leading to, your destination). And furthermore - you've gotta build the "economic ecosystem" so that all the people making those apps believe that your platform - your google glass - is going to be a firm "bedrock" to build what's basically going to be their entire career, on. If they're building a serious, professional tool like that hypothetical Surgeon's AR, it's as deep of a rabbit-hole dive as something like ProTools or Photoshop. It's like getting married. If you start an app like that you're gonna be building that for the rest of your life, if it's going to be any good. So the platform vendor has to convince you and everybody that this platform is going to be around "forever". --- And that trust - that trust of "support something forever" is something Google's torpedoed. If they come up with something genuinely cool, you'll get some kooky startups messing around with it but you're going to scare away all the lifers. And as a result, you're never going to get the god-tier professional tools that create a new industry. You'll never get the equivalent of ProTools, or Photoshop, or Blender. Which means they're doomed to stay toys, fizzle out after a few years, and quietly get put out to pasture. It's very similar to what happened to Xerox. Crazy stuff getting built in the labs, but a company struggling to understand it needs that product to be artificially spoon-fed to the public for multiple years before humanity understands what the hell they're supposed to do with it. It bugs me partly because I don't want them to have the same sort of business troubles Xerox had, but it also bugs me because this sort of behavior stagnates the human race's tech development. Because if google isn't doing these sorts of "grand experiments" - nobody else can. Nobody else can operate on that scale.
magma17 6y ago
A $1T company is in the wrong way... Please, tell them what to do.
tim333 6y ago
Google seem to be doing pretty well to me. Search, Chrome, Android etc all seem to have dominant market shares, all the stuff seems to work quite well.

pmachinery 6y ago

> It's really sad to see them fade into oblivion. I agree, if only for one you didn't mention, Yahoo Games, which I have some fond memories of. I didn't use the other Yahoo stuff much, but it's a shame, and quite strange, that such a big name from the late 1990s/early 2000s, that I don't remember/know of as being evil in the way other internet giants seem to be, has just withered away. TBH, I thought Yahoo Groups was shut down years ago.

krisgenre 6y ago
Oh yes Yahoo Games! I used to play Pool and Chess for long hours. Didn't mention it because I mostly played from within Messenger.

INTPenis 6y ago

As curious Swedish teenagers Yahoo groups was one of the places where we could talk to sub-cultures from the US and learn about underground music. Which we later pirated from Audiogalaxy or XDCC.

netcan 6y ago

A lesson to learn is that numbers aren't everything. Yahoo mail was irrelevant well before gmail surpassed them in users. The Yahoo comments sections (on news) were as active as reddit until months ago... but boomerland. A topic might have 1,000 yahoo comments, 1,000 reddit comments and 1,000 tweets but what happens on twitter is the culturally relevant one. Reddit's weirdo-land is better than Yahoo's boomerland, but Twitter is where politicians, journalists, CEOs, artists and such hang out. Of course, money matters too. But, yahoo lost mindshare well before they lost users. IDK if Google will go this way, but FB probably will. Remember that fb's growth strategy was (1)Harvard (2) Ivy League (3) Colleges (4) High schools & everyone. I suspect that whatever fb decides to do vis-a-vid censorship, politics & such... they will be thinking of who, not just how many, user like and dislike it.

massysett 6y ago
Writing off a huge swath of the population as culturally irrelevant is exactly why some people wind up so stunned when events like Trump’s election occur.
- netcan 6y ago
  True. No disagreement. I'm not writing anyone off. Both are true at once though. There is such a thing as "cultural centre of gravity." Ignoring what and why so much of society is outside of that is elitist by definition. I'm not saying that it is good that yahoo comments was (despite being large) was largely invisible and ignored. I'm just acknowledging that it was. That may be a terrible thing about society, but it still is. HN case in point. If a good sized reddit getting shut down for whatever reason, HN would know about it. Yahoo comments (which was massive) got shut down, and it didn't even crossed our consciousness. Bloggers didn't blog about it. etc. This is the definition of cultural visibility (relevance is more emotive, but harder to define). We don't see much of it. That's demographic. If Trump, Taylor Swift & Elon Musk or even people they know were reading Yahoo comments, the cultural cache would be more like Twitter's. BTW, the thing I'm describing exists whether or not it maps to social or political demographics. Yahoo mail was irrelevant long before gmail actually passed them. Cool, in the know people were on gmail. Your auntie was on yahoo or hotmail.