Why is that fair? They're designed for different purposes. IPFS falls far short of being useful in a transformative way because it lacks this important feature. Otherwise, it'll be a kind of gimmicky alternative to HTTP, "auto-archiving HTTP", that never got used for anything real.

Did you ever use the web in 1995?

Content discovery is neither a part of HTTP nor the architecture of the web. It's a feature if it's current landscape, built on top of existing non-ideal ALI and brute force (scanning).

Good web search (represented by Google) appeared around 1998, years after the general availability of the web, when the corpus of web pages was already large. Up to this moment, search is powered by ad revenue.

I don't see how IPFS is significantly different in this regard.

It isn't 1995, this is exactly my point. If we're trying to design new systems, we shouldn't design them with the exact same problems. What's the point of "decentralizing" if it just means another Google?

The approach of yacy.net may be partly applicable to IPFS.

Donating resources to a "traditional" scanning search engine is also probably doable. But unlike Web, IPFS lacks intense linking and thus "citation ranking" (PageRank-like). Measuring relevance is harder.

I don't disagree that having content discovery would be nice, but IFPS makes a pretty good case [1] about what it brings to the table over HTTP. My point was that HTTP also has "zero out-of-the-box support" for content discovery, yet once search engines came out, we were fine.

[1] https://ipfs.io/#why

If by fine you mean a centralized search engine is a good solution for a decentralized network, then yeah.