4 ms·

http://blogoscoped.com/files/google-com-history/1998.jpg http://blogoscoped.com/files/google-com-history/1998.jpg

• larrys 14y ago
  I think the OP has his answer. In any case I do not agree. Design does matter even if there are outliers that break that mold. If you have no funding then you have to do what you can given your resources. If you have money you can allocate it wisely which is not the same as throwing it away.
• thaumaturgy 14y ago
  Why are you citing something from 1998 as an example of successful design in 2012?
  • GotToStartup 14y ago
    While I agree that pg's example is a bit extreme, the point still stands. At the beginning stages, great design won't determine the success of the product. Having customers will. So time and money is better spent in other areas. This isn't to say they won't come to you eventually when a better design is needed. Great design is still important, just not at the stage this company is at.
    • mnicole 14y ago
      > At the beginning stages, great design won't determine the success of the product. People hear 'design' and just think it is just the prettification of a product and not the actual usability and utter simplification of it. Maybe it's because there are so many designers that focus on gradients and drop-shadows anymore instead of the what and why, but design is imperative to the success of a company. Even though PG's point was that it doesn't matter (if I understood it correctly?), Google's minimalistic homepage compared to other search companies' sites in 1998 (bold colors, links everywhere, multiple functions/offshoots of the site) is part of what made it so popular; it did what it said on the tin and it made sense doing it.
  • brlewis 14y ago
    That's not an example of successful design. That's an example of a successful company for whom design was secondary. I think YC founding teams in a field where design is of primary importance generally have design talent in the team.
    • thaumaturgy 14y ago
      That's the thing though: it's not an example of a successful company for whom design was secondary. That page was considered excellent design -- in 1998.
      • pg 14y ago
        No, actually that was a very crude looking page in 1998.
        • thaumaturgy 14y ago
          It was simple -- apocryphally because Larry or Sergei weren't familiar with HTML -- but I don't see what makes it crude compared to the competition at the time (http://sixrevisions.com/web_design/popular-search-engines-in-the-90s-then-and-now/ http://sixrevisions.com/web_design/popular-search-engines-in...).
          • Arelius 14y ago
            Exactly, the simplicity and clarity, as I recall, combined with page rank of course, where the main draw of Google. It's evident in comparison, that simplicity pioneered by Google, has been a significant principal in modern web design. While a lot has improved in the design of Google's image over time, mostly aiming towards simplicity, the essence of Google's design, remains unchanged.
          • brlewis 14y ago
            Count the cute icons.
        • tptacek 14y ago
  • larrys 14y ago
    "citing something from 1998" Of course if one is going to use an example of where design didn't matter in 1998 you could always counter with an example of the imac, circa 1998, of which the design was key to the success of the product. (I won't even get into the other apple products). http://designmuseum.org/exhibitions/online/jonathan-ive-on-apple/imac-1998 http://designmuseum.org/exhibitions/online/jonathan-ive-on-a...
    • evilduck 14y ago
      Apple wasn't a startup in 1998 either.
  • kevinpet 14y ago
    Nobody but designers care about a "successful design". They are supposed to be caring about a successful business, which means a good enough design.
  • pg 14y ago
    The point is not that startups should make sites that look exactly like that, but that initially they can get away with similarly low production values.
    • larrys 14y ago
      "startups should make sites that look exactly like that, but that initially they can get away with similarly low production values." I'm assuming that that statement refers to YC startups as opposed to "startups" who may seek VC or angel funding (who may have limited knowledge and be more impressed with visual slickness). In that case the design, usability and appeal of the site matters much more.
      • sadlyNess 14y ago
        If a startup gets something done well, no one will notice their uglyness unless beauty is a non-trivial part of getting their job done, initially.
    • tylermenezes 14y ago
      The important thing about Google from 1998 was the fact that it was one box in which you typed what you want. 99 designs probably isn't going to help someone who doesn't know how to make a usable product, but YC has enough mentors that it's not an issue.
• garethsprice 14y ago
  I have a similar image from Facebook posted up above my desk: http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-CSGOgp31KQE/TXzi88yH1XI/AAAAAAAAO7s/0xc5meuD9Yw/s400/fbkfirsthomepage.jpg http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-CSGOgp31KQE/TXzi88yH1XI/AAAAAAAAO7...