Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Some Startups Just Don't Need Starting

mashable.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–17 of 17 posts

Re: Some Startups Just Don't Need Starting

#11

Post by tptacek »

pg wrote: post #10
tptacek wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...."

Duly noted.

Re: Some Startups Just Don't Need Starting

#12

Post by vlad »

tptacek wrote: post #5
pg wrote: post #3

2008: 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…

You said "they struck oil with a new approach to search." I believe nobody, not even other search companies cared about the algorithm. The search engines did not want to buy PageRank (outright, not just license), not even for $1M. Not even during the Dot Com craze. Nobody wanted to improve search, in other words. That's what PG is writing about.

Had Larry and Sergey received $1M, then I would agree that they would have struck it rich, and probably continued their doctorate studies. But instead they decided to build a company around it even though no other company believed they had anything worthwhile to, in the order of increasing significance, 1) purchase, 2) invest in, 3) license, or, most insulting of all, 4) not even pay their own employees to copy (at least not until 4-6 years later.) And yet, they decided to drop out of the best Graduate Computer Science program and try to start a great company because existing portals were not doing search well, and nor did they care. Only a long time later did Yahoo! decide to license Google search (nobody else did) and, only even later did Microsoft and Yahoo! started paying their own employees to clone Google's search tactics (as well as look and feel.)

Re: Some Startups Just Don't Need Starting

#13

Post by endlessvoid94 »

As always, history will judge whether these ideas are good or bad. Reading about it on a blog is not going to change my mind.

Worse, if it DOES change my mind, what have I gained? Nothing. I'd rather discover it was a bad idea because I tried it and failed, not because someone "told me so".

Re: Some Startups Just Don't Need Starting

#15

Post by vlad »

rantfoil wrote: post #6

Nobody reigns forever. Rome falls. The advantages of being small and agile can't be understated.

A bonus people don't realize is that you're not necessarily competing with big companies. You're solving problems where they get the credit and you get money. I'm not in that boat yet, but that's exactly what Paul's been writing about for the past 8 years.

The advantage of being small in a field where 3-5 big companies try to create a web suite is that they have to focus on each other, not on little startups. While they're busy trying to match each other feature for feature in the way that a big company is supposed to do, you can develop a solution and traction, that they would love to buy and release to show the users and media how "smart" and "cutting edge" they are, even though they did not themselves commission the creation of the technology. It also helps them self-affirm and brag that they hire "the best and the brightest."

Post reply on HN