Google ad on a magazine from 1999
Google ad on a magazine from 1999
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ca/post/22055566
Google ad on a magazine from 1999
If only they had stuck with that
They definitely abandoned the "do one thing well" philosophy.
And the "don't be evil" philosophy
No they just changed the focus of that to making money.
Ahh yes the "Do no evil" era.
Notice that era was before they went public. Then it predictably became the "how do we make a profit this quarter?" era.
That's not a Google issue. That's literally each and every public traded corporation. They need to maximize shareholders profits by definition.
Could we stop stock markets and that? I'd love it.
I don't believe anyone decided to step in deeper shit one step at a time, they listed, and from there onwards it's the only possible path. Death by a thousand greedy strokes.
I would like to have been a fly on the wall at the meeting when they decided "OK now we're evil, right?"
are we the baddies?
How the mighty have fallen
yea, its funny to see xkcd.com/792 from 2010, back when google wasn't evil
All these companies start off with altruistic intentions and then become evil. Money and power is helluva drug.
Google set out specifically to not be evil. They even set their company motto as "don't be evil". But then racist fucking psychopath Sundar Pichai was hired as CEO and the motto was scraped for "do the right thing", with the "right thing" always being evil. The new motto is only half spoken. The full motto is truly "do the right thing to obtain money and power at all costs".
I wonder if this is the actual philosophy Google had at the time or if they always planned to be what they are now.
There will always be a difference between the two-things-in-a-basement mentality and the oh-god-won't-somebody-think-of-the-shareholders mentality.
Don't be evil, you know.
I wouldn't be surprised if there was some kind of Steve Wozniak / Steve Jobs split personality thing going on. Maybe one or the other person involved were serious about the "don't be evil" thing. But the others were not.
Time to re-integrate portal litter into our vocabularies
Done.
I just Googled portal litter. Yeesh.
yeah sorta funny how google took over partly because yahoo was so fully of ads and crap.
If they had ads for themselves, I assume they had income. But they say that their platform doesn't have ads. Where did they get the money to pay their own ads?
Every source on the history of Google seems to
implicateimply that their growth and development went:Using their university resources -> surviving off of investor money -> starting monetization with targeted ads and raking in money
So it seems they had a phase of cornering their market with both public resources and off risky investments, then capitalised on having that exclusive appeal. Seems all too familiar, considering every damn tech startup under the sun now seems to go "trick investors or public funds" -> "corner market" -> "enshittifcation"
If someone else has some better info - go ahead and correct me, but there seems to be no mention of monetisation of Google before their targeted ad rollout.
Same way Uber lost money for 7 years straight. Investors.
That doesn't look like an ad, but a section in a (probably) tech magazine where they introduce useful or interesting websites to their readers.
What magazine?
Playboy?
I'm gonna believe it was Hustler, Larry Flynt was a big supporter of internet freedom.
Oh the irony
It's a trap!
Alternate reality
I was in university then and we actually used Yahoo mostly to learn about how to search (back then with boolean operators and other things). I don't recall covering google. I think maybe we had Alta-Vista as well? Of course, Archie, Veronica, etc. were still taught as well.
Oh how the dystopian tables have turned
I saw a post that said the same thing about duckduckgo a couple of days ago
