Live data from Hacker News

The Glory That Was Yahoo

fastcompany.com

71–80 of 150 posts

Re: The Glory That Was Yahoo

#71
post #20

The Google search comparisons in the article are strange. Google did not win the search engine war because it had integrated ads, I think it won because the search results were so much better. There might be some indirect connection - less revenue because of a different advertising model, leading to less investment - but I rather think this was just about the technology not being there. Which is maybe not that surpri…

IIRC, Google was one of the first search engines to AND your search terms by default, returning relevant pages from long tail sites. Other search engines at the time would OR your search terms, returning irrelevant pages from popular sites. I think this simple difference in defaults had almost as big an impact as Google's PageRank/BackRub algorithm.

Every search engine of Yahoo's era supported ANDing terms. It didn't help. The result you wanted was still swimming beneath 7 pages of trash. Commonly it wasn't even in the results because the AND was too restrictive.

Backrub is what made Google so much better. Google also really focused on search and made numerous improvements, but the linchpin was backrub.

Re: The Glory That Was Yahoo

#72
A huge part of what yahoo were was the dotcom bubble. They're like a personification (firmification?).

People could see the internet was a big deal. People could see that oligopolies would be important. They assumed early movers would own the market. Investors and startups were right about a lot of things, but it was enough to be wrong about one or two things... Yahoo did better than most.

No one knew how long it would take for the internet to "get there," and the implications for early movers. In retrospect, I think this was knowable, but everyone made this mistake.

More importantly, no one knew what businesses would be valuable online.

Servers would become amazon's main moneymaker. They achieved (along with others) the goal of becoming a retailer on a scale not yet seen then, but servers are a better business. Go figure.

Search, holiday rentals & distinct categories of social networking became monopolies, and great businesses. The Encyclopedia became better than anyone imagined, but not a business. Retail margins never improved. Free online video never became a business. Online news is barely a business. Email is not a business. ebay would stay exactly the same. Go figure.

Stress on the news point. News was the centrepiece business of almost any other media sector, print, tv, radio, teletex... online, it's a dud.

All this stuff had to be figured out.

Yahoo started from logical premises. You couldn't find anything online, so they made a directory. There wasn't much online, so they published stuff for people to read. They surveyed the two, saw more potential in the latter. Huge mistake.

It just wasn't obvious at the time. The better the directory/search got, the less time people spent there. People spent time looking at news and stocks and stuff. ...That's where the ad money will be, like TV. It was not ilogical, it was just not true.

Who knew that search advertising would be a $100bn blue chip business and "content advertising" would be mostly penis enlargment and diet tricks? Surely yahoo finance would be a premium ad seller? no? really? search & facebook, the online tabloid?

A lot of stuff still doesn't make sense. Youtube. Why isn't youtube a serious business? People watch 1bn hours of youtube per day! TV ads are a thing. A big deal, in fact. They don't pay anything for content. Google already has a massive ad business. For the life of me... youtube should be as bigger business than facebook.. certainly bigger than netflix.

Incidentally, almost every news site tries to force/trick me into watching videos (not even always ads). ...hints at how bad a business news is, that they want a sliver of what youtube have so desperately.

TLDR: Yahoo had to guess a lot of future, and place bets. It turned out that these bets could be placed 5-10 years later, with much better chances of being right and without missing out on much. Hard gig Yahoo.

Re: The Glory That Was Yahoo

#73
post #20

The Google search comparisons in the article are strange. Google did not win the search engine war because it had integrated ads, I think it won because the search results were so much better. There might be some indirect connection - less revenue because of a different advertising model, leading to less investment - but I rather think this was just about the technology not being there. Which is maybe not that surpri…

> The Google search comparisons in the article are strange. Google did not win the search engine war because it had integrated ads

Extremely strange. Google won because search was better. Users flocked there because it actually worked. The fact that it had integrated ads was incidental. Integrated ads helped with funding obviously, but users don't care about that. (To the extent that they do, they actively don't want it.)

Re: The Glory That Was Yahoo

#74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google's income stream from advertising is not as vulnerable as Yahoo's home page for the internet model as far as I know.

Not AS vulnerable but in the near future when you search thru voice commands and hear results back, all those google ads that your eyes scan can be thrown out of window. Here is relevant read: https://www.cnbc.com/2017/01/27/alphabet-investors-voice-sea...

Interesting. To Google's credit, they jumped on mobile early when they realized where traffic was trending.

Re: The Glory That Was Yahoo

#75
post #2

What glory? All these points were acquisitions. Everything this article celebrates were destroyed by Yahoo. The only thing they ever did well was build a portal.

I worked for AOL, who Verizon recently merged with Yahoo . It was inevitable they destroyed the startups . Yahoo processes made us look lean in comparison, and we were another old web 1.0 company . The first thing they make you do is port to their tech stack and so much time is spent on that process and approvals from central teams that it's a wonder anything gets done . They've got their own package manager, own int…

> , own internal ec2 clone,

Are you talking about openstack/openhouse, or something else?

Re: The Glory That Was Yahoo

#76
It's almost exactly 10 years since Yahoo rejected Microsoft's acquisition offer. Even at the time it was pretty clear they should have accepted it, but it seems like Yang was too proud.

Microsoft offered $45 Billion(!) for Yahoo.

https://www.thestreet.com/story/13655197/1/what-would-have-h...

Re: The Glory That Was Yahoo

#77

IT's amazing that something so simple as a not having a clear vision/mission could take down a successful company but that's the essentially what happened at Yahoo! When I worked there in 2004 it was just confused, chasing competitors and ideas, never deciding on what it wanted to be when it grew up. I left a year or so later and from what I saw it never figured itself out. I always wanted the company to focus on a m…

> Mayer was an idiot.

Don’t have much to say about her. It could have been anyone else in the management class looting a company for eight or nine figures and leaving it for dead. I’d do it for seven, if anyone needs a punching bag.

Re: The Glory That Was Yahoo

#78
post #67

IT's amazing that something so simple as a not having a clear vision/mission could take down a successful company but that's the essentially what happened at Yahoo! When I worked there in 2004 it was just confused, chasing competitors and ideas, never deciding on what it wanted to be when it grew up. I left a year or so later and from what I saw it never figured itself out. I always wanted the company to focus on a m…

I'm always skeptical about this argument because it can be seen either way, if the old world companies stuck to their vision/mission they might just be disrupted by new/alternate business models/technology and if they try to experiment (Ex: Google) it can be seen as not having a clear vision. There are very few companies that can sustain through 50 yr cycles but even having a clear vision may not help a company succe…

Similarly, Nintendo is almost 150 years old. They spend most of their history as manufacturer of playing cards.

Re: The Glory That Was Yahoo

#79
post #2

What glory? All these points were acquisitions. Everything this article celebrates were destroyed by Yahoo. The only thing they ever did well was build a portal.

I worked for AOL, who Verizon recently merged with Yahoo . It was inevitable they destroyed the startups . Yahoo processes made us look lean in comparison, and we were another old web 1.0 company . The first thing they make you do is port to their tech stack and so much time is spent on that process and approvals from central teams that it's a wonder anything gets done . They've got their own package manager, own int…

Honestly, it's no different anywhere. BigCorp, no matter the quality, will acquire in the hopes of getting the 'special sauce' that comes with the startup but then proceeds to either force a rewrite, or poach all the people off, kill the product, or some other means of demotivating all people involved.

Re: The Glory That Was Yahoo

#80
post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you mean "useful"? Every viable product is useful for something. That doesn't narrow it down.

What it meant to me was that Yahoo couldn't help itself from taking every successful product or acquisition and screwing it up, deprecating it or otherwise wholly missing why its users valued it. These have been listed in greater detail elsewhere, but Y! Games is one of the most glaring examples where they had a massive, loyal audience and just destroyed the community bit by bit. Flickr is the other commonly sited ex…

Used to use my.y.com daily as my home page until they fixed it to be unusable and then abandoned it.
Post reply on HN