| 7:04 pm on Jan 29, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|Perhaps the founders are just fed up of the investment bankers telling them how to run their business. |
Then they should never IPO.
Man, I feel sorry for the employees at Google. You know they're chomping at the bit for the IPO to happen.
I wonder if Google's Adsense payments and Adwords revenue aren't adding up. I mean, I wonder if they're inflating payouts on Adsense to get people to use it which couldn't be sustained if the payouts were not inflated for Adsense marketing purposes. If that's the case, they'd have to deflate/normalize the payments before they could IPO. If the IPO is delayed, I predict a decrease in Adsense payouts in the near term.
| 7:16 pm on Jan 29, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I view this whole thing differently. Completely.
1. They are not worried by Yahoo's defection. They are viewing it as freedom to build out Google to a level that no one dreamed of.
2. They are not worried by Microsoft. MSN as a portal is a joke. The only reason people go there is related to bundling and browser start pages. No one goes there for the content if they weren't pushed there. And Microsoft has tried to make msn a great portal for many years.
Google is very confident in its abilities. It feels that the brand it will be building and the new value they will have now that the Yahoo shackles are off will far outweigh timing the market. When you are strong, have no debt, great prospects, you can wait and wait and wait. Sooner or later the market will always bounce back. They feel they'll be stronger after the next round of building their portal. And I agree with them. Remember, Adsense popped up out of nowhere. They probably have some other adsense-like ideas just waiting to be released.
|posted by Yidaki |
Me, i would never IPO with a company that already drives that much profit ... no matter what timing.
I think that's an even better strategy. It may not result in the maximum personal wealth for the founders. But it sure is the best way to see your vision through to the end and keep control. Not that Google agrees. They will one day go public.
| 7:18 pm on Jan 29, 2004 (gmt 0)|
To say the IPO is not on his agenda, currently- could and should be interpreted any number of ways. Without knowing the context of this remark, I'd take it to mean Schmidt declines politely from discussing it at the meetings. Viz. he's not there to discuss the Google IPO. The only reason the article (and slant) takes a more negative or delayed view of the IPO for Spring '04- is the "other" private source which purportedly "leaks" investment banking advice to delay based on market conditions (which fluctuate pretty rapidly; e.g. the Fed's recent choice of words on raising interest rates, citing "patience" instead of a promise).
I don't believe this article rules out a Google IPO in '04 at all. Nothing's official. Until y'all hear from Morgan Stanley/Goldman Sachs.
| 7:30 pm on Jan 29, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Maybe after they become a full fledged portal. This time next year, i can see logging in google to check my email.
| 8:05 pm on Jan 29, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Clark - you are so right on with that 'browser home page' business. So many people see the weekly 'portal' stats and do NOT factor in (or OUT).
Unless I am incorrect, Google is not a 'start page' for anything...it is PULL traffic. MSN is push traffic...or clueless traffic.
| 8:38 pm on Jan 29, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I think that when they moved part of their operation to India, they had a communications problem with working internationally, not with advertisers, but internally, and that moved created some bugs that have been seen, like redirects, and I also attribute the terrible serps since that move, on that move.
They have a lot to learn about BIG business. They are still a young company compared to companies that have successfully moved operations to other countries, like Motorola, HP, IBM, et. al. But that is just my opinion based on what I have seen in quality control for 25 years.
| 11:31 pm on Jan 29, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|all that love that could be shown to Google |
I think Google currently has a lot of love from the general public. However, if the results continue in the vein they have been, that fickle 'little' joe surfer will soon have a few alternatives to look at!
As with many companies and across many sectors, once a company goes public the wolves come out. World stock markets are notoriously short-termist so this would leave Google having to bring in more and more revenue in a smaller and smaller market to satisfy it's investors.
Who gets squeezed?
In the main, the advertiser - 10p (in UK) min clickthrough wouldn't take too long to be implemented. And I am sure they would think of many more ways to increase the advertising buck!
I for one would like to see Google stay as it is and concentrate on getting it's search filled with good results - after all that's how it's got to where it is today.
| 11:48 pm on Jan 29, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|1. They are not worried by Yahoo's defection. They are viewing it as freedom to build out Google to a level that no one dreamed of. |
How? By becoming a portal and competing head to head with Yahoo and MSN? Oh boy.
|2. They are not worried by Microsoft. MSN as a portal is a joke. The only reason people go there is related to bundling and browser start pages. No one goes there for the content if they weren't pushed there. And Microsoft has tried to make msn a great portal for many years. |
A joke? How?
Enough people go there for them to be #2 and I doubt the majority of users cares where he gets his news or even what his home page is. And with more and more non-technical people coming online and seeing their computer as an appliance and not a hobby or a business, bundling and start pages will become even more important. Even more imporant than that will be a search box from the desktop. I wonder if Google will sue MS citing anti-competitive practices for that.
| 11:51 pm on Jan 29, 2004 (gmt 0)|
> They are not worried by Microsoft. MSN as a portal is a joke.
Some people get it - some people don't.
That that don't get, will eventually get it in a couple of years when they turn on their computer and MSN is their only allowable start page.
| 12:17 am on Jan 30, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Assuming an IPO, how would the next 4 quarters show revenue increases? I think they put the brakes on because google is a victim of its own success; nowhere to go here but down. With Yahoo! pulling the plug and the current index in "beta" its just too much uncertainty from an investing perspective.
Nice search engine, probably a lousy stock.
| 12:32 am on Jan 30, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I'll say one thing, we all love to idly speculate over Google.
Be it a search update, AdSense or IPO none of us ever have hard facts.
Makes life somewhat interesting.
| 12:50 am on Jan 30, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Bet this is keep their PR team busy.
Sending mixed messages out into the market, specially from the top is not good. It annoys journalists, financial analysts, retail buyers and gets nowhere.
A good sales person knows, its about setting and meeting expectations... if they send out mixed messages, they don't set expectations correctly and don't meet the ones that they have set.
| 12:56 am on Jan 30, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|I for one would like to see Google stay as it is and concentrate on getting it's search filled with good results - after all that's how it's got to where it is today. |
It would be wonderful if their search was good again.
|How? By becoming a portal and competing head to head with Yahoo and MSN? Oh boy. |
You're thinking of the world in the way it looks today. Google thinks of itself as the best company in the world with the best technical minds in the world. Nimble. Creative. They have ideas in their books that they feel will blow away Yahoo. That's my take on it when trying to divine how they are thinking. I don't mean to say Yahoo won't be a competition. Nor microsoft. They are. But I think Google plans some cool portalized ideas. And the fact is that there has been virtually no innovation in the field of portals for quite some time.
|A joke? How? |
Enough people go there for them to be #2
I don't mean they are a joke in terms of their number of viewers or power. But their "power" lies not in the quality of MSN. It lies in the power of controlling the desktop. Google gets people to its site by its quality. That is a HUGE difference. (Some people will counter that its PR, but the fact is their search quality has been top notch fairly consistently for a long time. I doubt you can name another SE that had the same consitent overall quality and usabiliy for as long.)
|Some people get it - some people don't. |
That that don't get, will eventually get it in a couple of years when they turn on their computer and MSN is their only allowable start page.
MSN will never be my only allowable start page. The day IE forces it, is the day I switch to Opera full time. If they don't let me use opera, I will switch to a Unix-based OS. Linux, Mac OSX, anything else. And if they try to force feed EVERYONE to that extent, it will make their competitors more powerful. Even the great Microsoft can only push so far.
If Google has the mindset that I think they do, I would say they view the internet the way bill gates viewed the desktop. Microsoft today is where IBM was back then. And there is opportunity. They don't need to go on anyone else's schedule. They just need to make sure to get their SERPS back in order and slowly build unique new things.
Do you doubt they have big plans to portalize the big G? Could the writing be any more on the wall than it is? Google News. Google Labs. Adwords. Adsense. Orkut. Giving employees all this "free time" to work on "independent" crap. Pyra Labs. Talk of Google email. Webquotes. API. etcetera.
| 1:41 am on Jan 30, 2004 (gmt 0)|
A few things to consider:
If Google is getting ready to file their S1 Statement, they will enter a 'quiet period' where they cannot officially comment, Dr. Schmidt may have been asked that question at exactly the wrong time and that may have been the only allowable statement he could make. We've already seen GoogleGuy and company fall off of the boards recently. Why?
In April, they will have to reveal their financials anyway due to the size of the company and number of existing shareholders unless they restructure their company into different operating units that are majority owned by outside entities. Highly unlikely.
The investors in Google including Kleiner, Perkins and Sequoia didn't invest in Google only to keep it private. They have limited partners and investors of their own to answer to and I'm sure they are all screaming for an IPO. With two boards seats, I'm sure they also have some influence on the timing of the IPO.
I'm still betting on sooner rather than later.
| 3:41 am on Jan 30, 2004 (gmt 0)|
We sometimes forget that they dont have to go public. This mania came about only because of reporting requirements that will cause them to make public info that last year was confidential. The original logic was, "since you now have to report, you may as well go public".
The question for me is why do they need to go public at this time?
| 5:44 am on Jan 30, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|Man, I feel sorry for the employees at Google. You know they're chomping at the bit for the IPO to happen. |
I have friends at Google, and -- while they do not give me any insider information (alas, really!) -- they do often share with me how much they love working at the company.
While we don't discuss finances and I've also had the good tact not to even bring up the subject of Google's possible IPO, I can tell you that my friends work at Google because they love working there. At risk of sounding a bit sappy here, my friends love their colleagues, they greatly enjoy the Google perks (one of them gets three free good meals a day at Google, plus Clif bars for her camping trips), and above all, they are challenged and excited by their work.
Do they think about money? About possible IPO riches? I have no doubt.
But is that stuff their primary motivation? Should we 'feel sorry' for the GoogleGuys and GoogleGals? No way.
| 7:41 am on Jan 30, 2004 (gmt 0)|
With such huge interests at stake, no doubt this matter has be analysed, re-analysed, and re-re-analysed from a 360 degrees angle, by Google's top management, founders, and all interested stakeholders.
There is something really important behind this decision. Maybe the world + dog will be allowed to discover it later, maybe not...
| 7:44 am on Jan 30, 2004 (gmt 0)|
they greatly enjoy the Google perks (one of them gets three free good meals a day at Google, plus Clif bars for her camping trips),
So, she's a first class google citizen. When the
filing comes out, it'll be very interesting to
see how many second class citizens they have, aka
contract employees without such perks. Maybe they
also need to clean up this part of the picture
before filing the ipo documents.
| 7:45 am on Jan 30, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Would like to know even if us the lay ppl, or maybe most here are higher up connected, wouldnt stand a chance to get a google stock when they go IPO?
As I've recounted my friend's experience in wanting to buy a Netscape stock when they went IPO, he was also quite connected but still couldnt get a sniff.
All the stocks are usually allocated to employees & their relatives plus friends. So is there enough for the public in general?
| 11:43 am on Jan 30, 2004 (gmt 0)|
> There is something really important behind this decision.
If I was offered 20 billion pocket money with my co-founder from Migranesoft or someone else I might throw all career and professional considerations over board and take that little island with free view over the USVI's instead...
| 2:55 pm on Jan 30, 2004 (gmt 0)|
The IPO's delayed because Google's broke. When my kw1 kw2 kw3 for a highly targeted phrase (searchers who use this one are looking to buy... now!) get irrelevant top SERPs from totally unrelated sites, then The Emperor Has No Clothes. I worked like a dog to fill my pages with spot-on, relevant copy that people who search that kw phrase want to see. What does Google with its kw stemming come up with? Sites that the kw does not appear on and fractured logic that serves up pages that have zero relevance. Follow the money. Anybody who invests in the inevitably inflated share prices at IPO time will watch their value drop like a rock a couple of days later. The money guys and the longtime venture capital investors know this, even if the clueless purists that write the code for this dog don't.
| 3:40 pm on Jan 30, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I agree with DeValle.
The recent Algo changes have not gone well for Google.
Ordinary users are noticing, I am getting feedback from my clients and friends that Google is not giving them what they want anymore.
Sure, some results are more relevant, but they are seeing some SERPS that just don't make any kind of sense.
My guess is that they are waiting to get this fixed and for Orkut to go mega - probably 6 months or so.
That pretty much puts Shak on the spot with his before Sept 2004.
Never bet against Shak;)
| 4:25 pm on Jan 30, 2004 (gmt 0)|
LOL - indeed not unless you have deep pockets and a quick dead-cert in your favour to get your cash back ;)
| 4:52 pm on Jan 30, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Everyone talks tough, but do you still use Google when you really need to find something? I bet you do.
| 5:15 pm on Jan 30, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Not recently - altavista has come up trumps five times out of five for various terms from [redacted] through to [redacted].
Google - only three of five. Better than it was about three weeks ago though then I only got two out of five satisfactory results.
I am sure this is will be resolved - but maybe this is one reason why the IPO 'may' be postponbed a wee while?
[edited by: Chris_R at 12:00 pm (utc) on Feb. 1, 2004]
[edit reason] removed specific terms [/edit]
| 5:56 pm on Jan 30, 2004 (gmt 0)|
>>>>but do you still use Google when you really need to find something? I bet you do.
This week No. I could not find several items I needed to buy. I am not an info searcher, but a buyer. I used AV. Great.
It occurred to me recently, that the AD revenue would actually go down in the medium term with poor SERP results. If I am no longer searching on google, then I cannot click on the Ad can I?
To me it Google needs to IPO ASAP, and I think Shak is right. (No way I am taking up that Bet :) ) IPO before Sept.
| 5:58 pm on Jan 30, 2004 (gmt 0)|
DeValle, calling Google broke qualifies you for disability insurance. They're pulling in $50MM+/quarter in profit if not significantly more, everyone knows that.
| 6:13 pm on Jan 30, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I said "broke", but I meant broken. Does anybody deny that the high priests of programming at Google should have well, golly, first seen if perhaps Florida would actually fly before destroying thousands of small businesses in the name of How The Web Ought To Be?
| 7:27 pm on Jan 30, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I've said this elsewhere, but I think it bears repeating.
Google doesn't 'destroy' anyone. Small businesses that rely upon Google for their rent money destroy themselves.
Smart businesses diversify, earn customer loyalty, have blogs / e-mail lists, etc. and don't scream in pitied agony when Google SERPs change.
Is Google broken? Not on the whole, by my estimation. Some SERPs seem a bit screwy, I agree. And I'm sick of still seeing quite a bit of spam on unexpected terms. But I still use Google, my non-geek parents still use Google, my PR/marketing friends still use Google, and frankly, I've heard nary a peep of complaint 'cept for on Webmaster boards like this one.
I have no idea why Google has (or hasn't) delayed their IPO, but I sincerely doubt it has anything whatsoever to do with their SERPs.
| 7:42 pm on Jan 30, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Google delaying IPO because of SERPS is crazy. IPO is a huge process with so many things and people and time involved. It would take a much more clear and tangible issue to halt a process like that.
"Sorry, Mr. Morgan, Mr. Stanley (yes, even Mr. Dean-Witter!) we can't IPO right now because too many webmasters don't like our search results"
| 7:50 pm on Jan 30, 2004 (gmt 0)|
No, its more likely Mssr. Morgan, Stanley, and Goldman would be asking the question,
"Mr. Binn and Mr. Page, what about the recent negative articles about Google in the media? After all, IPOs are more about perception than value."
| This 80 message thread spans 3 pages: < < 80 ( 1  3 ) > > |