Slashdot Mirror
Google Cancels Spring IPO
securitas writes "Google fans and potential investors will be disappointed to learn that they must wait a while longer before they can own a piece of Google. The Times of London's James Doran reports that Google's IPO plans are on hold. CEO Eric Schmidt appears to think that market conditions are not right. When pressed for details about the delayed IPO, Schmidt said, "An IPO is not on my agenda right now." A commentary about the delayed Google IPO follows. Mirror at Australian IT."
Analysts estimate, however, that Google's annual revenue is between $500 million and $1 billion, with profits between $150 million and $300 million.
Wow, where do they get that kind of money? Surely not the ads..
Instead of getting my free advertising stock benefit with google, I think I'll just buy some more Krispy Kreme and get another free box of doughnuts.
/^[A-Z0-9._%+-]+@[A-Z0-9.-]+\.[A-Z]{2,4}$/i
I mean, before the .com boom, companies usually only went public because they needed money to grow. Google seems to sustain a very healthy bottom-line and I think they have yet to figure out what they want to grow into.
Frankly I'm all for them never releasing an IPO. Sure it brings in extra cash in the short term but in the long term, your buisness focus shifts from your product and customers to the whims of your shareholders. One of the primary reasons people use google that I've seen isn't the qualit of searches, it's the lack of abusive adds, and genereal "customer friendly" enviroment that google provides. So the longer they put off selling stock the longer they don't have shareholders breathing down their necks for better profit margins.
This is not a sig
...and their IPO has been a lot of speculation from the start, and wasn't ever "official".
While there have been some hints, it has largely been hype that is responsible for people thinking that Google would have an IPO.
Furthermore, it seems that it would be a smart move for Google to capitalise on this, and have their CEO say that an IPO wasn't even on his agenda. That would make people want it all the more, so it's a smart move that they've done that! Using the hype to their advantage without committing to anything... very shrewd.
libertarianswag.com
I find this good news. The longer that Google's technology interests are held in private hands, rather than the public interest of their stock price, I think the world is a better place. I'll be crying when I see GUGL -1 3/4 running across the bottom of my TV screen.
Th
Look what happened to Yahoo when they went public. An IPO is not a good thing. Letting a bunch of Wall Street financial people have a say in what to do with your tech company is just a bad idea.
slashdot, news for crazed liberal socialist zealots
well if google hasn't gone public yet, can I invest in booble?
I wonder what exactly the "right" conditions might be? The market seems to be picking up, so does someone have insight into what we should be waiting for? Someone out there must have their finger on the pulse of good information . . . .
StyleChief
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government! -M. Python
I am happy to see Google not go on the market. I fear that Microsoft would simply try to buy all of the shares immediately. While google might be worth a few billion, to Microsoft it's worth a lot more, because they need a good piece of search to integrate with Hotmail and their other services... it's worth whatever they're losing!
stuff |
I'm not interested in Google as an investment opportunity; I just want a search engine that doesn't suck. Staying private lets Google concentrate on what they're good at -- making good tools -- and not worry about having Wall Street yahoos questioning every decision they make and penalizing them for long-term strategy over short-term profit.
Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
I'm glad they've cancelled. Right now, Google have control over their company, and they seem to be pretty nice guys. After floating the company they can face greater market pressure which could easily spoil it.
Expert in software patents or patent law? Contribute to the ESP wiki!
I wonder what exactly the "right" conditions might be?
Not being in SCO's sights, maybe?
Going public is a major change for a company and while it can bring in a great deal of cash to work with, it also creates a new layer of accountability as well as more strict and public operations. It's not always in a company's best interest to go public and I question if it's in Google's best interest.
From everything I've seen of google, financials don't appear to be their weakness (though maybe it is and it's just not visible). So what do they need the cash for? Sure, the directors will make tons of money from doing it, but is it in the best interest of the company? Do they have acquisitions they want/need to make?
Frankly, Google has done quite well as a private company and I have some concerns about what may happen if they go public. As an example, there are some people that claim Google has unfairly ranked them and have sued. Google is, in many ways, a monopoly in the search business. Were they to go public, these kinds of suits might get further in court as Google would likely be under more scrutiny regarding this. I think Google does a good job of modifying page ranks of people trying to trick the system. I'd hate to see them lose that ability.
There are other areas as well where Google being privately held is an advantage. I could certianly be wrong about some of this. I'm not a corporate attorney nor an accountant, but this is my interpretation.
- Microsoft has been making constant noises about their new, upcoming search engine and how great it's going to be, basically doing the full-tilt vaporware thing, almost certainly with the purpose of adding uncertainty to Google's IPO. Microsoft would do something like release, with a huge media blitz, their new search product the day before Google's IPO. Waiting either pushes MS to actually release their product or allows Google, on the not wholly unrealistic possibility that MS drops the subject and then suddenly starts making noises again when Google reschedules their IPO, to accuse MS-Search of being vaporware.
- SCO is being the computer industry loose cannon, until the money from their donation from Microsoft (and, hypothetically, Sun) runs out; they are under no obligation to do anything at all to make more money; and they seem to be desperately, greedily obsessed with doing exactly two things: Hurting linux in any way, public relations or otherwise, and getting press attention. They've been making noises about suing Google; this is probably because making such noises keeps them in the press and because they know Google's about to IPO so they want to push Google to pay SCO some money so they'll go away and stop making uncertainty. However, it's not inconcievable they may well actually sue Google; their case with IBM may be about to unravel, and if so they need to start up a new lawsuit of some sort to keep up the illusion they have some sort of revenue model; and doing so on a nearly-IPOing Google would greatly help MS, which, how shall I put this, SCO at least seems to feel grateful toward, what with the fact their only documented profit ever happened solely because if MS's donation. SCO's a minor consideration, but still delaying IPO at least gives them time to die or deflates their lawsuit threats.
- The economy is changing, and since the president may well change or nearly change in about six months it may be set to change a lot more in a very unpredictable and drastic way. This is a big deal. IPOs are of much less good if the economy changes drastically shortly afterward. (Can you say "Andover"?)
I'm sure you can think of more reasons if you think about it..
.
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
...might wonder whether Google is afraid of IPOing because of the level of detail about their business operations and technology that they would have to reveal.
There has been speculation about the Internet search engine's ability to scale, or the lack thereof. Filing for an IPO forces any company to come clean about the potential shortcomings or problems that it faces. Not always nice.
Probably nothing of the kind, but worth keeping at the back of your mind.
I wonder has this anything to do with the rumours recently about SCO targetting Google?
In the midst of an IPO, impending court action would cause the price of stock to plummet. I'm guessing Google are holding out until this whole SCO debacle has been laid to rest.
Once Google goes public, expect greedy investors to destroy the things we like about it.
I predict the technical side of Google will be outsourced to India within two years of it's IPO.
Go ahead and waste your mod points silencing this post. It's not a troll, but happens to be what I think.
People are asking why Google wants/needs to go public.
Here's the deal...private Google stock is held by too many people. They are at the threshold of legally be required to make their books public, and for all intentensive purposes acting like a publically held company.
As long as they will be required to act like a public company, there is a large financial incentive for them to take the next step and trade publically.
Whether they need the money or not...it is knocking on their door (both corp. and personally) asking to be taken. This knocking is (or maybe was) too hard for them to resist.
-Pete
Soccer Goal Plans
Before I knew about Google I was using Altavista. In the beginning they had a simple search interface, similar to how google is setup now. Basically it got the job done. After a while they started to get more widely known and started adding ad's to the front page and basically changing their mode of operation. People switched to google.
I see the same possibility occurring. If google goes down the same trampled path that Altavista went, then a lot of people will be moving on to find another search engine with a clean interface that simply does the job.
Google: Thats what we want. When we go to a search engine we want to search. We don't want links to buy garden tools when we are searching for benchmarks, or links to tech consultants when we are searching for a definition for an error message. Just a search. It's not broken the way it is.
Whee signature.
What the hell is an intensive purpose? Try "for all intents and purposes." It makes a lot more sense.
What would the want to grow into?
[they]... become so top-heavy...
Well maybe the will transform into boogle.
When Netscape went public, everybody knew it was a hot stock. It was offered at $16 and quickly went to $70 (sorry, these figures are from my head, so propably a bit inaccurate). However Joe Public had no chance to buy the stock at $16. Only the people on the inside (big stockbroking companies, etc.) had a chance to buy at the initial price. By the time, normal private investors got in, the stock had already gone up to $50.
If Google is bought by or buys a major ISP (Comcast in my case), all of a sudden they will be able to use each other's logs to associate your real identity with all the Google searches you ever did.
Still cant understand the reasons why Google would float. They already have 90% market share, that doesnt look like it will change.. Not sure the figure but there must be allot of people out there who think of Google when they hear the word "internet".. They dont sell a tangible product so they cant buy more stock of it.. So what is it??? Prestige of being a public company??? If so weve seen this formula is fundamentally flawed.. no-one will forget the dotcom crash or is it a case of survive an IPO increase you share price and THEN youve made it?? its almoast egotistical.
serenity now!
Likely, Microsoft's interest in aquiring Google is reason for the IPO delay. Microsoft could easily buy Google out on the open market, by staying private they are a little safer from being aquired in a clandestine fashion.
Who is to say that Microsoft or some other company isn't in private acquisition talks with Google?
I remember reading an online article about it. Apparently, it's a real pain in the ass. Basically you have to do the same amount of paperwork as a public company, but without the benefit of the extra money.
I'm not drunk, I just have a speech impediment. And a stomach virus. And an inner ear infection.
Private and public companies.
Yes that may be true, and I know that some stats document this.
But nothing prevents a public company from acting with a long term strategy, or a private company acting with only a short term strategy.
It really comes down to what the owners want.
Many shareholders just want a quick buck, so the companies run that way.
I hope that with the changes in US dividend taxation people might start looking for good cash generating business to invest in, and maybe this will change.
There will never be a better time for Google to go public. SCO and MS FUD are minor blips. Google are in their honeymoon period. All those articles about how there's never been another company like Google and isn't it great they have a cook will turn, like they did for Netscape before them. The fake economic recovery will end, interest rates will rise and the hype will cool. People (Not ma and pa, but the fund managers who matter) will realize that Google can never live up to the expectations they've set for themselves.
Don't get me wrong, Google will still go public and still make a ton of money, but there will be the inevitable "didn't match the hype" and "running a 1200 person company is a lot harder than running a 300 person company isn't it?" type articles. What Google does _is_ hard, but just like MS or IBM before them, they forget that they don't have all the smart people and that brains aren't the only things that matter.
I predict a decline for Google and all other centralised search engines with the ascent of P2P anonymous network dedicated to indexing and search services. It's only a matter of time when someone will get an idea. Bye bye, Big Brother.
So, I would not invest a single eurocent not only to Google, nor to any other search portal.
There you are, staring at me again.
We've spun into off topic land, but it begs the question... why the hell do you care where your butt's been? Sure, other people's butts have germs, but so does yours, so... WTF?
anyone else getting jacked with googles search's returning page after page of crap from, kelkoo,toxiclemon,chilliwhatever..etc.etc.. ??obviously this is a major source of revenues for google, but its also shooting itself in the foot as soon as there is alternative (and as powerful)engine that doesnt return this sort of crap, im switching.
serenity now!
The minute they get investors involved, they'll start doing all kinds of stupid stuff to increase their bottom line. They'll end up like Yahoo
Proverbs 21:19
Nope. I'm a huge fan of google, but I'm quite happy at this turn of events. Going public puts pressure on a company to push for maximum short-term profit, and I like google just the way it is. If they needed the money to stay alive then that'd be one thing, but they don't.
- First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.
Hotmail, how many times do you have to refuse a sales pitch, just to get a free web based email account, with 2MB storage limit, then its filled with spam and they deny you access twice a day. Alternatively you can buy more storage or buy a better spam filter..
serenity now!
Hardly. The day Google goes public is the day it lobotomizes itself.
It used to be that "going public" was a mark of failure.
http://www.google.com/technology/pigeonrank.html
I can say no more the links speaks for itself.
Certified Black Helicopter Pilot *** Unwitting Dupe of One World Gov'ment
Instead of being "stinking rich" he wants to wait so he can be "filthy stinking rich". I am currently "filthy stinking" and just waiting for the rich part.
If/when Google float, there will be considerable pressure to recruit an alternative Chairman/CEO, obviously Dr Schmidt will take one position but who for the other?? perhaps this is a factor in their decision to delay the IPO.
serenity now!
BWAhahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!
If it wasn't from google.com I'd be convinced it was a spoof!
SCREW THE ADS! http://adblock.mozdev.org/ Proud user of teh Fox of Fire - Registered Linux User #289618
It's just The Times. It was there long before your upstart colonial New York crap. Get it right!
Schmidt needs to IPO NOW, this market is already moving into selloff range. Sentiment has changed now that everyone knows the Fed will raise rates in 2004 and the evacuation from stocks has begun.
In their last quarterly conference call, Yahoo CEO announced a move away from Google. The timeline is in the air but the decision is not.
It looks as if MS are shortly going to be along to destroy Google. Past experience shows that whenever MS bundle something with their OS (such as WMP, killing Real, or IE, killing Netscape), the competitor is doomed.
If I were running Google, I'd be thinking of getting out of it right about now and starting something else. Sadly, just like Real, Netscape and others, Google will be quickly decimated by MS once they make their own search tools the default. MS understands human nature well - people generally don't want freedom, they just want safety and the path of least resistance.
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
Market conditions are possibly the best they will be through to 2007. The stimulus echo bubble created last year is beginning to fade and the market is already moving back to a sell mentality. It is likely that if Schmidt goes public in 2005 or 2006, he will face a serious bear market in no mood for risk. The end result is that Google will still be public, but will not be walking around with a huge war chest.
I can't believe the VCs behind Google are backing this, they must know that the time to IPO was yesterday.
This is the first time we can thank SCO for anything!!!
a) I much more afraid of other people's ass-germs than my own, and
b) Just because my own ass has germs doesn't mean someone else's aren't worse (herpes, warts, gonorrhea, etc)
c) Thank God I'm not female
Yeah, it's on some real germophobe shit. It's your ass, it's gonna get a little dirty! Just sit down and do your thing.
new meaning to....Albert Pooholes!!
Sorry....just struck me funnie!!!!
There are still plenty of other ways to lose your shirt in the stock market.
dyslexia playing up again.
I also think this is good news. I don't have any sort of solid metric, but my subjective experience has been that since their "Florida" update, I've had an awful time getting good Google results on a lot of day to day items. Instead of getting information, I've been getting mostly links to pages that "search" for the phrase I wanted Google to search for.
My guess was this was an IPO driven move, and I hope that means they're reconsidering giving people crappy search results in exchange for money from other "search"(read:banner ad) companies.
This is a manual virus. Copy it to your sig and help me spread!
The news stories based off this one comment are getting out of hand. He says 'An IPO is not on my agenda right now.' Are we talking about his agenda for the week, the month, the year? Until an official statement is made by Google I would take this news with a grain of salt.
please don't mod
Microsoft was able to kill those companies (Real, Netscape, etc) because they used their OS leverage which those pieces of software are dependent on.
.Net is not as widely used as Java).
The difference with Google is that it resides in the Internet NOT on an OS so they don't have the same leverage as they did with software that ran on Windows. The only way Microsoft can beat Google is through the old traditional way of competition.
Anybody who's been aware of recent internet history knows that Microsoft made a huge mistake in coming late to the internet game. In fact, they thought the internet would never be big and that's why they didn't bet much money on it until late in the game (.Net). If you take a look at the industry as a whole Microsoft is a very weak player (they dont' have the top search engine, they dont' have the top email services, they dont' provide any huge online services that are #1, SQL Servers is not that great,
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." - Martin Luther King, Jr.
d) It is warmer.
Much worse than the seat though, is a toilet with a quick curve and my cock touches the bowl. Think of the hundreds of other cocks in that position before you. And no, water doesn't wash all the nasties away.
Presidential election. With most of the Dem candidates (and all of the serious contenders) promising to reraise the capital gains tax, that would tank the worth of any stock.
"Name all successful companies that you know of which are not publicly traded. my two cents"
Bloomberg LLP is not a publicly traded company.
It has a few private owners.
It seems to be doing just fine.
As several posters have pointed out, the statement that "market conditions are not right for an IPO" is just a smokescreen. As they say, the market conditions are the more favorable now than any time in the last 3 years, and with the Federal Reserve ready to start moving interest rates up after the November election, conditions are not like to get any better.
Google is faced with a few problems, and a challenge:
1. It is being dropped by Yahoo! as a its algorithmic search provider. This will have a minor effect on Google's revenue and profit.
2. MSN is developing its own search engines (for paid advertisements and algorithmic search). While Slashdotters will deride Microsoft's efforts in these areas, it will be additional competition that Google cannot ignore.
3. Out of the three biggest portals (Yahoo!, MSN and AOL), Google is supply advertisements to the least healthy one: AOL.
4. Google realizes that algorithmic search is on the way to becoming a commodity. The difference in quality of the results is becoming minor. There is not a lot of money to be made there because people do not pay much to see or be seen in algorithmic results.
5. The money is in the advertising results that are shown with the algorithmic results. (No, Virginia, there is no Santa Claus, and Google does make most of its money through ads.) There are two ways to get people to see those ads: get them to come directly to your own site, or get those advertisements to the sites that people visit. Most normal people (i.e., not people who read Slashdot) go to portals.
So the challenge for Google is to become a portal. Becoming a portal means offering a lot of services beside "search in a box". It means news, chat rooms, music, games, auctions, free email, the list goes on and on. Google recognizes this. That is why it has added other products, such as news and free email. But building a portal from scratch takes a lot of time and money. If Google were planning to make itself into a portal, it would launch its IPO and use the money to build a portal.
Which brings me to my theory. Some portal is negotiating with Google to buy Google. There are only two portals big enough: AOL and MSN. AOL is a declining portal, but it already has a deal with Google, and terms of that deal apparently include a partial ownership stake in Google if Google goes public. Microsoft has piles of cash, has missed chances to buy an algorithmic search engine in the past, and regrets that failure. It sure would be easier for Microsoft to buy Google than build another Google.
In summary, my theory is that Microsoft is trying to buy Google, and Google is seriously considering accepting the offer. Microsoft wins by getting a terrific search engine and ad machine, and Google wins by getting a lot of money for its employees, a permanent partnership with best available portal, and the opportunity to stay focused on search.
If it happens, the "popping" sound that you will hear all over America will be the heads of Slashdotters exploding when their favorite search engine is owned by their favorite villain.
Maybe they just realized how bad an idea it would be for them to go public. The news articles this week about Microsoft targeting them would have destroyed their stock price. And that's without any failure on their part at all. They would be tried and hanged in the court of public opinion overnight. They'd be left scrambling to boost their public image and they'd be forcibly led off track from making the best search engine in the world.
As it is (as a privately held company) they can take such news as information and plan carefully and intelligently. Sure they're concerned, sure the VC folks are telling them they need to watch out. But it's nothing like watching your company's valuation drop 60% overnight and be left with fear of lawsuits and hostile takeover based on rumors.
Going public is way overrated.
Cheers.
I'm sorry for you wannabe rich future stockholders but I'm pleased about this.
I won't go into the history of other dotcoms who have gone into the crapper after having IPO'd. I think it would be a DEATH SENTENCE for the quality we've all come to know and love about Google.
IPOs seem to be great ideas for most companies, but as it happens, tech companies get the most pressure to perform due to unrealistically high initial stock prices (See Yahoo!) And shares mean shareholders.
Shareholders care nothing for quality if they (or the scumbag CEOs/CFOs and other execs) can make a quick buck - especially when they had to borrow money from 2nd Mortgage/Grandchildren/Luigi to afford it. I certainly have no interest playing that silly-ass game or in seeing Google start to suck.
As it happens, I wonder if this isn't related to the SCO issue. Maybe this was also designed to throw off their timing?
"...Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam..."
Remember all that talk about "exit strategy" back in the day. An IPO is so the VCs can take their money and run.
Maybe right now, the VCs don't see any better place to put the money.
Maybe Google thinks they will be worth more after (not "if") they beat back the coming MS attack.
Just before New Year, sources close to Google informed me a float was not on the horizon. Main reason given was that market short termism could potentially interfere with Google's longer term plans. While Google's immediate plans don't require an injection of cash, there's no need to float.
--This isn't a man who is leaving with his head between his legs.
http://www.google-watch.org/scraper.htmlt p://www.theregister.co.uk/content/35/33448.html
and
ht
and more at
http://www.google-watch.org/
Scum
Check out the sig of the parent post (its a variant of goatse.cx). Also check out the poster's history. The poster is just a troll, making comments to get people to click on the link in his sig. Please mod accordingly.
Seriously folks, anti-trust is the button to use against MS including a search engine embedded in the OS. Another nail in the coffin as it were since it will clearly point out that MS can no longer compete without resorting to anti-trust/anti-competitive practices... IE, MS can no longer innovate in the face of competition.
Dream as if you'll live forever.
Live as if you'll die tomorrow.
~Anonymous~
... where Cartman gets one million dollars and buys an amusement park? He doesn't let anyone in, the best marketting strategy in history ;-)
http://brandonbloom.name
Every day what they have becomes less and less valuable. They need to IPO now while they can to secure new less immitable, revenue generating technologies.
They need to own something tangible. Possibilities are ISPs (communication - wires), media producers (content - studios), media players and wireless (hardware - devices/factories), and leverage their eroding uniqueness and reputation for quality INTO something that can not be taken away by a digital imitator.
That's all very well - but by the time the investigations/court case has actually come to a conclusion it's far too late; your business went under well over a year previously. Legal action like this takes so long that a monopoly can destroy you well before the decision is made, at which point it's moot. After all, Be went for MS under anti-trust legislation, but by the time it was resolved, Be had been bankrupt for a couple of years.
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
asdf
Yeah, except that Be went for Microsoft WELL after they should have and in a climate that was not as hostile towards Microsoft as it is now. Were there entire governments telling Microsoft "Thanks but no thanks!" at the time Be tried to go after Microsoft? No. Did Be go after Microsoft when they were _already_ on the downward slope towards oblivion? If I remember correctly, yes they did since it was being mentioned when they were bought out. Did Be have more and more Fortune 500 companies considering alternatives to the desktop so they would not be tied into huge licensing costs associated with dealing with a convicted monopolist? No. Did Be have in place the current ruling against Microsoft that specifically concerns tying in other apps (in this case, a search engine) into the OS and leveraging their dominant position in anti-trust/anti-competitive practices? No.
/rant
:)
Simply put, Google _KNOWS_ ahead of time that precedent has been set regarding the entangling of apps with the OS in such a way as to force out competition and can, as soon as it is mentioned by Microsoft OR shown to be tied into the OS, use the anti-trust button. Be were playing a late-game strategy to take down the giant and I applauded them their effort, but Google can play a forward defense and cover their ass by keeping a close eye on MS and their new search engine/portal. If MS so much as thinks about entangling it with the OS, Google can bring suit. If Google can capture a large and dominant share of the market being a WEB based and OS independant application then there is absolutely no need for Microsoft to bundle the search engine with/into/etc. the operating system. That negates the "level playing field" - hell, it blows it out of the water - or anything close to it by using their illegal monopoly to take over the search engine market. If they deliver a better product by putting up a web-based search engine that is in no way tied into the operating system - great! fantastic! But, and be honest here, do you think Microsoft is going to put their search engine out as a web-based app only and not tie it into the operating system as close to the kernel as they can? I doubt it.
Oh yeah - Google is, what, 100? 1000? times more financially solvent than Be ever was so they will not tank into bankruptcy should they persue this.
Sorry for the mini-rant... and the rant
Dream as if you'll live forever.
Live as if you'll die tomorrow.
~Anonymous~