4 ms·

A sad story of an Internet Search Giant

69 points by jitbit 15y ago

cryptoz 15y ago
Is anyone actually comparing the bells and whistles on yahoo.com to the ones on google.com? The sites are like night and day.
- jitbit 15y ago
  Who said the post is about Google? =) But you're right. Hopefully, Google learned the lesson...
- akshat 15y ago
  Would you stop visiting Google if it had a homepage full of news? Having a sparse homepage is not the reason why Google is winning today, or why Yahoo lost.
  - pearle 15y ago
    I likely would stop visiting Google as frequently as I do. The sparse homepage is one of the main reasons I switched to Google way back in the day.
  - sanxiyn 15y ago
    Well no. I hardly ever visit Google homepage these days. Only time I do so is when my friends tell me there is an interesting Google doodle. All my Google use is done with Firefox search bar.
  - mbell 15y ago
    >Would you stop visiting Google if it had a homepage full of news? Yes, clutter = slow, slow = I wouldn't use it. I can't actually remember the last time I saw the home page outside a screenshot, I just use the chrome url bar search, which is about the limit i can currently imagine for a sparse search interface.
damian2000 15y ago
Did Yahoo ever dominate basic search? Directory maybe but search?
- plw 15y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altavista https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altavista
- jitbit 15y ago
  Yep, Altavista. Before writing that blog post I verified all the facts at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Yahoo http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Yahoo! (image hosting is Flickr, blog/social platform is Yahoo-360, other services include Yahoo Groups, Yahoo messenger, GeoCities page hosting, Yahoo Mail, Overture (paid search ads) and other services.
  - shortformblog 15y ago
    But … wait. They didn't acquire Altavista until 2003, when it was already dead in the water.
    - damian2000 15y ago
      yeah that's what I thought - it seems like they were fairly close to Yahoo before 2003 though ... providing their search results from 1996.
    - jitbit 15y ago
      Yep, 2003, my bad... But Yahoo still dominated the search anyways. According to December 1999 stats they had 56% market share (while nearest competitor - Excite - had 11%, Google was <1%)
  - sanxiyn 15y ago
    Yahoo! Groups was awesome. One of the best acquisitions they made. Originally written in Python in 1997.
- z92 15y ago
nck4222 15y ago
It's hard to agree that Yahoo has "collapsed," when it's the 4th most visited website in the world.
- mattdeboard 15y ago
  I think the point being made is that as a business it has collapsed. Just having mind- or browser-share isn't the only metric of whether or not a business is thriving (or collapsing)
peterwiese 15y ago
the tech-blogs' perception of google is so far off reality. google isn't loosing. google just entered a new market (social) which has a huge barrier of entry, thus they're fighting to get a foot in this door. within their traditional domain (search/advertising) they're unrivaled. all the "google is doomed" talk is based on the potential entry of facebook into the search market. however, this hasn't happened yet and if or whenever it should we'll see how that goes. until then, i'd like to not read the same shit over and over every day on hackernews.
- latch 15y ago
  The Google is doomed talk is as crazy as the Microsoft is doomed talk. But honestly, I think you are missing the big picture. Search and social are no longer seen as two separate markets. If Google lags or fails are social, it could suffer in search. Much of the content which needs to be indexed (which is to say that people are looking for) is found in social networks, be that Twitter or Facebook. On top of that, your account is 14 days old. Whining about reading "the same shit over and over every day on hackernews" is silly.
- glenra 15y ago
  Much of the "Google is doomed" talk is based on the mere fact that Google is entering these new markets. Getting spread too thin is the fear. Google could focus just on being the best search engine it can possibly be but it's not doing that, it's trying to do dozens of other things too. Some of those things are innovative and cool (self-driving cars!) but other things seem like stupid me-too efforts (everything they've done so far in "social"). Nobody cares about "the potential entry of Facebook into the search market" - that would just be as big a warning sign for Facebook as Google+ is for Google. Trying to do too many things at once is a good way to do them all badly.
randall 15y ago
I think what the HN comments are missing is the tech blogs only care about what people have done for us lately. IE people say Yahoo is collapsing because it seems like their potential for innovation is gone, and instead they're moving into patent trolling. Microsoft was the same way in 2007, but with Metro, now bloggers are giving them a shot again. Google isn't over, but it's unclear if the company's innovative spirit remains.
ryutlis 15y ago
Here, I'd like to quote one of my friends' opinion: Google, right now, is driven by fear, not by vision. This fear-driven development (FDD... :-D ), is not a good sign. I don't know whether it's because when the organization exceeds certain size, this must happen or there are other reasons behind it, but I do believe that, when exceeds some limit, innovative and creative idea lost the best environment to grow, unless you try to keep the organization at a reasonable scale.
funkah 15y ago
I don't think Google is on a good path right now, but I would majorly hesitate to compare them to Yahoo. Yahoo has dawdled for years with no clear vision of what the hell they are doing. In fact, you could argue that Page's current strategy is a play against turning out like Yahoo. It's a pretty clear vision, even if I don't like it, and it's certainly product-oriented. They're focusing on one product and streamlining all the random crap they used to do just for the hell of it. I don't know what will happen with Google, but I don't see Yahoo's fate in their future.
huggyface 15y ago
I find this story hilarious because in its reach to setup Yahoo as a parable for Google, they actually describe exactly how Yahoo faltered -- Yahoo had their lunch eaten by Google as users found that hierarchically organized lists of links was usurped by text search: Why would I want to labour through hierarchies when I could just type my city and pita, for instance. Yahoo later bought the collapsed remains of a failed AltaVista but it was too late. The web had pivoted away from what Yahoo was offering, and the company has been in decay mode since. So if the lesson was that Google can't sit on their laurels, expecting the world to stay static, then I commend this article for its insight. But I suspect that wasn't the author's intention.
- tsunamifury 15y ago
  Uh, did you read the final quote? Give the author some credit, he knew exactly what he was paralleling.

69 points by jitbit 15y ago

Is anyone actually comparing the bells and whistles on yahoo.com to the ones on google.com? The sites are like night and day.

jitbit 15y ago
Who said the post is about Google? =) But you're right. Hopefully, Google learned the lesson...
akshat 15y ago
Would you stop visiting Google if it had a homepage full of news? Having a sparse homepage is not the reason why Google is winning today, or why Yahoo lost.
- pearle 15y ago
  I likely would stop visiting Google as frequently as I do. The sparse homepage is one of the main reasons I switched to Google way back in the day.
- sanxiyn 15y ago
  Well no. I hardly ever visit Google homepage these days. Only time I do so is when my friends tell me there is an interesting Google doodle. All my Google use is done with Firefox search bar.
- mbell 15y ago
  >Would you stop visiting Google if it had a homepage full of news? Yes, clutter = slow, slow = I wouldn't use it. I can't actually remember the last time I saw the home page outside a screenshot, I just use the chrome url bar search, which is about the limit i can currently imagine for a sparse search interface.

damian2000 15y ago

Did Yahoo ever dominate basic search? Directory maybe but search?

plw 15y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altavista https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altavista
jitbit 15y ago
Yep, Altavista. Before writing that blog post I verified all the facts at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Yahoo http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Yahoo! (image hosting is Flickr, blog/social platform is Yahoo-360, other services include Yahoo Groups, Yahoo messenger, GeoCities page hosting, Yahoo Mail, Overture (paid search ads) and other services.
- shortformblog 15y ago
  But … wait. They didn't acquire Altavista until 2003, when it was already dead in the water.
  - damian2000 15y ago
    yeah that's what I thought - it seems like they were fairly close to Yahoo before 2003 though ... providing their search results from 1996.
  - jitbit 15y ago
    Yep, 2003, my bad... But Yahoo still dominated the search anyways. According to December 1999 stats they had 56% market share (while nearest competitor - Excite - had 11%, Google was <1%)
- sanxiyn 15y ago
  Yahoo! Groups was awesome. One of the best acquisitions they made. Originally written in Python in 1997.
z92 15y ago

nck4222 15y ago

It's hard to agree that Yahoo has "collapsed," when it's the 4th most visited website in the world.

mattdeboard 15y ago
I think the point being made is that as a business it has collapsed. Just having mind- or browser-share isn't the only metric of whether or not a business is thriving (or collapsing)

peterwiese 15y ago

the tech-blogs' perception of google is so far off reality. google isn't loosing. google just entered a new market (social) which has a huge barrier of entry, thus they're fighting to get a foot in this door. within their traditional domain (search/advertising) they're unrivaled. all the "google is doomed" talk is based on the potential entry of facebook into the search market. however, this hasn't happened yet and if or whenever it should we'll see how that goes. until then, i'd like to not read the same shit over and over every day on hackernews.

latch 15y ago
The Google is doomed talk is as crazy as the Microsoft is doomed talk. But honestly, I think you are missing the big picture. Search and social are no longer seen as two separate markets. If Google lags or fails are social, it could suffer in search. Much of the content which needs to be indexed (which is to say that people are looking for) is found in social networks, be that Twitter or Facebook. On top of that, your account is 14 days old. Whining about reading "the same shit over and over every day on hackernews" is silly.
glenra 15y ago
Much of the "Google is doomed" talk is based on the mere fact that Google is entering these new markets. Getting spread too thin is the fear. Google could focus just on being the best search engine it can possibly be but it's not doing that, it's trying to do dozens of other things too. Some of those things are innovative and cool (self-driving cars!) but other things seem like stupid me-too efforts (everything they've done so far in "social"). Nobody cares about "the potential entry of Facebook into the search market" - that would just be as big a warning sign for Facebook as Google+ is for Google. Trying to do too many things at once is a good way to do them all badly.

randall 15y ago

I think what the HN comments are missing is the tech blogs only care about what people have done for us lately. IE people say Yahoo is collapsing because it seems like their potential for innovation is gone, and instead they're moving into patent trolling. Microsoft was the same way in 2007, but with Metro, now bloggers are giving them a shot again. Google isn't over, but it's unclear if the company's innovative spirit remains.

ryutlis 15y ago

Here, I'd like to quote one of my friends' opinion: Google, right now, is driven by fear, not by vision. This fear-driven development (FDD... :-D ), is not a good sign. I don't know whether it's because when the organization exceeds certain size, this must happen or there are other reasons behind it, but I do believe that, when exceeds some limit, innovative and creative idea lost the best environment to grow, unless you try to keep the organization at a reasonable scale.

funkah 15y ago

I don't think Google is on a good path right now, but I would majorly hesitate to compare them to Yahoo. Yahoo has dawdled for years with no clear vision of what the hell they are doing. In fact, you could argue that Page's current strategy is a play against turning out like Yahoo. It's a pretty clear vision, even if I don't like it, and it's certainly product-oriented. They're focusing on one product and streamlining all the random crap they used to do just for the hell of it. I don't know what will happen with Google, but I don't see Yahoo's fate in their future.

huggyface 15y ago

I find this story hilarious because in its reach to setup Yahoo as a parable for Google, they actually describe exactly how Yahoo faltered -- Yahoo had their lunch eaten by Google as users found that hierarchically organized lists of links was usurped by text search: Why would I want to labour through hierarchies when I could just type my city and pita, for instance. Yahoo later bought the collapsed remains of a failed AltaVista but it was too late. The web had pivoted away from what Yahoo was offering, and the company has been in decay mode since. So if the lesson was that Google can't sit on their laurels, expecting the world to stay static, then I commend this article for its insight. But I suspect that wasn't the author's intention.

tsunamifury 15y ago
Uh, did you read the final quote? Give the author some credit, he knew exactly what he was paralleling.