Google - Our History in Depth

Sergey Brin probably had the snazziest profile picture in those times:<p><a href="http://web.archive.org/web/19980418143602/http://www-db.stanford.edu/~sergey/" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;web.archive.org&#x2F;web&#x2F;19980418143602&#x2F;http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www-db.stan...</a>

One interesting thing that stood out in terms of Google-the-startup: they incorporated on Sep 4, 1998 and raised $25 million in June 1999, and made their first acquisition in February 2001. The traction they must have been able to show must have staggering.

I wonder if they&#x27;re old enough -- of prescient enough -- yet to realize they should probably have a staff historian.

Lot of firsts in 1999:<p>First dog<p>First chef<p>First non-engineering hire<p>First press release<p>First female engineer seems to be missing...

When did Slashdot first mention Google? That is when I first heard of it

I just read this article on David Cheriton over the weekend: <a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/ryanmac/2012/08/01/professor-billionaire-david-cheriton/" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.forbes.com&#x2F;sites&#x2F;ryanmac&#x2F;2012&#x2F;08&#x2F;01&#x2F;professor-bil...</a><p>And surprisingly, the Google Timeline doesn&#x27;t include him in there (though he should probably be listed around the 1998 time that Andy Bechtolsheim wrote his check...unless they both contributed to the same check?).

No mention of their funding from the National Science Foundation that helped them get off the ground?<p><a href="http://www.nsf.gov/discoveries/disc_summ.jsp?cntn_id=100660" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.nsf.gov&#x2F;discoveries&#x2F;disc_summ.jsp?cntn_id=100660</a> <a href="http://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/showAward?AWD_ID=9411306" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.nsf.gov&#x2F;awardsearch&#x2F;showAward?AWD_ID=9411306</a>

I get this page in Dutch. I didn&#x27;t ask for it and I can&#x27;t change it. In fact, I&#x27;m logged in with an account which only has one language preference set (English), which Google happily ignores whenever it feels like.<p>And it would be merely annoying if it only affected the interface language, but it changes features, search results and in this case the entire content.<p>Which makes it pretty much impossible to participate in this discussion in HN.<p>This is one of the reasons why by now I dislike Google as much as I disliked Microsoft back in 90&#x27;s.<p>Some people may find it hard to identify with, but imagine communicating with someone you know speaks perfect English, who you have politely requested to communicate in English, and who actually speaks English to everyone else in the room <i>except you</i>.<p>There are less offensive ways to say &quot;fuck you&quot;.

Strange that Gmail is not mentioned in 2004 unless I am missing it! They mention Chat for Gmail but not Gmail?

Cool, I just discovered that they have Inactive Account Management.<p><a href="https://www.google.com/settings/u/0/account/inactive" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.google.com&#x2F;settings&#x2F;u&#x2F;0&#x2F;account&#x2F;inactive</a>

The Link for 2013 is actually pointing to 2011 - AM missing somethign here ? :-)

Wow! Is this new, or has it been out for a while?<p>Just finished reading Steven Levy&#x27;s book on Google - amazing read and insight into Google&#x27;s history.

I&#x27;d like to know more about what happened between 1995-&#x27;96. Besides their introduction, how did they become partners? Were they office mates?

Seems to be missing the word &quot;reader&quot;

They really need to add in the &#x27;deaths&#x27; or transitions of their products as well.

This is really great ! Especially all the April fool days Google gave us.<p>It reminds me of one of my friend. He had to explain &quot;How Google works&quot; in the class. He accidentally read half of this prank:<p><a href="http://www.google.com/technology/pigeonrank.html" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.google.com&#x2F;technology&#x2F;pigeonrank.html</a><p>and explained it in the class. Everyone enjoyed !<p>But the thing to be noticed most was that most of the students, including the reached believed ! !

Timelines are a tough, sometimes misleading&#x2F;information-hiding format...they have a systematic look akin to data, but are much closer to regular editorial content in how they&#x27;re produced.<p>Case in point, the Person Finder is mentioned twice on the Timeline, for the Tokyo Earthquake and the Boston Marathon bombings, but not for the event at which it was conceived -- Hurricane Katrina (<i></i>correction at bottom) -- something that was arguably a more epic disaster than the bombings or earthquake, while at the same time being a much bigger and more surprising technical feat at the time...given that it was 2005, when Facebook and the social web had been barely a product.<p>- <i></i> My bad, Google&#x27;s actual adoption of Person Finder was during Haiti in 2010, which, well predates both Tokyo and Boston and was definitely a bigger disaster in terms of human life than both. But Haiti isn&#x27;t mentioned in the Google timeline<p><a href="https://support.google.com/personfinder/?hl=en" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;support.google.com&#x2F;personfinder&#x2F;?hl=en</a><p>But the Tokyo earthquake and Boston bombings are more fresh in our mind, hence their greater prominence on a timeline generated from today&#x27;s perspective.<p>(Not criticizing anything in particular about the OP, just pointing out that timelines can be just as obfuscating as they are clarifying, and the Person Finder example stuck out to me)

A good marketing piece.