3 ms·

"Also, the law of supply and demand is not the kind of law you are obliged to follow under penalty of jail time. When Google got started, nobody was demanding a

by dkrich 14y ago

"Also, the law of supply and demand is not the kind of law you are obliged to follow under penalty of jail time. When Google got started, nobody was demanding a better search engine. But it turns out that the world really needed one, so now they have a $200 billion company." This is another over-simplification. There were loads of search engines coming out in the years before and after Google. See Cuil. Bing. Alta-Vista. Lycos. Ask Jeeves. Overture. The list is long and distinguished. Google built a better one. But Google is a poor example because it began as a research project at a large University. Just like cancer research is handled today. It is no accident that most startups that get funding and press are social photo-sharing apps- on the curve of startup ideas, these are very easy to build on several dimensions- they don't require massive headcount, capital, or sales teams and marketing departments like typical businesses. I suspect that this is in fact the reason there are so many social startups. It's really about these being the path of least-resistance.

wpietri 14y ago
My recollection is that people considered the search engine market pretty much stable when Google was seeking funding. Your list certainly does nothing to prove otherwise. Also, suggesting that Google's origin is somehow like cancer research is laughable; they were two CS PhD students playing around with basic hardware. Their effort was well within a seed funding budget, never mind a series A. My point wasn't that VCs should be investing in search. It's that they should be looking for big wins outside of the current hot thing. Which, yes, means not purely taking the path of least resistance.
- dkrich 14y ago
  "My recollection is that people considered the search engine market pretty much stable when Google was seeking funding. Your list certainly does nothing to prove otherwise." Just because those sites didn't gain the popularity that Google did, you are assuming the search engine market was "pretty much stable"? That is classic survivorship bias. When Google started as a research project in the Computer Science department at Stanford, the goal wasn't to become a billion dollar company. They weren't even incorporated when they got the $100k from Andy Bechtolsheim. You draw from a fascinating version of history. Please do tell me more. "Also, suggesting that Google's origin is somehow like cancer research is laughable; they were two CS PhD students playing around with basic hardware." And this is different than cancer research, how? Where do you think cancer research is happening? I assure you it isn't at a mobile app company being run by Kevin Rose or in somebody's dorm room at Harvard.
  - wpietri 14y ago
    No, I'm saying it because I was paying attention to the industry then and people thought search was a pretty stable and well-understood business. The distinction I'm drawing with cancer research is that we give major labs a lot of money to do pretty specific things. There is a lot of formality to it. And we do it that way because it's a huge problem with a long time horizon and no commercial incentive. That's very distinct from Google's origin. Billions were not appropriated by congress for search engine research. It was a couple of grad students, doing something they thought had merit. Also, there is no need to be a sarcastic asshole. It does nothing to help me think your points have merit. And a lot to make me think that you're some anonymous coward who just likes to argue.

by dkrich 14y ago

wpietri 14y ago

My recollection is that people considered the search engine market pretty much stable when Google was seeking funding. Your list certainly does nothing to prove otherwise. Also, suggesting that Google's origin is somehow like cancer research is laughable; they were two CS PhD students playing around with basic hardware. Their effort was well within a seed funding budget, never mind a series A. My point wasn't that VCs should be investing in search. It's that they should be looking for big wins outside of the current hot thing. Which, yes, means not purely taking the path of least resistance.

dkrich 14y ago
"My recollection is that people considered the search engine market pretty much stable when Google was seeking funding. Your list certainly does nothing to prove otherwise." Just because those sites didn't gain the popularity that Google did, you are assuming the search engine market was "pretty much stable"? That is classic survivorship bias. When Google started as a research project in the Computer Science department at Stanford, the goal wasn't to become a billion dollar company. They weren't even incorporated when they got the $100k from Andy Bechtolsheim. You draw from a fascinating version of history. Please do tell me more. "Also, suggesting that Google's origin is somehow like cancer research is laughable; they were two CS PhD students playing around with basic hardware." And this is different than cancer research, how? Where do you think cancer research is happening? I assure you it isn't at a mobile app company being run by Kevin Rose or in somebody's dorm room at Harvard.
- wpietri 14y ago
  No, I'm saying it because I was paying attention to the industry then and people thought search was a pretty stable and well-understood business. The distinction I'm drawing with cancer research is that we give major labs a lot of money to do pretty specific things. There is a lot of formality to it. And we do it that way because it's a huge problem with a long time horizon and no commercial incentive. That's very distinct from Google's origin. Billions were not appropriated by congress for search engine research. It was a couple of grad students, doing something they thought had merit. Also, there is no need to be a sarcastic asshole. It does nothing to help me think your points have merit. And a lot to make me think that you're some anonymous coward who just likes to argue.