Google was easily 10x better than any of their competition. It was effectively alone in the market.
Most of us were using 56k modems to access the internet back then, Google's search returned results within a couple of seconds. Yahoo, Lycos, Excite, Alta-Vista were still loading. Then the search results themselves were so good you could often just pick the first result. They eventually added a button which just took you directly to the first result. Which I used.
I was a relatively early investor (2008), but I was very hesitant early on because Microsoft was building an integrated search function, which became Windows Live Search, which became Bing. I definitely remember it took me to the beginning of the financial crisis to finally decide that it was going nowhere. I suspect it was the development of Google Maps that changed my mind.
"Google" of today is really AdSense ($102M, 2003) -> Android ($50M+?, 2005) -> YouTube ($1.6B, 2006) -> Google Docs ($50M+?, 2006)
Without those prescient and lucky acquisitions, we'd be talking about a "Google" that looked much more like Yahoo.
It wasn't search proficiency that built the empire, it was leveraging a transient search quality advantage into cash flow, then plowing that cash into acquisitions to construct a durable moat.
There were many search engines around during that time. Yahoo, Excite, Microsoft Live Search, Lycos... I don't recall any of them improving enough to rival early 2000's Google.
I couldn't even tell you when I used the Google search page. It's been years at least. I wouldn't be surprised if many other people also don't go there to search. I assume most search straight in the url bar.
Your memory is faulty. AltaVista was always super fast--it never had the advertising bloat that the other ones had until the very end.
The problem AltaVista had was that it didn't scale when the Internet went exponential--so AltaVista would give you good search results until you asked current, topical questions. AltaVista relied on running a single, super-expensive stonking huge Alpha machine while Google ran on lots of commodity servers that spidered constantly.
This is inaccurate. When I was running AV operations around 2000, we were running on a couple dozen huge Alpha machines for the index layer and queries. We had a bunch of smaller machines for Web serving, and a high memory set of Alphas as a caching layer.
We also spidered constantly. A couple of those huge backend Alphas were dedicated to holding the constant spider index. AV had a well earned reputation for quick discovery, although I think Google wound up faster. We suffered a bit from maintaining separate indexes for the main corpus and recent pages, and I imagine Google handled that better.
But the period of time when our main index went to hell was the period of time when we failed to do a new main index crawl for several months. I won’t get into why that happened politically because my memory isn’t perfect and I don’t want to criticize anyone who won’t see this to stand up for themselves, but it’s absolutely the case that we let the index get stale.
And I will say that I think the execs were distracted by the idea of challenging Yahoo by buying a shopping site and a local news site of sorts and, unlike the Google of the time, they lacked the wisdom to focus on our primary product.
And now I fade back into the hedges, until the next time AV comes up… I suspect a high percentage of my HN comments are on this exact topic. It makes me sad.
And I still miss the AltaVista illustrated diagram (Java Applet) that would allow you to drill down and specialize the search results. No modern search has ever matched that, again.
That feature sounds amazing! I tried searching wayback etc but wasn't able to find any more details. Do you happen to know of any screenshots / deeper descriptions for it?
Perhaps we could nerd snipe Marginalia Search to add it :)
I was not a software engineer but yeah, I think so. Every now and then we’d have to go get Mike Burrows to do some consulting work to rewrite a bit more of the code in assembly.
I'd like to regulate them the way American companies are regulated, and then regulate American companies in Europe the way European companies are regulated. Level the playing field.
Not exactly rocket science, it's just copying the things the Americans (and Chinese) are already doing.
I've read the article and I kind of agree with some of the things he's saying. It's more than just AI though. Energy is the big problem and the big problem there is that we're just not ramping up renewables quickly enough. Why? Corruption of course. We had a big leaded 15-20 years ago but the German car manufactorers and British/Dutch oil companies applied a huge amount of political pressure, aided by American interests, which not just slowed the transition but also helped strangle our solar/wind industry. It's not a lost cause though, at EU level they could absolutely make it happen.
Renewable energy is unreliable without a steady storage capacity and EU would still rely on raw materials for battery production on other countries. Further, regardless of the energy source, what is vital for AI or any other industry is a steady, reliable power source which cannot be provided only through renewables in EU, not only because lack of storage, but also unfavourable geography.
That's only true at the micro level; at the macro level it is surprisingly stable over the EU zone + UK + Norway. There are capacity and interconnect issues but they're small fry. We have a huge amount of capacity for wind and considerable for solar, we just need to get using more of it.
We have one of the largest deposits of rare earth minerals in the world in the EU. Where we suffer is in lack of refining capacity. The US are in a similar situation.
That is not true. Germany shutting down their atomic power plants had a rippling effect on the energy market in whole EU because they thought renewables would be enough to power the German industries. It was criticised by even the Sweden's Minister for Energy (Ebba Busch).
Right now Germany is being de-industrialised because it's far expensive for the industries to produce goods there compared to other EU countries and those companies are moving out. That's the price Germany is paying right now for betting on renewables without any investment on infrastructure or a proper migration plan and blind political guidance.
Even the EU has rare earth minerals, do you really thing the climate activists, nature conservation activists and all other far lefties would actually allow mining those minerals in EU?
Germany shut down their atomic power plants and replaced them with natural gas. They even fiddled the EU environmental rules such that natural gas was considered "part of the green transition". That all back-fired when Russia - the source of that natural gas - attempted to use it as leverage to take Ukraine.
We were screaming at them at the time that it was a very very dumb idea to close their nuclear power and against natural gas. As always we were right.
Climate activits? We've been sending riot police and disappearing them for 5 years now whilst the bands of knife carrying racists thugs, funded by America, roam around our streets causing all hell.
I do agree about China being way ahead and way smarter here, I should add. They've made America, Europe, Japan, India, Russia look really stupid. I've admired their strategic long term thinking for as long as I've been aware of it (~25 years now, they have a long history and deep rich culture and this is part of it).
The problem with taxes in Europe are that the ultra-wealthy don't pay them. That burden is particularly focused on those who are high wage earners. If I look at my own country, as a high earner I'm paying close to a 50% effective tax rate (a little less with mortgage interest deductions). However the billionaire families who own the beer brewers, shipping companies and agraculture companies are paying well under 0.5% effective. They pay less than in the US. Due to this reason we're one of the most infamous tax dodge countries in Europe, apparently the Swedish and German billionaires have tax residency to avoid paying it.
Ikea use my country - The Netherland - to avoid paying tax. Same thing that Google and go co with Ireland. They have literal custom agreements with our tax office.
Wouldn't rich people still have dividends, interest, and possibly executive compensation and capital gains? And if, for example, their money is in a business, that business would be paying all taxes as well, both resulting in tax revenue, and less for the investor? Or is there a source that they don’t have income?
> oligarchs in Sweden pay very little taxes
How are you quantifying that claim? From what I can find, the top 1% pay 10-15% of Sweden’s total tax revenue, presumably a far larger share than any other similarly sized group? Or what's the quantification you're using?
The obscenely rich in Sweden are for the most part so because they own companies that grew a lot in value, when their stock was issued its value was low so they paid very little taxes on it. If they sell stock they pay 30% on profit from it, which is not a lot of tax on possibly billions.
They may also avoid selling by taking out loans instead, and just pay interest rather than any taxes.
This doesn't mean that the rich are not paying taxes or are not paying for a larger % of taxes in total, but they're far from paying their fair share because most of their wealth didn't come from income. Regular employees have higher effective tax rates, even more so if they're issued RSUs.
> How are you quantifying that claim? From what I can find, the top 1% pay 10-15% of Sweden’s total tax revenue, presumably a far larger share than any other similarly sized group? Or what's the quantification you're using?
The OP is presumably pointing out the discrepancies between taxation of wealth vs taxation of income. Your top 1% stat is presumably income.
For instance, I pay 52% marginal, but only 33% on capital gains. So if I am capital income heavy, I will pay less tax than someone on the same money but getting it as income.
A vassal of California. I know we like to say that tech is the US but that's not true. It is almost completely focused around a small part of California. Take that out and Europe and the US are comparable with respect to software tech at least.
Europe has a golden chance with the current mass outflux of talent from the US and I really hope we grasp it. I just don't see my country (NL) doing that as our political class are nearly as stupid as the Americans.
The tech companies could all move to Texas and the power would be there. They've all won. They all have their monopolies / duopolies.
They would never have been the success they were in the first place without California. It was the culture, the conditions (no non-competes) and the lax regulation (non-enforcement of rules aimed at avoiding monopolies which allowed Facebook to buy any emerging competitor not owned by the Chinese government) which created them.
Something I have noticed is that the people who are using it to write everything are the same people who had a poor level of English writing a year or two ago.
I've never had a problem with direct translation... but the 3 paragraph choppy structure with subheadings full of AI-isms is not ESL users using it faithfully
Would make sense ... writing is a skill, and one that I think most people are proud of if they are good at it.
Maybe it's different if you are doing technical/commercial writing, but for social media where you are writing for fun, and to express yourself, it'd be odd to let AI be your voice unless you realize your own writing is very poor.
> for social media where you are writing for fun, and to express yourself, it'd be odd to let AI be your voice unless you realize your own writing is very poor.
A lot of people post for clout, so something that can skip the difficult process of becoming a good writer (and original thinker) is more than enough. They can churn out think pieces about any topic at an unlimited pace, basically.
It doesn’t add much to the world, but they get a lot of traction (which I cannot understand, given the quality of content.) And that’s what matters to them.
I think if you gave most people the choice between (a) being a thoughtful and original writer (b) being seen as a thoughtful and original writer, the vast majority choose (b). Especially when it is zero effort.
I noticed this from former coworkers who I know couldn't write beyond first grader level a few years ago. They weren't good at their native language either.
Now they write "competent" blog posts on LinkedIn that seem 100% AI slop. Some are employed at AWS, too.
I'm not a native English speaker as I'm sure my writing shows. My point is that I'd rather read genuine posts full of grammar errors instead of slop.
I can't tell from your post that English is not your native language, outside of the Americanisms (I assumed that American English was your native language) :-)
Analytics should be self hosted. For any serious business there should never be a reason to use a SaaS product. For SME (including startups) obviously yes. But if you have devops teams then deploy on your own hardware.
Most of us were using 56k modems to access the internet back then, Google's search returned results within a couple of seconds. Yahoo, Lycos, Excite, Alta-Vista were still loading. Then the search results themselves were so good you could often just pick the first result. They eventually added a button which just took you directly to the first result. Which I used.
reply