5 ms·

How 20 Popular Websites Looked When They Launched

19 points by zengr 15y ago

burke 15y ago
Amazon hasn't changed much.
- vijayr 15y ago
  craigslist hasn't changed much either, it is still ugly. BBC looked good though.
jaspero 15y ago
The design for Twitter that launched in 2006 looks pretty ugly. I am sure there were better designs in 2006. It looks like 1995.
- wgx 15y ago
  I think the Twitter image shown was preceded by this vowel-less version: http://www.flickr.com/photos/factoryjoe/190576959/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/factoryjoe/190576959/
- technomancy 15y ago
  Twitter wasn't even called Twitter when it launched; it was twttr, and it had a pretty hideous logo: http://www.flickr.com/photos/factoryjoe/190576959/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/factoryjoe/190576959/
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
dmotz 15y ago
Most of these (e.g. Twitter, Flickr) are inaccurate since they're simply using the Wayback Machine which often misses css and images, completely changing the appearance.
cnorgate 15y ago
Ha ha ha - Amazon hasn't changed! They're still stuck in 1995 UI / UX.
- ceejayoz 15y ago
  They have (http://www.telco2.net/blog/images/amazon%20early%20screen%20shot%20nov%202009.jpg http://www.telco2.net/blog/images/amazon%20early%20screen%20...) but once they found something that worked well it makes sense they'd stick with it. A pretty design that causes a 1% drop in sales would be pretty stupid, and I'm sure they've A/B tested such things.
foopub 15y ago
the linked page is blog spam. The content is taken from an earlier Daily Telegraph article without attribution: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/6125914/How-20-popular-websites-looked-when-they-launched.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/6125914/How-20-popular...
callmeed 15y ago
I would say that Amazon and Drudge look the most "recognizable" between then and now (with Google a close 3rd). I wonder if that's simply because they haven't done a major pivot like many of the others.
ceejayoz 15y ago
I've seen earlier screenshots of Amazon.com than that one. http://www.telco2.net/blog/images/amazon%20early%20screen%20shot%20nov%202009.jpg http://www.telco2.net/blog/images/amazon%20early%20screen%20...
- rkowalick 15y ago
  I was also suspicious of the Amazon homepage. I seem to recall that they didn't even sell music until after they purchased CDNow.
- rads 15y ago
  As one commenter pointed out: I didn't know you could buy DVDs in 1995.
wayneyeager 15y ago
This reinforces Reid Hoffman's maxim that if you're not embarrassed when you launch version 1, you spent too much time on it.
fferen 15y ago
Wikipedia strongly reminded me of WikiWikiWeb, http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?WelcomeVisitors http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?WelcomeVisitors. I actually kind of prefer this sparser look, at least for things that don't have a strong visual aspect.
smashing 15y ago
Damnit. I want an eMate 300 now.
garethsprice 15y ago
Aside from the inspiration via how quickly knocked together some of these look, it's interesting to see early directions that have since been abandoned, eg: YouTube's dating site style "I am a $gender looking for $gender" drop-down.

19 points by zengr 15y ago

burke 15y ago

Amazon hasn't changed much.

vijayr 15y ago
craigslist hasn't changed much either, it is still ugly. BBC looked good though.

The design for Twitter that launched in 2006 looks pretty ugly. I am sure there were better designs in 2006. It looks like 1995.

wgx 15y ago
I think the Twitter image shown was preceded by this vowel-less version: http://www.flickr.com/photos/factoryjoe/190576959/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/factoryjoe/190576959/
technomancy 15y ago
Twitter wasn't even called Twitter when it launched; it was twttr, and it had a pretty hideous logo: http://www.flickr.com/photos/factoryjoe/190576959/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/factoryjoe/190576959/

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

dmotz 15y ago

Most of these (e.g. Twitter, Flickr) are inaccurate since they're simply using the Wayback Machine which often misses css and images, completely changing the appearance.

cnorgate 15y ago

Ha ha ha - Amazon hasn't changed! They're still stuck in 1995 UI / UX.

ceejayoz 15y ago
They have (http://www.telco2.net/blog/images/amazon%20early%20screen%20shot%20nov%202009.jpg http://www.telco2.net/blog/images/amazon%20early%20screen%20...) but once they found something that worked well it makes sense they'd stick with it. A pretty design that causes a 1% drop in sales would be pretty stupid, and I'm sure they've A/B tested such things.

foopub 15y ago

the linked page is blog spam. The content is taken from an earlier Daily Telegraph article without attribution: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/6125914/How-20-popular-websites-looked-when-they-launched.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/6125914/How-20-popular...

callmeed 15y ago

I would say that Amazon and Drudge look the most "recognizable" between then and now (with Google a close 3rd). I wonder if that's simply because they haven't done a major pivot like many of the others.

ceejayoz 15y ago

I've seen earlier screenshots of Amazon.com than that one. http://www.telco2.net/blog/images/amazon%20early%20screen%20shot%20nov%202009.jpg http://www.telco2.net/blog/images/amazon%20early%20screen%20...

rkowalick 15y ago
I was also suspicious of the Amazon homepage. I seem to recall that they didn't even sell music until after they purchased CDNow.
rads 15y ago
As one commenter pointed out: I didn't know you could buy DVDs in 1995.

wayneyeager 15y ago

This reinforces Reid Hoffman's maxim that if you're not embarrassed when you launch version 1, you spent too much time on it.

fferen 15y ago

Wikipedia strongly reminded me of WikiWikiWeb, http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?WelcomeVisitors http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?WelcomeVisitors. I actually kind of prefer this sparser look, at least for things that don't have a strong visual aspect.

smashing 15y ago

Damnit. I want an eMate 300 now.

garethsprice 15y ago

Aside from the inspiration via how quickly knocked together some of these look, it's interesting to see early directions that have since been abandoned, eg: YouTube's dating site style "I am a $gender looking for $gender" drop-down.