12 ms·

Low hanging fruit ? There were 10 search engines when Google launched, and a megalith called Yahoo dominating the Internet.

h0l0cube 4y ago
> problems with very high demand for a solution that weren't yet tackled well Emphasis added. It took putting the right money and the right minds towards doing it well. There aren't a lot of SaaS ideas that scale to close to 100% of world population that don't yet have an incumbent. Tiktok was lucky that Twitter dumped Vine. Zoom was lucky that Skype, Hangouts, Facetime dropped the ball by trying to keep their users in walled gardens, and not really solving the teleconference problem well.
teaearlgraycold 4y ago
IMO Google was the first search engine to execute successfully, and that launched them to the stars. Building something that does the job on the label is one thing - building a good product is another. So they are big because they were there early. But being there early didn't guarantee you'd get big.
ezconnect 4y ago
There were no real search engine back then. Those sites were just curated list of websites. Google was the first one to crawl the whole web and made it possible to find them.
- rippercushions 4y ago
  Uhh, no, Altavista was the dominant player before Google and it had plenty of competition. Google's key innovations were leveraging PageRank to extract signal from what other webpages were saying, instead of relying on naive keyword search etc, and then figuring out a way to monetize search with targeted keyword ads when Yahoo and co were stuck with banner impressions.
  - MattPalmer1086 4y ago
    Yep, Altavista was the one to use before Google. I'm not sure the search results were that much better to be honest when they launched, although they were good. Call me shallow, but I liked the simple, distraction free landing page and the "feeling lucky" button.
    - utopcell 4y ago
      What on good earth are you talking about ? Google results upon launch were miles ahead of anything else at the time. I personally Googled once and never went back.
      - MattPalmer1086 4y ago
        You are probably right, I honestly can't remember. I do remember really liking the uncluttered page though!
      - ZiiS 4y ago
        At the time many technical users were using programs that could search multiple diffrent engines to desperately try and improve the results. On home connections these programs also needed to notify you when the results were done. Google results were miles ahead of everything found accross all the engines whilst being nearly as fast as you could type.
      - tlb 4y ago
        Google was better if you were searching for something popular, because it showed highly linked-to pages for that query. AltaVisa was perfectly good if you were searching for something specific that would only have a few pages mentioning it. It was great for function names, error messages, names of professors, etc. So different people had different experiences.
    - kelnos 4y ago
      Agree with the sibling: the first time I used Google, it felt like magic. I ended up not even caring about what I was searching for; I just started throwing queries at it and marveling at how great the results were. Altavista was certainly better than what came before, but you had to get your query just right in order to find what you wanted. And if you couldn't find the right words for the query, you were sunk. With Google, you could get ok-ish results with a sub-standard query, and the ok-ish results would often help you figure out a better query.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
otabdeveloper4 4y ago
The business model back then was about "portals", not information retrieval. Search technology wasn't new or innovative, the innovation was when Google bolted on AdWords.
MikePlacid 4y ago
I do not know about the rest of you, but me - I was hanging pretty low indeed. All what was needed for me to switch from Altavista was a start page without any advertising and small non-intrusive text ads on search results. They were even relevant often.

h0l0cube 4y ago

> problems with very high demand for a solution that weren't yet tackled well Emphasis added. It took putting the right money and the right minds towards doing it well. There aren't a lot of SaaS ideas that scale to close to 100% of world population that don't yet have an incumbent. Tiktok was lucky that Twitter dumped Vine. Zoom was lucky that Skype, Hangouts, Facetime dropped the ball by trying to keep their users in walled gardens, and not really solving the teleconference problem well.

teaearlgraycold 4y ago

IMO Google was the first search engine to execute successfully, and that launched them to the stars. Building something that does the job on the label is one thing - building a good product is another. So they are big because they were there early. But being there early didn't guarantee you'd get big.

ezconnect 4y ago

There were no real search engine back then. Those sites were just curated list of websites. Google was the first one to crawl the whole web and made it possible to find them.

rippercushions 4y ago
Uhh, no, Altavista was the dominant player before Google and it had plenty of competition. Google's key innovations were leveraging PageRank to extract signal from what other webpages were saying, instead of relying on naive keyword search etc, and then figuring out a way to monetize search with targeted keyword ads when Yahoo and co were stuck with banner impressions.
- MattPalmer1086 4y ago
  Yep, Altavista was the one to use before Google. I'm not sure the search results were that much better to be honest when they launched, although they were good. Call me shallow, but I liked the simple, distraction free landing page and the "feeling lucky" button.
  - utopcell 4y ago
    What on good earth are you talking about ? Google results upon launch were miles ahead of anything else at the time. I personally Googled once and never went back.
    - MattPalmer1086 4y ago
      You are probably right, I honestly can't remember. I do remember really liking the uncluttered page though!
    - ZiiS 4y ago
      At the time many technical users were using programs that could search multiple diffrent engines to desperately try and improve the results. On home connections these programs also needed to notify you when the results were done. Google results were miles ahead of everything found accross all the engines whilst being nearly as fast as you could type.
    - tlb 4y ago
      Google was better if you were searching for something popular, because it showed highly linked-to pages for that query. AltaVisa was perfectly good if you were searching for something specific that would only have a few pages mentioning it. It was great for function names, error messages, names of professors, etc. So different people had different experiences.
  - kelnos 4y ago
    Agree with the sibling: the first time I used Google, it felt like magic. I ended up not even caring about what I was searching for; I just started throwing queries at it and marveling at how great the results were. Altavista was certainly better than what came before, but you had to get your query just right in order to find what you wanted. And if you couldn't find the right words for the query, you were sunk. With Google, you could get ok-ish results with a sub-standard query, and the ok-ish results would often help you figure out a better query.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

otabdeveloper4 4y ago

The business model back then was about "portals", not information retrieval. Search technology wasn't new or innovative, the innovation was when Google bolted on AdWords.

MikePlacid 4y ago

I do not know about the rest of you, but me - I was hanging pretty low indeed. All what was needed for me to switch from Altavista was a start page without any advertising and small non-intrusive text ads on search results. They were even relevant often.