4 ms·
Yea, that's easy to say now. I was a relatively early investor (2008), but I was very hesitant early on because Microsoft was building an integrated search fun
by scoofy 5mo ago
Yea, that's easy to say now.
I was a relatively early investor (2008), but I was very hesitant early on because Microsoft was building an integrated search function, which became Windows Live Search, which became Bing. I definitely remember it took me to the beginning of the financial crisis to finally decide that it was going nowhere. I suspect it was the development of Google Maps that changed my mind.
- ethbr1 5mo ago"Google" of today is really AdSense ($102M, 2003) -> Android ($50M+?, 2005) -> YouTube ($1.6B, 2006) -> Google Docs ($50M+?, 2006) Without those prescient and lucky acquisitions, we'd be talking about a "Google" that looked much more like Yahoo. It wasn't search proficiency that built the empire, it was leveraging a transient search quality advantage into cash flow, then plowing that cash into acquisitions to construct a durable moat.
- icedchai 5mo agoI remember late 90's, early 2000's Google. Search result quality was still better than the competition (mainly Altavista...)
- ethbr1 5mo agoBut that only would have lasted until the next search innovation and/or competitors copied Google's indexing.
- icedchai 5mo agoThere were many search engines around during that time. Yahoo, Excite, Microsoft Live Search, Lycos... I don't recall any of them improving enough to rival early 2000's Google.
- ethbr1 5mo agoNone of those scaled as quickly as Google in terms of revenue (read: AdSense), and Microsoft lost interest.
- icedchai 5mo agoAdSense wasn't a thing until 2003. Google didn't have much revenue before that. However, they still surpassed their competition in quality of search results long before...
- ethbr1 5mo agoYes. My point is that Google had a temporary search quality advantage… then AdSense-fueled revenue allowed them to convert that to a durable moat by outspending their competitors. That didn't happen because they were magically amazing at search forever. It happened because Google had a good business plan and could afford to throw gobs of money at engineers and infrastructure, in quantities that even Microsoft was unwilling to match.
- ompogUe 5mo agoWas on a team that was trying to sell AltaVista a social media presence (before facebook/myspace/etc). Our people were mostly using Google, but we still wanted the client. One of the "moderation experts" on our side (i.e. - not tech or busniess) who evidently didn't understand what AltaVista was about asked them "Why don't you just use Google? It's better".
- radicalbyte 5mo agoErm 2008 isn't early, I had been using it for almost a decade by then. They had won by 2001. No-one who knew Microsoft thought that they had a chance with Bing. This was post-Gates and Microsoft were already a laughing stock in 2008 with respect to the web.