Forum Moderators: open
Look around the console there for 2 buttons: one marked ipo, and one marked update - push 'em both.
Surely, a commercial business model for search engine is *not* in the interests of consumers?
Go Google, go, we wanna see where you go!
Of course, if Brett has the inside track on friends and family options and can pass some out on this forum, I say "pull the trigger, Google". ;)
Go Google, go, we wanna see where you go!
Status quo with a few clever search enhancements would be just fine with me. Personally, I am very frightened about "where" Google may go. I hope it stays put and remains pretty much as is. Not likely ... but one can wish!
I absolutely hate PPC programmes and have no wish to get involved with them.
NO IPO, NO IPO
I like Google too much to see it ruined by thousands of shareholders demanding a better and quicker return.
[edited by: Brett_Tabke at 4:42 pm (utc) on Feb. 25, 2003]
I absolutely hate PPC programmes and have no wish to get involved with them.
Seconded.
In the current worldwide environment Google doesn't need any portal. They are totally independant.
Were it not for the VC background they could just lean back and work on developing their websearch.
Hopefully that will stay their long term goal, and not take a back seat to a quick buck when the IPO happens.
The founders of Google seem to have very different inclinations...such as using algorithms instead of cash only to determine results. :) Hopefully that will stay their long term goal, and not take a back seat to a quick buck when the IPO happens.
I wish that were the case. I've seen way to many company's to a complete change once they go public. The almighty shareholder return on investment becomes the primary goal, with all other altruistic values taking a back seat.
Wouldn't you say that the "Entry" points to the web are the "real" traffic cops?
He who controls how the Internet user connects, has a good chance of controlling what search index is used. Or at least, trying to influence that decision.
MSN8 campaign is a good example of this.....
Google may be publicly Cool, but MSN8 is trying to come on as "All Kinds Of Cool"... Public perception is everything, remember the Saturn automotive ads, when they first fired up?
If AOL/MSN/SBC/Quest control 80% of the broadband/dial-up connectivity, that doesn't sit too well, long run (Overture/AV/FAST), for the rest in the US market?
psss ... redzone, don't wake up the sleeping dogs.
Well Google - you are it. The undisputed last free inclusion search engine on the net.
I don't see it that way at all. If anything, it appears we've got a NEW free inclusion location.
According to the article, OV plans on offering three products: Pay for position, pay for inclusion, and algorithmic Web search. It's not clear how they will be all mixed together, but I'd expect one of these two things to be in effect.
POSSIBLE 1:
OV goes toe-to-toe with Google. They take the AV name and put their PFP (pay for placement) results on the page similar to adwords. The main results are from the FAST/AV hybrid they are working on. In this scenario, you're "paying for freshness", not really inclusion. One of the bots will go out for free once a month (or whenever) and crawl everything it can get it's hands on. Another bot will handle the "paid inclusion" pages and will crawl on a more frequent schedule (rather like the freshbot works now - except your wallet controls which pages and when).
POSSIBLE 2:
OV goes the way MSN is working now, with three sets of results. Set 1 (Featured sites) are you OV PFP listings. The next batch will be off the PFI crawl (MSN has Looksmart listings, OV would have "fresh crawled and featured" listings). Then for backfill, where MSN uses INK (in it's current state, anyway) OV will have the free crawl listings.
I think #2 is more likely, but they just MIGHT have the stones to go do a full frontal attack on Google. <shrug> We'll see. Suffice it to say that I'm convinced that, based on the article, there will be a FREE INCLUSION factor in the whole OV game.
G.
And one would show up, just like Google did a few years ago.
Remember not too long ago how people marveled at how fast
Google rose to SE prominence with a virtual absense of
conventional advertising and promotion? I recall a few
threads (not here) discussing just those facts.
Remember, there were plenty of name brand search engines
already with so called entrenched market share existing
before Google came on the scene. How many MBAs do you
think would have predicted today's SE scene back then?
An interesting article I read recently listed the stocks
giving the best shareholder results over the last 25 years.
Not sure, think it was Money or some magazine like that.
Know who won? Southwest Airlines was #1. It gave higher
shareholder return over the last 25 years than any other
public stock according to the magazine article IIRC.
What's interesting about that was the article mentioned
that Southwest Airline's management didn't place maximizing
shareholder return as their #1 priority. In fact, IIRC,
shareholders ranked third. Oh yes, customers ranked only
second place. Employees ranked first. Interesting.
Hope somebody at Google considers such things,
Louis
We're just going to make the best search engine we can--same as it ever was. :)
G.
At least push the update button, dammit! ;) Hmm...I see the fresh tags are gone again. Perhaps the update is close. As for IPO, I'm not sure that would be a good thing. The Google would need to worry about satifying public shareholders along with searchers, and this might not be a good thing.
All the PPC/PFI players need to keep their eye on the people who are really earning them income. It isn't people like me, in the long term - it is the public!
They have a successful brand/product with a profitability. Going public will only increase the tension...trying to meet the expectations of shareholders and industry analysts.
Perhaps as the environment changes, Google will have to think more innovatively to find other revenue streams, but even then, IPO doesn't have to be the answer.
Almost always though, going 'corporate' or 'corporatizing' does more harms than goods to a company with fresh-but-vast corporate brain, innovative/creative young professionals, matured/knowledgable managers and a great team of people of science.
Short term...I will join Rugles for his/her chant
NO IPO, NO IPO
