The problem with startups comparing their potential success to Google is that your business model probably isn't Google-like at all.
The standard startup ad-based model is: offer content, show ads. This is not Google's model.
Google's model is rather: build up a massive 3rd-party network of ad displays, and then broker ads onto this ginormous network.
Google is not a ad-displayer, they're an ad-broker. Unless you want to tackle things much the same way, you won't be replicating the success of Google.
I thought about pointing this out, but Google displayed ads on their site before anything else, and the ad network was an outgrowth of their initial success.
Anyone who has enough people wanting to advertise with them can create an affiliate network. Creating that initial demand strikes me as much more difficult.
It's true they did - but bear in mind that (AFAIK) displaying ads just on their own pages was never profitable. Google didn't actually start raking in the cash until they got into adwords and adsense.
IMHO it's more difficult to create the affiliate network by virtue of the fact that to be profitable, your affiliate network needs to be obscenely large.
Search ads have much more clicks per page view because they are better targeted. Google generated 67% of their revenues in Q4 2008 from their own site and just 30% from the AdSense network.
The standard startup ad-based model is: offer content, show ads. This is not Google's model.
Google's model is rather: build up a massive 3rd-party network of ad displays, and then broker ads onto this ginormous network.
Google is not a ad-displayer, they're an ad-broker. Unless you want to tackle things much the same way, you won't be replicating the success of Google.