TheMadScientist
msg:4284553 | 2:14 pm on Mar 20, 2011 (gmt 0) |
Nice find again g1smd!
|
Leosghost
msg:4284568 | 3:06 pm on Mar 20, 2011 (gmt 0) |
Good news, if it happens ..but if Eric makes secretary of state for commerce ( or anything )the balance will be on the bad side.
Very nice catch g1smd
Interesting interview..explains/matches my feeling over the years of the "Foundation/Seldon" aspect to Google.
|
Sgt_Kickaxe
msg:4284604 | 4:09 pm on Mar 20, 2011 (gmt 0) |
Roots = Search !
Say it with me Larry, roots does not equal places or a bazillion apps or several million ways of seeing shopping offers etc. Roots = SEARCH RESULTS. Nice, clean, mashup free, gizmo free SEARCH RESULTS.
Somehow I don't think Wall st would approve.
|
Reno
msg:4284623 | 4:35 pm on Mar 20, 2011 (gmt 0) |
| but if Eric makes secretary of state for commerce ( or anything )the balance will be on the bad side. |
|
Google is a very smart company and their decisions are intentioned to strengthen the corporation (as is true of course of any biz).
I find it hard to believe that Page's return and Schmidt's possible move into the top echelons of governement is coincidental. On the contrary ~ my guess is it's the equivalent of a well thought-out chess move.
Page the Founder returning has the same buzz as founder Steve Jobs returning to Apple (an event that has become the stuff of legend) ~ the employees love it, the press loves it, the stockholders love it ("Just keep the profits high Larry!"). So with Steve Jobs battling serious illness and removing himself from the spotlight, there is a natural vacuum that Google intends to fill.
And having your longtime CEO in the TOP financial position in government is nothing but good news for them, so their non-charismatic leader is on the insider, and their quirky founder is on the outside, more openly leading the troops (the media loves "quirky").
For Google, it's win-win... BIGTIME.
.....................
|
tedster
msg:4284628 | 4:43 pm on Mar 20, 2011 (gmt 0) |
I'm hoping Page will be able to regenerate the culture that made Google great in the beginning. I think it's been wobbling a lot, partly because of "old school" thinking at the top, as well as the challenges of rapid scaling.
|
wyweb
msg:4284644 | 5:02 pm on Mar 20, 2011 (gmt 0) |
Whoa.
Nice one.
Let me read it all and I imagine I'll have more to say.
|
g1smd
msg:4284648 | 5:08 pm on Mar 20, 2011 (gmt 0) |
Hmm, and I imagined immediately after the original posting at 8:41 am on a Sunday, in this quiet WebmasterWorld sub-forum, that the story might sink. How wrong can you be? The stuff about the early days is an interesting read, and somehow also a little worrying in some ways.
|
weeks
msg:4284692 | 6:28 pm on Mar 20, 2011 (gmt 0) |
It was a great Sunday morning read on my NookColor. Thanks.
|
CainIV
msg:4284702 | 6:36 pm on Mar 20, 2011 (gmt 0) |
Hopefully they can regain the creativity that made them so valuable in the earlier years.
|
Alcoholico
msg:4284818 | 11:27 pm on Mar 20, 2011 (gmt 0) |
...the Founder returning has the same buzz as founder Steve Jobs returning to Apple (an event that has become the stuff of legend) ~ the employees love it, the press loves it, the stockholders love it...
Like Jerry Yang!
|
austtr
msg:4284824 | 11:52 pm on Mar 20, 2011 (gmt 0) |
The fact that Google is a successful, publicly listed international company means that its focus will remain firmly fixed on the share price. That won't alter because there has been a driver change.
Expect more of the same, no matter what the rhetoric.
|
BillyS
msg:4284867 | 2:01 am on Mar 21, 2011 (gmt 0) |
The company is worth $180 billion.
|
Petrogold
msg:4284918 | 8:25 am on Mar 21, 2011 (gmt 0) |
Is its value more than FB? Then let them come up with more good things for users,customers, advertisers,publishers,etc. Google could do it if sincerely wishes without policing the web.
|
wyweb
msg:4284920 | 8:38 am on Mar 21, 2011 (gmt 0) |
@BillyS
| The company is worth $180 billion. |
|
Yeah, and most of it comes off our backs. Hell, I'd go as far as to say all of it.
We built the websites didn't we?
What if there were no websites? There wouldn't be a google. It actually is that simple.
We took them to the table man. And we've kept them there. We brought the food, we brought the wine. We even brought the napkins to wipe their nasty mouth.
|
walkman
msg:4284952 | 10:49 am on Mar 21, 2011 (gmt 0) |
Mission impossible. Once you reach a certain size...
|
Automotive site
msg:4284954 | 10:49 am on Mar 21, 2011 (gmt 0) |
I think the OP probably meant revenue. I am not sure of their exact yearly revenue last year, but it couldn't be far from $30bn.
|
sonjay
msg:4285011 | 12:32 pm on Mar 21, 2011 (gmt 0) |
As long as they don't start paying AdSense publishers in goats!
|
Gibble
msg:4285047 | 2:09 pm on Mar 21, 2011 (gmt 0) |
Yeah, and most of it comes off our backs. Hell, I'd go as far as to say all of it.
We built the websites didn't we?
What if there were no websites? There wouldn't be a google. It actually is that simple.
We took them to the table man. And we've kept them there. We brought the food, we brought the wine. We even brought the napkins to wipe their nasty mouth. |
|
And they brought the guests... without whom, the table, food, napkins would have been a wasted investment.
|
wyweb
msg:4285057 | 2:19 pm on Mar 21, 2011 (gmt 0) |
@Gibble
| And they brought the guests... without whom, the table, food, napkins would have been a wasted investment. |
|
Yeah, they bring the guests, and they bring a lot of them. Millions. There would be no place to sit if we hadn't already set the table though.
Where would google send it's traffic if the sites weren't already built?
Who built the sites?
Case closed.
|
wyweb
msg:4285060 | 2:23 pm on Mar 21, 2011 (gmt 0) |
@sonjay
| As long as they don't start paying AdSense publishers in goats! |
|
I wouldn't mind a few goats. Hell, they'll eat anything. They'll keep your grass cut too. Saves time on the mower.
|
wyweb
msg:4285095 | 3:20 pm on Mar 21, 2011 (gmt 0) |
We made google. Google didn't make themselves.
They capitalized on a rapidly expanding web that was being created by you and me. They had the ability to get you noticed, to get you seen, to even flood you with traffic.
And if you were selling products online that's exactly what you wanted.
But you built it.
Don't get confused here. If it wasn't for us they wouldn't even be here. There would be no Google.
We put them where they're at. Webmasters. Site designers. Hosts. Programmers. Script writers. They've piggybacked on us for years simply by arranging our sites in an order that that can give their site visitors a better overview of how to find certain information.
We set the table, and we invited them in our house.
If you're not understanding this, dispute it and we'll talk more.
|
Reno
msg:4285129 | 4:23 pm on Mar 21, 2011 (gmt 0) |
Many of the most successful relationships in life, and on the internet, are symbiotic ~ "I'll scratch your back, you scratch mine". We had that with Google during their initial phases, but then they became the overlords, and now the balance has clearly shifted to the point were millions of webmasters/siteowners would love nothing more than to see some other search mechanism rise to prominence, to knock Google back a peg or two.
I was amazed to see in the Sunday edition of our local paper this past weekend a story about how Google's latest algo update hurt businesses. The word is getting out, and it's not good.
........................
|
IanKelley
msg:4285201 | 6:08 pm on Mar 21, 2011 (gmt 0) |
| Where would google send it's traffic if the sites weren't already built? |
|
You mean if the internet didn't exist? Then neither does the conversation...
| They capitalized on a rapidly expanding web that was being created by you and me. |
|
Search engines (not just Google) are a part of 'you and me'. They're corporations now but that doesn't mean they weren't grassroots participants in the creation of the modern web too.
First, the everyday users that make up the majority of web traffic would have been far slower to adopt if there hadn't been user friendly search engines to help them find what they were looking for.
Second, and maybe more importantly, PPC search engine advertising funded such a large part of the internet's post bubble growth that it's impossible to imagine the last 10 years without it.
More on topic... Larry Page at the helm, to me, means the day that Google loses touch with it's values and becomes just another corporation is now a little further away.
|
wyweb
msg:4285227 | 7:03 pm on Mar 21, 2011 (gmt 0) |
@IanKelley
| You mean if the internet didn't exist? Then neither does the conversation... |
|
Fair enough. In a sense anyway.
The net began as a means of communication. It wasn't about websites. It was how can I get something to you faster than traditonal methods would allow.
The internet existed before websites. Websites came later. And websites, our websites, is where Google has made their money.
I don't care if they make money off me. I've made money off them.
I think we need to keep this in perspective though.
Your turn.
|
Panthro
msg:4285246 | 7:40 pm on Mar 21, 2011 (gmt 0) |
lol @ Page's "brilliant" idea of Google not offering any kind of customer support.
Well, either Google will implode now or really will become HAL.
|
wyweb
msg:4285314 | 10:43 pm on Mar 21, 2011 (gmt 0) |
@Panthro
| Well, either Google will implode now or really will become HAL. |
|
I don't think they'll implode. I don't want them to implode anyway. I want them to stick with their original premise which was, "Don't be evil"
What's going to happen is government is going to step in and put the brakes on them. It's very close to a monopoly.
Microsoft knows what it feels like. Maybe Goog should get a taste of it too.
edit for spelling
|
arieng
msg:4285327 | 11:24 pm on Mar 21, 2011 (gmt 0) |
| ...their original premise which was, "Don't be evil" |
|
Wasn't their original premise "Do no evil"?
The change to "Don't be evil" came several years later, which I found strangely prophetic at the time. As in on the road of not being evil one may have to do certain unsavory things.
|
wyweb
msg:4285355 | 11:50 pm on Mar 21, 2011 (gmt 0) |
@arieng
| As in on the road of not being evil one may have to do certain unsavory things. |
|
Really? unsavory?
I thought it was more about doing rightous things. Doing no evil. Helping people.
Either you don't know what the word unsavory means or your sentence structure got all screwed up.
Which was it?
|
wyweb
msg:4285362 | 12:05 am on Mar 22, 2011 (gmt 0) |
@arieng
I'm not seeing a significant difference in "Do no evil" and "Don't be evil" anyway.
Perhaps you could explain further....
|
| This 44 message thread spans 2 pages: 44 ( [1] 2 ) > > |
|
|
