tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2460005.post111049296372756831..comments2023-11-05T04:28:29.961-08:00Comments on Adventures in Capitalism: Chrishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00927628412285314176noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2460005.post-1110915250065954822005-03-15T11:34:00.000-08:002005-03-15T11:34:00.000-08:00The key innovation that Google made in the sponsor...The key innovation that Google made in the sponsored listings space is clearly separating them out from the organic search results.<BR/><BR/>While Overture pioneered the concept of sponsored listings, their practice of not distinguishing sponsored listings from organic search results kept them a niche player.Chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00927628412285314176noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2460005.post-1110857550255571012005-03-14T19:32:00.000-08:002005-03-14T19:32:00.000-08:00I almost stopped reading (I'm glad I didn't) when ...I almost stopped reading (I'm glad I didn't) when he praised Google for introducing<BR/>"unintrusive keyword based ads". Google is a great company but I think they are<BR/>being given too much credit for their success. What would Google be had they<BR/>started in 1996 and competed head-on with Excite, AltaVista and Yahoo bunch while<BR/>VC's were still pumping millions into Google's search competitors?<BR/>Would Google be synonymous with search today or would they be known as a bigger<BR/>Inktomi running Yahoo's backend?<BR/><BR/>If you think about it.. the business folks that Paul derided at Yahoo were somewhat right... if not for Overture's business model, Search would have brought in no money and would not be deserving<BR/>of an elevated corporate focus.<BR/><BR/>But I digress. <BR/><BR/>Other than my issue with putting Google on the pedestal, I think it was a<BR/>very well written article that hit almost every aspect of starting and running a startup especially a bootstrapped technology startup. You had summarized nicely most of the major points but the one that got to me was his advice to deliver a simple working version 1 as quickly as possible and to be as flexible in the during the initial stages of the startup. I know of quite a few startups that are so worried that their technology <BR/>will be eclipsed by a fast approaching competitor that they try to make version 1 as <BR/>complete as possible before releasing it and as a result making the software hard<BR/>to change once the real customer feedback comes in.<BR/><BR/>The same advice was also given by the venerable Fred Brooks in his book the Mytical Man Month.<BR/>Fred proposed that every complex project be developed with a throwaway prototype (aka version 1).<BR/>He argued that it is difficult to anticipate the acutal needs of a complex software until it is actually in use, and to just deliver a working version one quickly and follow on with a well design version 2 based on the feedback you get from version 1.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2460005.post-1110500240976650572005-03-10T16:17:00.000-08:002005-03-10T16:17:00.000-08:00There's no question that many technologists are pr...There's no question that many technologists are pretty clueless when it comes to marketing. But by the same token, so are many HBS MBAs. The key is the ability to listen to the customer, and to give them what they need. I think that what Paul is driving at is that marketing doesn't require a fancy degree, just like hacking doesn't require a fancy degree. You just need persistence, insight, and the willingness to listen.Chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00927628412285314176noreply@blogger.com