It's market share was not tiny. It was growing rapidly, and was already dominating.
I think I've had enough of this argument. People like you are never wrong - you are arguing absolutely orthogonal to me, and punctuating it with personal attacks.
I think I've had enough of this argument. People like you are never wrong - you are arguing absolutely orthogonal to me, and punctuating it with personal attacks.
Here's a reference in support of my position:
http://searchenginewatch.com/2165081
This article is from October of 2002, two years later than the time frame in question. At that time, after two years of exponential growth, Google's market share was 30%. In September 2000, Google was still an upstart. Three months earlier the big news was that Google had beat out Inktomi for a contract with Yahoo:
http://news.cnet.com/2100-1023-242392.html
Google's overall market share at the time was so small that the press reports don't even mention it. Google didn't even register on anyone's radar as a major player.
Can you cite any references to support your claim that Google was "already dominating"? No, you can't. Because they weren't.
> I think I've had enough of this argument
A common tactic from someone trying to defend an untenable position.
> People like you
Excuse me? Weren't you saying something earlier about personal attacks?
Google was supplying the search results for Yahoo in the year 2000, long before Adwords. Yahoo was one of the biggest portals at the time. I really don't understand how you can say Google was not relevant before Adwords.
Google was the king of the search business back then, and that was long before Adwords came along.
Adwords was not critical to Googles share when it came to searches. Google was growing massively, everyone was paying attention to Google long before Adwords came on the scene.
Adwords allowed Google make money, but it did not contribute to growth in search.
Who was the major player in search at the time Adwords was introduced? Ask.com? Lycos? Altavista? Or perhaps, Yahoo, powered by Google?
Your position has gotten a bit blurred the more you argue. To clarify again:
- My statement is that Google was a rapidly growing search engine because they made the right UI decisions
- Your statement seems to be that without adwords, Google would have stopped growing and ultimately failed
Am I understanding your argument wrongly? Because it does not make much sense.
Even that is arguable, but that is not the topic under discussion. The topic under discussion is this statement you made:
"There are really only TWO decisions that google made that made them successful"
> Adwords allowed Google make money
What in the world do you think "success" means? Despite the fact that this forum is called Hacker News, it isn't really about hacking per se. It's about starting companies. "Success" in such endeavors is not measured by how many people use your product, it is measured by whether or not you make money. To be sure, all else being equal it is easier to make money with a large market share than a small one. But you can make money without a large market share (e.g. the Apple Macintosh), and you can have a large market share without making any money (e.g. the Apache web server).
So maybe you meant to say, "There are really only two decisions that Google made that allowed them to achieve a large market share" or something like that (though even that is arguable). But "large market share" and "success" are not the same thing.
But in September of 2000 Google had neither success nor a large market share. All they had then was a kick-ass product and a really good team. Again, all else being equal, having a kick-ass product is helpful. But it is neither necessary (c.f. Microsoft) nor sufficient (c.f. Napster) for success.
BTW, just noticed this too:
> by all words, I don't mean useless words like conjunctions
Conjunctions and other common words are far from useless. If you ignore them you will go badly wrong on queries like "To be or not to be".
But you may have noticed that I did not bring this up. That's because your factual claims are easily debunked with information from the public record.
He has not asserted anything but the existence of unspecified inaccuracies. Paul was neither on the board of directors and was not involved with this decisions. He is not best source.