5 ms·

"And they want to avoid competing with other search engines to be the browser of choice for existing portals. In fact, Page said Google doesn't have any real co

"And they want to avoid competing with other search engines to be the browser of choice for existing portals. In fact, Page said Google doesn't have any real competitors at all, which may be why they don't intend to do much marketing." Interesting to think about in light of Peter Thiel's lecture for "how to start a startup" at Stanford. He is correct that the narrative has changed. Contrast the above quote with the one Thiel used in his lecture from Schmidt, which basically said "Google is not a search company, it's an ad company," or some variation thereof.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
yzzxy 12y ago
If I understand the quotes correctly, Page is talking about marketing Google to users, while Thiel is referencing Google's sales of search ads. Two totally different topics.
InclinedPlane 12y ago
I'm becoming less a fan of Thiel as time goes on, his ideas seem to be superficial and often harmful. Saying that google is an ad company is a mistake. Just because that's where the revenue, the sustenance comes from as a primary source. But that revenue exists because of google's market domination in search and other services. If google stopped being a search company their ad revenue would dry up overnight. Saying that google is an ad company is like saying that a particular software dev. is not a "software person" but a "burrito person", because they happen to eat burritos a lot. At the end of the day google's revenue comes about because they provide something of value to their users, and advertisments are a way to monetize that value effectively. No different than broadcast tv or radio. But it's the value which is the foundation of the company, the revenue is merely a consequence of that value. Thinking that the revenue stream is an intrinsic part of the company is a mistake that has doomed many companies before. Think about newspapers, I'm sure many of them thought of themselves as advertising companies to a substantial degree, and when that revenue dried up because the value of the newspaper changed, many of them were left wondering what to do, many of them have already gone out of business, many more still will. Hopefully google won't make the same mistake and alienate its users more than it has already or ignore competition before it's too late.
- dcurtis 12y ago
  Google is definitely an ad company, but its main product is Google Search.
- ethnomusicolog 12y ago
  What you are saying is exactly the point of Peter Thiel. Basically he is saying that Google is a search company, with a monopoly in search, and they try to pass as a an advertising company (the Ericschmidt quote). According to Peter thiel that is SOP for companies that have a monopoly in a market. they do this for many reasons, including evading regulatory oversight. So it seems to me you are agreeing with him.
  - pi-err 12y ago
    I see Google as an automation company based on data and monetized by advertising. Does it make Google an advertising company? Yes by the bottom line, no by this strategy. It just happens it's the best way to monetize what they have so far. Analogy: would you define 1905 Einstein as a patent clerk or a scientist?
  - netcan 12y ago
    It's just hard to boil down the dynamic to a statement like that, Google is an X company. Google invented a search engine where everyone found stuff on the web easier than other methods. They then built an advertising platform that complimented it. The two are highly interlinked. They invented and got good at both. You can look at things from a distant POV with too few details just like you can look at it from a perspective that's too close, to many details. There is no method apart from using your faculties that can replace having good faculties and the ability to apply perspective.
    - JetSpiegel 12y ago
      If by "complemented it" you mean ruined it and moots the point of PageRank, sure.
      - 12y ago
jackgavigan 12y ago
The timeline is relevant here. The article is dated June 1999. Google's first stab at selling advertising began in July 1999. When Jeff Dean arrived from DEC [...] Brin and Page told him that they needed an ad system. But they had no idea what a Google ad should be. Some at Google - including the director of technology, Craig Silverstein - thought that the whole effort was a distraction and that Google should outsource its ad system to some company more accustomed to waddling in the much of Mammon. "I was like, 'We're not an advertising company, we're a search company - let someone else worry about the advertising,'"says Silverstein. "It was good they did not take my advice." -- 'In The Plex' by Steven Levy Google started selling advertising in December 1999. At that time, "Google expected to make most of its money from licensing" its search technology, although it was hoped that "advertising might one day account for 10 to 15 per cent of its revenue." (In 2013, advertising accounted for 91% of Google's revenues.) AdWords was launched in October 2000. Schmidt joined as chairman in March 2001, and became CEO five months later.
programminggeek 12y ago
I'm not in the valley, so I guess I don't understand the recent obsession with Peter Thiel. It seems like lately his name has popped up in HN comments over and over again.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

yzzxy 12y ago

If I understand the quotes correctly, Page is talking about marketing Google to users, while Thiel is referencing Google's sales of search ads. Two totally different topics.

InclinedPlane 12y ago

I'm becoming less a fan of Thiel as time goes on, his ideas seem to be superficial and often harmful. Saying that google is an ad company is a mistake. Just because that's where the revenue, the sustenance comes from as a primary source. But that revenue exists because of google's market domination in search and other services. If google stopped being a search company their ad revenue would dry up overnight. Saying that google is an ad company is like saying that a particular software dev. is not a "software person" but a "burrito person", because they happen to eat burritos a lot. At the end of the day google's revenue comes about because they provide something of value to their users, and advertisments are a way to monetize that value effectively. No different than broadcast tv or radio. But it's the value which is the foundation of the company, the revenue is merely a consequence of that value. Thinking that the revenue stream is an intrinsic part of the company is a mistake that has doomed many companies before. Think about newspapers, I'm sure many of them thought of themselves as advertising companies to a substantial degree, and when that revenue dried up because the value of the newspaper changed, many of them were left wondering what to do, many of them have already gone out of business, many more still will. Hopefully google won't make the same mistake and alienate its users more than it has already or ignore competition before it's too late.

dcurtis 12y ago
Google is definitely an ad company, but its main product is Google Search.
ethnomusicolog 12y ago
What you are saying is exactly the point of Peter Thiel. Basically he is saying that Google is a search company, with a monopoly in search, and they try to pass as a an advertising company (the Ericschmidt quote). According to Peter thiel that is SOP for companies that have a monopoly in a market. they do this for many reasons, including evading regulatory oversight. So it seems to me you are agreeing with him.
- pi-err 12y ago
  I see Google as an automation company based on data and monetized by advertising. Does it make Google an advertising company? Yes by the bottom line, no by this strategy. It just happens it's the best way to monetize what they have so far. Analogy: would you define 1905 Einstein as a patent clerk or a scientist?
- netcan 12y ago
  It's just hard to boil down the dynamic to a statement like that, Google is an X company. Google invented a search engine where everyone found stuff on the web easier than other methods. They then built an advertising platform that complimented it. The two are highly interlinked. They invented and got good at both. You can look at things from a distant POV with too few details just like you can look at it from a perspective that's too close, to many details. There is no method apart from using your faculties that can replace having good faculties and the ability to apply perspective.
  - JetSpiegel 12y ago
    If by "complemented it" you mean ruined it and moots the point of PageRank, sure.
    - 12y ago

jackgavigan 12y ago

The timeline is relevant here. The article is dated June 1999. Google's first stab at selling advertising began in July 1999. When Jeff Dean arrived from DEC [...] Brin and Page told him that they needed an ad system. But they had no idea what a Google ad should be. Some at Google - including the director of technology, Craig Silverstein - thought that the whole effort was a distraction and that Google should outsource its ad system to some company more accustomed to waddling in the much of Mammon. "I was like, 'We're not an advertising company, we're a search company - let someone else worry about the advertising,'"says Silverstein. "It was good they did not take my advice." -- 'In The Plex' by Steven Levy Google started selling advertising in December 1999. At that time, "Google expected to make most of its money from licensing" its search technology, although it was hoped that "advertising might one day account for 10 to 15 per cent of its revenue." (In 2013, advertising accounted for 91% of Google's revenues.) AdWords was launched in October 2000. Schmidt joined as chairman in March 2001, and became CEO five months later.

programminggeek 12y ago

I'm not in the valley, so I guess I don't understand the recent obsession with Peter Thiel. It seems like lately his name has popped up in HN comments over and over again.