| 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."
| 8:07 pm on Jan 30, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Having an IPO during poor quality SERPS is a recipe for the media to have MAJOR bad PR about Google.
As for other SEs I use AllTheWeb sometimes. Their image search and video and audio search is often better.
| 7:58 am on Jan 31, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Search is what Google do. Nothing else, we cannot criticise the quality of the beds they make.
If a company is having a problem with their product, it affects the share price.
| 7:54 pm on Jan 31, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|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. |
Such as? I can't think of anything lacking in my ability to customize my chosen portal page.
| 7:56 pm on Jan 31, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|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.) |
It doesn't matter how you get "power".
| 8:13 pm on Jan 31, 2004 (gmt 0)|
One thing not to forget: G has a world of potential, capability that they haven't even been thinking of materializing yet.
Googlehacks only provides a taste of their incredible R&D power and value.
And thus: as mentioned before: damn dangerous to let M play with takeover thoughts for too long! I say: Protect those fine folks and this crazy value that G has built in such a short period of time, IPO would be the proper answer right now.
They might have another answer though and it might even blow away US.
| 6:05 pm on Feb 1, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|one of them gets three free good meals a day at Google, plus Clif bars for her camping trips |
This will change after the IPO. I've seen it happen. Investors don't like fat.
| 6:10 pm on Feb 1, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|Everyone talks tough, but do you still use Google when you really need to find something? I bet you do. |
Sure, but a lot of people use Friendster, too, and they're currently making $0/year. The quality of the service has nothing to do with whether it will be a good investment or not. Being able to make a profit doing it determines whether it will be a good investment or not.
| 6:12 pm on Feb 1, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|"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" |
I'm with you. I think the SERPs have nothing to do with it. I think cashflow is the issue.
| 6:16 pm on Feb 1, 2004 (gmt 0)|
My personal hope is that they DON'T do an IPO. It's great for those that get rich on the inside, but I feel that a companies decisions are never the same afterward. Boards and stockholders dictate decisions that are not necessarily the best thing. It seems like we've seen it over and over again with any public company. Founders can get forced out. The bottom line becomes most important..
Some day down the line, we'll hear about that 20% devoted for personal devlopment projects being eliminated because it doesn't help the financials enough or something like that.
Things like the News project wouldn't have been started unless there was a clear money trail from the beginning. The following of the tick of the stock price kills long term creativity in so many companies.
I've gone through it three times in my career now and companies are not as strong afterward, (two 50 year companies died within 2 years of IPOs and the other is hopelessly losing customers) except for the executives pocketbooks.....Just my point of view..
| 6:19 pm on Feb 1, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|bottom line becomes most important.. |
fat cat sydnrome as we call it in London.
Based on the Austin thread developing ([webmasterworld.com ]) if this is being seen across Google results, they better hurry up if it's soon before articles start appearing across the press.
make url hyperlink
| 8:46 pm on Feb 1, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|Such as? I can't think of anything lacking in my ability to customize my chosen portal page. |
It isn't because you can't think of anything lacking, that people with vision cannot come up with something innovative. You probably didn't think of adsense before it was there, but it was a nice innovation. You probably didn't think you were lacking the internet before it existed. Etc.
And I can think of lots of things that a portal can do. Starting with the first killer app. Email. I have a thread somewhere where I mentioned a bunch of stuff to fight spam that a yahoo-style free webmail provider can offer that would be wonderful. And I'm sure Google has plenty of ideas. You obviously think that fresh ideas on portals have hit their limit. Based on that thinking I don't think we'll ever agree on much.
|It doesn't matter how you get "power". |
That is a statement. It doesn't have a lot of meaning though. If you want to sell a product called, let's say gum. And you have 100,000 guns and 1,000,000 bullets. First week you get 1,000 people to buy your gum by putting a gun to their head. That's power. You'll sell a lot of gum. Until you run out of bullets. Then someone else selling gum that actually tastes good will outsell you. How you got the power matters and judging it properly as well as future market conditions may help you to foresee future events better. The power of MSN came from outside. Judge those outside conditions and you'll have an idea of the life of MSN.
Microsoft controls the desktop. There is something called opportunity cost. They have (probably wisely) chosen to use their power to get people to MSN. That is a "cost" even if not in the traditional sense. Google gets people to their site by the service they offer. If Microsoft loses their control of the desktop (which you might not foresee, but like everything in life, one day they WILL lose that control), and at the same time MSN does not have compelling content, people will use something else. And it may be Google.
These are examples of course. Don't attack the examples if you want to disagree. Microsoft and MSN may thrive until the day we're all dead. But it doesn't mean that the concepts behind these examples don't matter.
| 8:48 pm on Feb 1, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I had written
|[...] one of them gets three free good meals a day at Google, plus Clif bars for her camping trips [...] |
HughMungus had replied
|This will change after the IPO. I've seen it happen. Investors don't like fat. |
This is really two different issues.
1) Investors, especially American investors, are quite frankly stupid much of the time. Rather than actually railing against fat (e.g., fat-cat hundred-million-dollar compensations for failing CEOs), they often do erroneously perceive employee incentives and perks to be fat.
2) Indeed, when you actually do the math, it'd be sheer lunacy to kill the current Google perks. You now have engineers (worth, what, easily $150 an hour?) being able to work at least an hour or two longer than they would if they had to grab a doughnut on the way to work or leave work for lunch or get dinner out somewhere or simply go home early. How much does providing a light breakfast cost Google, and how much does it boost their employees' productivity? How much does Google save in having its existing employees work harder and smarter by feeding them on-premises and giving them nutritious, energy-providing cuisine rather than leaving them to the typical must-nap-afterwards fast food crap? And speaking of nutrition... how much does Google save each year by helping keep its employees eat better and consequently lose fewer days to illness?
True, during the crazy dot.com boom days, there were many laughable excesses. But I'd hardly classify Google in the same boat, especially when it comes to providing something as basic as good square meals.
Note that I'm not certain that these perks won't stupidly be phased out after an IPO. It's indeed possible that Google's forward-looking culture will be crushed to fit the whims of Mr. and Mrs. short-term short-sighted investor. But it won't be due to 'fat.' It'll be the result of misguided greed.
| 2:58 am on Feb 2, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Looks like a classic case of 'follow the money'
I think you'd need to know the personal impact (ie what specific employment contracts say) for the top half a dozen guys, to understand this delay the IPO decision......... otherwise - it just doesn't make sense
| 5:25 pm on Feb 2, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Don't take my comments as criticism of you or your opinions. I'm just curious as to what people think about the future of the web and not trying to be right (or wrong). Having lived through the dotcom boom/bust up close, I just have a very critical eye when looking at these kinds of business situations. :D
I guess we'll see what happens. It's interesting to have a front row seat.
| 5:27 pm on Feb 2, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|It's indeed possible that Google's forward-looking culture will be crushed to fit the whims of Mr. and Mrs. short-term short-sighted investor. |
Yep. I guess we'll see.
| 7:37 pm on Feb 2, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Thanks Hugh. And I also don't mean to do that. I find that in writing sometimes I come off WAY stronger than I mean to, so if that was the case, apologies.
| 7:45 pm on Feb 2, 2004 (gmt 0)|
>It's indeed possible that Google's forward-looking culture will be crushed to fit the whims of Mr. and Mrs. short-term short-sighted investor.
Too bad, I'm sure the googlers would rather have freebie power bars than cash..hehe
Give me the money, I'll buy my own snacks.
| 3:52 am on Feb 3, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Any IPO ever from the current Google management would fail.
The lack of clear focus from Google in the past couple years shows this very clearly. Instead of focusing on being a QUALITY search engine with QUALITY search results Google has focused efforts on things like Froggle and other "side projects" that remove valueble human and capital resources away from the search engine and into branches of Google.
As an investment analyst the google business plan is total chaos, lacking that clear focus that anyone needs.
Now since google will not be generating any public investment activity (read no outside source of funds to build up certain aspects of the company) they will be forced to deal with these out cropped business branches with a limited amount of capital.
Google needs to recognize the need for new management who have some sort of experiance in running a business, and not a group of kids who come up with a new idea daily and want more comapany resources to focus on it.
Before Google feels the need to start some other little scheme to make money (froggle), maybe they should go through SERP pages for awhile. Once they find ZERO link pages with no unique content they should venture into other revenue makers, but not a minute sooner.
Google missed the IPO market by a few years
| 7:58 pm on Feb 4, 2004 (gmt 0)|
> Instead of focusing on being a QUALITY search engine with QUALITY search results Google has focused efforts on things like Froggle and other "side projects"
If they were still concentrating on search only they would still be in the reds ...
> and not a group of kids who come up with a new idea daily and want more comapany resources to focus on it
Don't forget that Google and PageRank and the Google interface and text ads were all doomed from the beginning (in the eyes of experts). What is "child's play" in your eyes today can alter the future completely tomorrow.
| This 80 message thread spans 3 pages: < < 80 ( 1 2  ) |