3 ms·
"My recollection is that people considered the search engine market pretty much stable when Google was seeking funding. Your list certainly does nothing to prov
by 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 agoNo, 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.