10 Internet Giants, 10 Years ago(owocki.com)
owocki.com
10 Internet Giants, 10 Years ago
http://owocki.com/2011/01/01/10-internet-giants-10-years-ago/
8 comments
Twitter started in 2006, not 2003: http://www.crunchbase.com/company/twitter
The image for the old twitter page says 2007 at the bottom of the page.
Thanks for the comments. I've corrected the post.
I still can't tell if eBay has actually gotten any better over the past 10 years. :P
My big takeaway:
Crazy to think designers needed four small images to get a box with rounded corners.
Crazy to think designers needed four small images to get a box with rounded corners.
Amazon was missing from the original list so here you go:
2000: http://web.archive.org/web/20000229073549/www.amazon.com/exe...
2009:http://web.archive.org/web/20091027180426/http://www.amazon....
Thanks. I'll give it an add.
It really does seem that there was less of a focus on design back in the day. Sure, times change, fads come and go, and styles change. However, you can't tell me that Youtube's page was anything pretty even with 2005 standards [1] or that Wikipedia invested a lot in their design [2]
What's not surprising is that this seems to be changing. Businesses are investing thousands on the design of their websites and it hard to believe that any more money spent in the area could really make them noticeably better. Twitter, an example of a website that is leading the next generation of the Internet, seems to have been quite stylish when it came out itself. They probably didn't spend that much money on design, but it's evident that they spent time on it. Other startups are doing the same - coming out with killer designs the moment they are released. That definitely wasn't the philosophy 10 or 15 years ago (just look at Google [3]), when design took time to evolve and never started out that good.
However, all of this brings up the issue of functionality in comparison design. I'm sure there were websites at the time that had spent money and time on a good design, but those aren't the ones that succeeded. The ones that ended up becoming the internet giants of 2011 were the ones with hideous interfaces and childish logos, but evidently with great functionality. Does that mean that all the time we are spending on design is useless, or that design itself is useful and has become a bigger factor in what makes a website successful today?
Personally, I think that the time we spend on design is worthwhile, as our usage of the web has increased dramatically over time and therefore a slick and intuitive interface is a key component for a website to have. Users spend so much time on certain webpages, that unless another one can prove to have a more productive and pleasing interface, there is no reason to switch. So what do you all think?
[1] Youtube (2005): http://web.archive.org/web/20050428014715/http://www.youtube...
[2] Wikipedia (2002): http://web.archive.org/web/20020930123525/http://www.wikiped...
[3] Google (1998): http://web.archive.org/web/19981202230410/http://www.google....
What's not surprising is that this seems to be changing. Businesses are investing thousands on the design of their websites and it hard to believe that any more money spent in the area could really make them noticeably better. Twitter, an example of a website that is leading the next generation of the Internet, seems to have been quite stylish when it came out itself. They probably didn't spend that much money on design, but it's evident that they spent time on it. Other startups are doing the same - coming out with killer designs the moment they are released. That definitely wasn't the philosophy 10 or 15 years ago (just look at Google [3]), when design took time to evolve and never started out that good.
However, all of this brings up the issue of functionality in comparison design. I'm sure there were websites at the time that had spent money and time on a good design, but those aren't the ones that succeeded. The ones that ended up becoming the internet giants of 2011 were the ones with hideous interfaces and childish logos, but evidently with great functionality. Does that mean that all the time we are spending on design is useless, or that design itself is useful and has become a bigger factor in what makes a website successful today?
Personally, I think that the time we spend on design is worthwhile, as our usage of the web has increased dramatically over time and therefore a slick and intuitive interface is a key component for a website to have. Users spend so much time on certain webpages, that unless another one can prove to have a more productive and pleasing interface, there is no reason to switch. So what do you all think?
[1] Youtube (2005): http://web.archive.org/web/20050428014715/http://www.youtube...
[2] Wikipedia (2002): http://web.archive.org/web/20020930123525/http://www.wikiped...
[3] Google (1998): http://web.archive.org/web/19981202230410/http://www.google....
However, all of this brings up the issue of functionality in comparison design. I'm sure there were websites at the time that had spent money and time on a good design, but those aren't the ones that succeeded. The ones that ended up becoming the internet giants of 2011 were the ones with hideous interfaces and childish logos, but evidently with great functionality. Does that mean that all the time we are spending on design is useless, or that design itself is useful and has become a bigger factor in what makes a website successful today?
I fully agree with you there. If your product has potential, design is not a key factor. Design becomes a key factor when your product characteristics are similar, if not equal, with competitors. That's the main reason we are seeing a surge of design in web/UI lately: higher competition and lack of innovation.
This also reaffirms my theory that getting there first, when it comes to features, has much higher impact than long design phases (that can eventually be postponed).
I fully agree with you there. If your product has potential, design is not a key factor. Design becomes a key factor when your product characteristics are similar, if not equal, with competitors. That's the main reason we are seeing a surge of design in web/UI lately: higher competition and lack of innovation.
This also reaffirms my theory that getting there first, when it comes to features, has much higher impact than long design phases (that can eventually be postponed).
Was youtube also a matchmaking service? I'm a little confused by that "I'm a Male seeking ..." form below the login box.
It mas most likely an ad (image) made to look like it was part of the page. Those are still around and still fool neophytes.
Wow, I'd forgotten how cheerful Ebay used to look.
Almost makes one want to use it..
Almost makes one want to use it..
[deleted]