

10 Internet Giants, 10 Years ago - queso
http://owocki.com/2011/01/01/10-internet-giants-10-years-ago/

======
solipsist
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...](http://web.archive.org/web/20050428014715/http://www.youtube.com/)

[2] Wikipedia (2002):
[http://web.archive.org/web/20020930123525/http://www.wikiped...](http://web.archive.org/web/20020930123525/http://www.wikipedia.org/)

[3] Google (1998):
[http://web.archive.org/web/19981202230410/http://www.google....](http://web.archive.org/web/19981202230410/http://www.google.com/)

~~~
johndar
_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).

------
Ysx
Twitter started in 2006, not 2003: <http://www.crunchbase.com/company/twitter>

~~~
cantbecool
The image for the old twitter page says 2007 at the bottom of the page.

~~~
ksowocki
Thanks for the comments. I've corrected the post.

------
patricklynch
My big takeaway:

Crazy to think designers needed four small images to get a box with rounded
corners.

------
ameyamk
I still can't tell if eBay has actually gotten any better over the past 10
years. :P

------
ameyamk
Amazon was missing from the original list so here you go: 2000:
[http://web.archive.org/web/20000229073549/www.amazon.com/exe...](http://web.archive.org/web/20000229073549/www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/subst/home/home.html)
2009:[http://web.archive.org/web/20091027180426/http://www.amazon....](http://web.archive.org/web/20091027180426/http://www.amazon.com/)

~~~
ksowocki
Thanks. I'll give it an add.

------
Ryan_IRL
Was youtube also a matchmaking service? I'm a little confused by that "I'm a
Male seeking ..." form below the login box.

~~~
istvanp
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.

~~~
Ryan_IRL
Wait... did you just call me a non-native plant species?

~~~
istvanp
My comment was not directed at you. I was simply stating a general fact. In
this context it also took me a second to realize it was an ad.

------
joeyh
Wow, I'd forgotten how cheerful Ebay used to look.

Almost makes one want to use it..

