undefined | Better HN

0 pointsmindcrime8y ago0 comments

I think that trumps Parsons.

I have a tremendous degree of regard for mcuban, and I think his advice has merit. But I wouldn't say either "trumps" the other. These pithy sayings are handy, but there's a lot of nuance to both of them (IMO) and the devil is in the details.

Should Google have decided not to pursue search because of Altavista, Dogpile, Magellan, Northern Light, Yahoo, and DMOZ? Should Facebook have eschewed social networking because of Friendster, Myspace, Livejournal, etc?

Sometime just being better than the other guys really is enough.

0 comments

4 comments · 3 top-level

chiefalchemist8y ago· 1 in thread

True.

But I would counter with...Google wasn't a search company, but an advertising platform. And that's where is looked where others were not.

jsjohnst8y ago

Google is now an advertising platform. In the beginning, they were no such thing. If Google hadn't essentially stolen the revenue model AdSense is based on from Overture[0], they might be a very different company today.

[0] https://www.cnet.com/news/overture-sues-google-over-search-p...

jsjohnst8y ago

Very minor detail, but Yahoo! didn't have a "search engine" when Google came to be. Yahoo! was still a manually curated "directory" at the time.

imron8y ago

And should Apple have decided not to build a phone... That market was once pretty crowded too.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse