Live data from Hacker News

What were the key decisions that Page and Brin made in the early days of Google

quora.com

51–57 of 57 posts

Re: What were the key decisions that Page and Brin made in the early days of Google

#51
post #43
post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Actually it is you who are in the wrong here, though the voters on this thread don't seem to realize it. The guy you're arguing with was an early Google employee. He knows what he's talking about.

pg, the early Google employee has not made any statements to contrary.

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.

Re: What were the key decisions that Page and Brin made in the early days of Google

#52
post #36
post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In September 2000, Google was already the most important search engine out there. It was already successful, and adwords had nothing to do with its success. It had 20million in the bank already. Please avoid the personal attacks, it's not good form.

In September 2000 Google had money in the bank only because it had closed a $25M VC round just over a year before. Its revenues were tiny. Its market share was tiny. It was not profitable. Its success was far from assured. By the time Google turned its first profit, the vast majority of its revenues came from AdWords. To say that AdWords had nothing to do with Google's success is akin to saying that Windows had nothi…

This is true. Look at Google S-1 filing. It validates everything you said.

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1288776/0001193125040...

There are many people here who want to argue back and forth about their opinions and are not concerned about having data.

I cannot believe you are being personally attacked over this when the facts of matter are so easy to research.

Re: What were the key decisions that Page and Brin made in the early days of Google

#53
post #25

Lots of entrepreneurial navel gazing going on both in the linked site and in these comments. Everybody has their own theory about the reasons x y z why company a b c is successful, be it Google, Twitter, Facebook, etc. The problem is every opinion is partially correct, no one can disprove anything, and there is no right answer. The stories of successful companies are inspirational to some degree, but as a way to vica…

God bless you.

This is the most reasonable thing I have seen said here.

Re: What were the key decisions that Page and Brin made in the early days of Google

#54
post #4

The highest ranked answer on that thread, though it contains some interesting details, is way off. Managing VCs well was not what made Google successful-- or what makes any startup successful. The real key decisions were things like realizing search itself was important, at a time when all the other search engines thought it was unsexy, and were trying to get people to start calling them "portals" instead; designing…

Paul, I wrote that answer to be concise. I am not trying to write another book on Google. When you build a Google, you can tell me I am wrong.

Everyone I have spoken to that has built a successful company has told me that their ability to manage the long term interests of their company was impaired by losing control of their board of directors.

If Mark Zuckerberg did not have control of his board, the company would have been sold to Yahoo for just under a billion dollars, where Facebook would have died. The Yahoo executives wanted to "Nascar up the site". It would not be a 30 billion dollar dollar company today if the board had been investor controlled.

The reason Friedster failed was that the company was managed from the board of directors by investors which did not use their product. The founders of Friendster were screaming at the board of directors that the website took 40 seconds to load, but the board was more concerned with expanding into new markets and adding features, rather than solving the scalability issues the company was facing. Myspace copied Friendster, solved the scalability issues and dominated until Facebook introduced the feed and notification mechanism and took the college demographic.

If you want to build a long term success like Google, you have to be in a position to ignore your investor's short term desire to improve the company's financials by sacrificing long term growth. The quickest way to increase your margins is to reduce investment in the future.

Most of Google's costs were from their consuming facing search product. Almost all of Google's revenues were from enterprise search. Dropping consumer facing search would have improved Google's financials for sale or IPO. Everyone at the time believed that search engines were loss leaders for portal sites. If the management team did not have board control, the decisions that would have been forced on the company would had led Google to a different, much grimmer corporate destiny.

The management team at Google believed strongly in the future of internet search and the growth of online advertising. They saw the potential of using search queries to target advertisements and that search engines were uniquely positioned to monetize lead generation; at a time when search engines were loss leaders for portal sites. If the company had cut its loss centers and focused on its profit centers, the company would not have been as successful as it is today. The operating autonomy of Google's management team was critical to Google's long term success.

I do not care what Paul Buchheit says. Eric Schmidt has on several occasions discussed the advantages of Google's ownership structure and how it enabled Google to ignore outside influences and focus on the long term success of the company. If Paul Buchheit disagrees with the CEO of Google about the importance of Google's ownership structure and the operational autonomy of the management team, then its unfortunate.

Re: What were the key decisions that Page and Brin made in the early days of Google

#55
post #48
post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Growing rapidly is not mutually exclusive with being small. In fact, it's much easier to grow rapidly when you're small than when you're big. 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, Googl…

Here: http://www.google.com/press/pressrel/pressrelease25.html 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 s…

> Adwords was not critical to Googles share when it came to searches

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.

Re: What were the key decisions that Page and Brin made in the early days of Google

#56
post #49
post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually it is you who are in the wrong here, though the voters on this thread don't seem to realize it. The guy you're arguing with was an early Google employee. He knows what he's talking about.

That's not a particularly strong argument. It's just a call to authority argument without actually adding any real information one way or the other.

You do not understand the argument from authority. Argument from authority would be if PG had said that I'm right because, say, I had a Ph.D. But being an early Google employee when the topic under discussion is the early days of Google doesn't make on an authority, it makes one a primary source.

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.

Re: What were the key decisions that Page and Brin made in the early days of Google

#57
post #56
post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not a particularly strong argument. It's just a call to authority argument without actually adding any real information one way or the other.

You do not understand the argument from authority. Argument from authority would be if PG had said that I'm right because, say, I had a Ph.D. But being an early Google employee when the topic under discussion is the early days of Google doesn't make on an authority, it makes one a primary source . But you may have noticed that I did not bring this up. That's because your factual claims are easily debunked with inform…

How can such a long argument go on and nobody is simply making a post with a series of numbers showing search engine marketshare from 2001?
Post reply on HN