Some Startups Just Don't Need Starting
mashable.com
Some Startups Just Don't Need Starting
1–10 of 17 posts
Re: Some Startups Just Don't Need Starting
#2Nice to see, someone agrees with me :)
Re: Some Startups Just Don't Need Starting
#32008: You shouldn't try to build web-based Office alternatives because Google, Adobe, and Zoho are already doing it.
=
1998: You shouldn't try to build new search engines because Lycos, Excite, and Altavista are already doing it.
Any argument that proves it was a bad idea to start Google is probably a bad argument.
Re: Some Startups Just Don't Need Starting
#4Your analogy is weak at best, -- office suites aren't really an algorithmic problem ... Google beat out Lycos, Excite and Altavista because it created a better algorithm for indexing and organizing information.
Office suites are about features -- lots of them, thus entering the market competitively requires man power not intelligence.
Is there room for improvement... certainly. But it is incremental improvement. I just don't think its the type of area where some killer new idea can shake up the entire space.
Re: Some Startups Just Don't Need Starting
#52008: You shouldn't try to build web-based Office alternatives because Google, Adobe, and Zoho are already doing it. = 1998: You shouldn't try to build new search engines because Lycos, Excite, and Altavista are already doing it. Any argument that proves it was a bad idea to start Google is probably a bad argument.
Ok, but Google didn't just start a search engine to compete with Lycos. They struck oil with a new approach to search.
It's hard to say "any argument that proves it was a bad idea to start Excite" because, you know, Ferraris and hookers and coke and all that. A great idea.
But if you're taking on Microsoft, Google and Adobe, you'd better have an awesome idea, and you probably don't need the "this is a good market" encouragement.
My point is that you're both taking cheap shots.
Re: Some Startups Just Don't Need Starting
#6Nobody reigns forever. Rome falls. The advantages of being small and agile can't be understated.
Re: Some Startups Just Don't Need Starting
#72008: You shouldn't try to build web-based Office alternatives because Google, Adobe, and Zoho are already doing it. = 1998: You shouldn't try to build new search engines because Lycos, Excite, and Altavista are already doing it. Any argument that proves it was a bad idea to start Google is probably a bad argument.
Ok, but Google didn't just start a search engine to compete with Lycos. They struck oil with a new approach to search. It's hard to say "any argument that proves it was a bad idea to start Excite" because, you know, Ferraris and hookers and coke and all that. A great idea. But if you're taking on Microsoft, Google and Adobe, you'd better have an awesome idea, and you probably don't need the "this is a good market" en…
Google didn't just "strike oil." The idea that they discovered a magical new algorithm that guaranteed their success is an urban legend. The main thing that made Google different from the portals was that they actually cared about doing search well. (When Google was started, their predecessors were trying hard to get people to stop calling them "search engines.") So there is plenty of room for a new startup to have the same sort of advantage over Google etc in web-based apps that Google did over preceding search engines.
Re: Some Startups Just Don't Need Starting
#82008: You shouldn't try to build web-based Office alternatives because Google, Adobe, and Zoho are already doing it. = 1998: You shouldn't try to build new search engines because Lycos, Excite, and Altavista are already doing it. Any argument that proves it was a bad idea to start Google is probably a bad argument.
[deleted]
Re: Some Startups Just Don't Need Starting
#9Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ok, but Google didn't just start a search engine to compete with Lycos. They struck oil with a new approach to search. It's hard to say "any argument that proves it was a bad idea to start Excite" because, you know, Ferraris and hookers and coke and all that. A great idea. But if you're taking on Microsoft, Google and Adobe, you'd better have an awesome idea, and you probably don't need the "this is a good market" en…
Google didn't just "strike oil." The idea that they discovered a magical new algorithm that guaranteed their success is an urban legend. The main thing that made Google different from the portals was that they actually cared about doing search well. (When Google was started, their predecessors were trying hard to get people to stop calling them "search engines.") So there is plenty of room for a new startup to have t…
My understanding is, Google didn't start as a "search engine that cared about doing search well". It started as a company to capitalize on Page and Brin's doctoral work. Their original plan was to be an arms dealer for other search engines. It was an idea first.
Re: Some Startups Just Don't Need Starting
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
Google didn't just "strike oil." The idea that they discovered a magical new algorithm that guaranteed their success is an urban legend. The main thing that made Google different from the portals was that they actually cared about doing search well. (When Google was started, their predecessors were trying hard to get people to stop calling them "search engines.") So there is plenty of room for a new startup to have t…
My understanding is, Google didn't start as a "search engine that cared about doing search well". It started as a company to capitalize on Page and Brin's doctoral work. Their original plan was to be an arms dealer for other search engines. It was an idea first.
"search engine that cared about doing search well"
That quote is not a quote, is it?
Thomas, I'm done with this thread. I'm sure you mean well (at least, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt), but I've noticed before that arguing with you is exactly like arguing with a troll. The defining quality of both being finding oneself always saying "No, what I said was...."