3 ms·
There's presenting the existing data well (Google) and there is adding value to existing to make it more useful (Hipmunk). I find that Google's innovation for
by mwexler 14y ago
There's presenting the existing data well (Google) and there is adding value to existing to make it more useful (Hipmunk).
I find that Google's innovation for almost every one of their products is in saying "we have oodles of data, how can we display it effectively"? They have done well at collecting and quickly accessing large amounts of data, linking loosely coupled sets, and in some cases, adding meaning (image searches understand the concept of "bright" or "dim", for example).
But I rarely see them taking the data they have and merging it in a way to create new meaning or value. Hipmunk, beyond co-opting a gantt chart, did this with their "agony" score. Google not only didn't try here, they didn't try for local search either, and just acquired Zagat for their score (and brand name and loyal following, etc.). And many startups offer meaning above and beyond that combined in the data: through their experience, their ability to merge context from being subject matter experts, or just their flexibility to experiment without a spotlight on them. Google tends to stop short of any of these.
So, yes, it's no Hipmunk: it's a typically well done Google product taking hairy data, merging it up, and displaying it well. Doing more than that, however, is left to the rest of the world.
(Though, one wonders why ITA didn't do some of these things before when they first created this better way of looking at flights a few years ago...)
- alec 14y agoBoth Hipmunk and Google Flight Search help you sort out bad flights in ways that other websites don't - Hipmunk calls this "agony". To see this in Google Flight Search, scroll down to the bottom of a results list, you'll see something like "123 longer or more expensive flights hidden. Show all." - these are the longer, no less expensive layovers that you probably don't care about.
- mwexler 14y agoLonger or more expensive is simply filtering. Agony is creating a new metric. I see those as different. Now, if the metric is useless or synonymous with some of it's underlying drivers, then you are right, nothing there. I find the agony score to be more useful than any small combo of filters, but perhaps that's just me.
- Evbn 14y agoITA licensed their engine to the whole industry, instead of competing against it. So they focused on what they did well and let Orbitz et all work on UI and customer service.
- mwexler 14y agoMany companies start there, and then start competing against their licensees. Google is a great search engine for finding credit card deals, and they now recognize that and offer their own credit card aggregation engine: https://www.google.com/advisor/uscredit https://www.google.com/advisor/uscredit Looks a lot like all of the other aggregator sites (creditcard.com, etc.) out there, right? Now, compare to CreditKarma (http://www.creditkarma.com/ http://www.creditkarma.com/) which attempts to change the process. Again, Google does great work, but I think they stop short at times when our industry really needs to be pushed. Startups can only do so much. BTW, ITA released their "matrix" front end to the world (http://matrix.itasoftware.com/ http://matrix.itasoftware.com/) around a year or so after Orbitz and others licensed it. The clicks still took you to externals to complete the purchases, but new filters and capabilities were often tested on the live ITA site before 3rd parties took advantage of them. The problem I always felt was that they were just new filters: fast, live-response, rapid return filters on very large and nasty data, to be fair, but still just filters. I enjoyed sites that added additional context to the flight experience, few though they have been. Again, thanks to both Google for organizing hairy data, and startups for doing more with the data. Glad both have room to play.