Why Google beat Yahoo in the Internet war?
The empire that Yahoo built years is gradually dying. What made this company fail in the competition with Google?
Just a decade ago, Yahoo was the "big man" of the technology village, ready to take on smaller rivals but is about to bankrupt. At that time, Google was just a small company in Mountain View, which has become a major global player.
Why is Yahoo the loser, and Google is the winner? It's also because of both approaches to core infrastructure in the context of rapid technological change.
First: Build fast and build to survive in the end
At the beginning of the new millennium, Google and Yahoo embarked on two different paths to reach a large scale, meeting the growing demand of the Internet economy (search, email, maps, ...). For Yahoo, the solution is closely related to NetApp. It allows the company to quickly build, install and use application servers to meet market demand.
. Change Yahoo password
. Yahoo sign up
. Yahoo Login
But in Mountain View, Google began to build its own corporate infrastructure called file systems. In it, it functions as a platform that can serve a variety of services provided by Google. Rather than use the latest storage as a platform, the company uses commercial servers to support flexible and customizable architecture that can serve its own ecosystem. From application sites, maps to cloud storage can all be flexibly supported.
Second: expand the complexity
It took four years of continuous development and a lot of technical manpower, the new Google system files were required to use for critical operations. Meanwhile, Yahoo has added more NetApp filters almost immediately to keep up with the demand for its services. In the past, Yahoo has far outstripped its rivals in the Internet dominance.
However, Yahoo's rapid market access has appeared many holes. As demand continues to expand and diversify, the downside of infrastructure synchronization appears. It causes costly resources to reconstruct NetApp when Yahoo wants to provide new services.
As a result, Yahoo faces the same problem on different services. The NetApp platform caused a shortage of costs, leading to the company's slowdown. But for Google, the services are acquired integrated into its file system. In addition, the server system is built flexible, making full use of multitasking capabilities. Thereby, reduce the cost with enhanced efficiency.
Finally: the importance of the new beginning
This can be a simple story of the scope of flexible architecture. Under the "Understanding the problem before reviewing solutions" lesson, this is a lesson for company sustainability. In addition, businesses such as Amazon or Facebook are slowly building their own infrastructure if they do not want to lose their current position to emerging companies. Companies must always have new beginnings, to reinvent themselves, to avoid being overtaken.
Google sacrifices its immediate growth for sustainable long-term growth in Silicon Valley. The result is clear, Google is the winner in the Internet war. Yahoo, a decade ago, is slowly sinking into the past.
Just a decade ago, Yahoo was the "big man" of the technology village, ready to take on smaller rivals but is about to bankrupt. At that time, Google was just a small company in Mountain View, which has become a major global player.
Why is Yahoo the loser, and Google is the winner? It's also because of both approaches to core infrastructure in the context of rapid technological change.
First: Build fast and build to survive in the end
At the beginning of the new millennium, Google and Yahoo embarked on two different paths to reach a large scale, meeting the growing demand of the Internet economy (search, email, maps, ...). For Yahoo, the solution is closely related to NetApp. It allows the company to quickly build, install and use application servers to meet market demand.
. Change Yahoo password
. Yahoo sign up
. Yahoo Login
But in Mountain View, Google began to build its own corporate infrastructure called file systems. In it, it functions as a platform that can serve a variety of services provided by Google. Rather than use the latest storage as a platform, the company uses commercial servers to support flexible and customizable architecture that can serve its own ecosystem. From application sites, maps to cloud storage can all be flexibly supported.
Second: expand the complexity
It took four years of continuous development and a lot of technical manpower, the new Google system files were required to use for critical operations. Meanwhile, Yahoo has added more NetApp filters almost immediately to keep up with the demand for its services. In the past, Yahoo has far outstripped its rivals in the Internet dominance.
However, Yahoo's rapid market access has appeared many holes. As demand continues to expand and diversify, the downside of infrastructure synchronization appears. It causes costly resources to reconstruct NetApp when Yahoo wants to provide new services.
As a result, Yahoo faces the same problem on different services. The NetApp platform caused a shortage of costs, leading to the company's slowdown. But for Google, the services are acquired integrated into its file system. In addition, the server system is built flexible, making full use of multitasking capabilities. Thereby, reduce the cost with enhanced efficiency.
Finally: the importance of the new beginning
This can be a simple story of the scope of flexible architecture. Under the "Understanding the problem before reviewing solutions" lesson, this is a lesson for company sustainability. In addition, businesses such as Amazon or Facebook are slowly building their own infrastructure if they do not want to lose their current position to emerging companies. Companies must always have new beginnings, to reinvent themselves, to avoid being overtaken.
Google sacrifices its immediate growth for sustainable long-term growth in Silicon Valley. The result is clear, Google is the winner in the Internet war. Yahoo, a decade ago, is slowly sinking into the past.
Nhận xét
Đăng nhận xét