Google Takes Top Spot From Time Warner

newfoundry writes "BBC News reports that Google hit $80bn on the NYSE yesterday, so is now worth more than Time Warner..."

Comments

I think this calls for a googlegasm

[strongmace]

unnnhhh yeah oh baby ^^the googlegasm

Re:I think this calls for a googlegasm

[Karzz1]

This is not really all that surprising. Google has developed a loyal following amongst its users by:
1. Not suing their customers
2. Providing value (not a bunch of recycled crap)
3. not being evil.

I am sure there are many more reasons why Google is a "better" company than Time-Warner, however they escape me right now (disclaimer I am very tired and recovering from strep throat).

Re:I think this calls for a googlegasm

[dbleoslow]

No definitions were found for googlegasm.

Suggestions: - Make sure all words are spelled correctly.
- Search the Web for documents that contain "
googlegasm"

I don't think that's correct. Google doesn't turn up any definitions for it.

Re:I think this calls for a googlegasm

[anaesthetica]

The most amazing thing about this meteoric rise is what it says about a capitalist society. We hear a lot of moaning on Slashdot and elsewhere about how the Big Corporations are going to be around forever, and buy up every other corporation, and kill innovation. What people consistently fail to realize is that small companies are constantly rising up to destroy the old ones.

If you look at the list of the top 100 companies from 50 years ago, a majority no longer exist. If you look at the top 100 companies from 100 years ago, maybe, maybe 5 are still around. All the "big" corporations of today are supremely mortal. And their biggest vulnerabilities aren't to their main competitors, but to the small innovative start-ups, like Google.

Think about it: these two guys did some groundbreaking research, built something useful around it, and tailored the technology to their consumers needs. Now they are the highest valued media corporation, bigger than the goliath consolidated media giant AOLTimeWarner. Suing one's customers, buying Senators to write legislation for you, and being generally evil are not signs of impending oligopoly, but signs that the old dinosaur companies are going down the tubes, and will be devoured by a new wave of small companies.

Re:I think this calls for a googlegasm

[fireboy1919]

Yeah, and what's great about the universe are:
1. Time
2. Space

Your #2 and #3 are broad, far-reaching categories that actually contain numerous reasons why Google is a better company. #1 is actually part of that, #3, by the way.

I would change #2 to be "providing services their customers want."

There are doubtless many manure companies that consider recycled crap to have lots of value.

Re:I think this calls for a googlegasm

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

Results 1 - 10 of about 118,000 for Recycled Crap. (0.16 seconds)

Re:I think this calls for a googlegasm

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

I think you misunderstand. We don't rail against the eternal corporation, they do indeed die. Often times, this is not a good thing though... it usually means they were killed by an even worse corporation. It's like locking 1000 psychopaths in the room with guns and knives, the ones that are left are the *worst* of the bunch.

All you are saying is that some of the psychopaths are female also, and assuming that they fuck around enough, babies are born. Gee, I wonder how that kid will grow up, eh?

The incredible thing here, is that with Google, that analogy has failed. Here's a company that at least as of now is *not* a psychopath. Some of us are so cynical wonder if it is one, but hides it well, others figure it's only a matter of time before it becomes one even if it isn't already.

This isn't a shining example of the success of capitalism, rather, it's an exception to the rule. Capitalism shouldn't be a religion, the invisible hand might have been gentle at one time, but now it rarely ever even gives you a reach-around.

Re:I think this calls for a googlegasm

[XxtraLarGe]

Mod parent up, this is one of the most insightful posts I've read here. That being said, I wonder how long it is before Google buys AOL Time Warner :D

Re:I think this calls for a googlegasm

[Anonymous Coward]

"If you look at the list of the top 100 companies from 50 years ago, a majority no longer exist. If you look at the top 100 companies from 100 years ago, maybe, maybe 5 are still around"

That's because they merge/split and change their names... ie, Bell Labs -> Lucent, Sears -> Kmart, GM -> DirecTV ;)

Their still there, just called different names.

Re:I think this calls for a googlegasm

[saleenS281]

think about it, with all the IP patent that the "mega corporations" of today are allowed, there won't be an opportunity for the next "google". One of the mega's will already hold some obscure patent to their groundbreaking technology and sue them to death.

Re:I think this calls for a googlegasm

[IAmTheDave]

Wow. For the first time, a ./ post has actually given me a renewed sense of hope for the future.

Thank you.

Re:I think this calls for a googlegasm

[Anonymous Coward]

Um wrong.

1. You cannot compare 100 years ago to today. DMCA, invasion of privacy, etc

2. Corporate culture is a lot more organized now. Again, you cannot compare to what it was 50 or 100 years ago. The idea of lobbying and political donations is now an integrated part of strategy

3. The government has no balls now. Rockafeller was broken up. AT&T was broken up. Microsoft, proven to be a monopoly, was lightly slapped on its ass (more like a pat really)

4. IP and lawyer culture. There are companies being specifically made to gobble up patents

Re:I think this calls for a googlegasm

[jcorno]

That depends on what you mean by "still around." Technically, AOLTimeWarner is only, what, 5 years old? When was the last time a huge corporation just disappeared? They just merge and change names. Google is swallowing up small companies left and right. Eventually it'll get around to the big ones. Do you suppose they're just going to fire the management types coming up with these "evil" policies? In 10 or 20 years, we could be talking about the fresh young upstarts who are ready to topple Google's Evil Empire.

Re:I think this calls for a googlegasm

[nonumnos]

Hey... I'll gladly take some stock options are a worth SOMETHING as opposed to what I have now.

Re:I think this calls for a googlegasm

[Kevin Stevens]

Here is a stat I found from 1924 listing the components of the DJIA Index (its not 100 years ago, but its only 20 or so companies so it proves the point).

American Can
American Car & Foundry
American Locomotive
American Smelting
American Sugar
American Telephone & Telegraph - still here.
American Tobacco
Anaconda Copper - still around
Baldwin Locomotive
Du Pont - still here
General Electric -still here and kicking ass
Mack Trucks -still here
Republic Iron & Steel
Sears Roebuck & Co. -still here.
Studebaker
U.S. Rubber
U.S. Steel -still here
Utah Copper
Western Union -still here
Westinghouse -still here

I see 7 that I fully recognize. This list somehow does not even include some I would think would be on there like standard oil (exxon), and union pacific and I am fairly certain that if you looked into the backgrounds of some of these companies they just have morphed into something else.

I am not saying they are all thriving today, but they are all around and are all still billion dollar corporations.

Re:I think this calls for a googlegasm

[anaesthetica]

You certainly can compare 100 years ago to today. There has been no fundamental revolution in the way business is done or organized--incremental changes to the rules don't comprise some sort of historical discontinuity.

I think you underestimate the level of power that was once directly wielded by corporations. All you need to do is read a book about the Robber Barron era and you'll see what they got away with. They rather openly bought and sold Senators, rather than the timid influencing with perks and donations that corporations are allowed today. They could (legally) raise private militias and use them against other U.S. citizens if they unionized or agitated.

Our government rightly broke them up. Microsoft doesn't nearly have the power that the old corporations once had. Not even close.

The successor corporations have all declined. As they grew weaker they had to enter into mergers, rebrand themselves, get bought, etc. in order to arrest their decline. New companies developing new technologies are continually undermining the foundations of the old companies, and will continue to do so, until private enterprise is outlawed.

Re:I think this calls for a googlegasm

[nelsonal]

Enron and Anderson were both pretty big prior to 2001. Usually when a formerly big company gets purchased it has fallen to small company size (look at the once big airlines). Typically they are bought for something other than their main operation Sears (land), Great A&P Tea (land and foreign operations), Kansas City & So. Railroad (owned Janus).

Re:I think this calls for a googlegasm

[mydigitalself]

You are also very wrong about your idea that Google is a small company that doesn't buy up every other corporation:Google acquisitions

Furthermore they are poaching top technologists from all over the sector. Yes, they continue to innovate, but if they aren't going to be bringing out an OS sometime soon, are we losing really good engineers who could innovate in other areas of technology to Google?

Re:I think this calls for a googlegasm

[anaesthetica]

The merger/spinoff phenomenon is a sign of decline, not health. Companies spinoff segments because they are unprofitable, unproductive, or otherwise detrimental to the efficient running of a company.

Sears and KMart were getting trounced by Walmart. Walmart was the hot new innovation because of its use of IT to coordinate extremely efficient inventory management. Sears and KMart were based on older business models, and in order to maintain their respective positions against the new competitor were forced to merge. The two may still be around under a different name, but the point remains that both were so shaken by a rapidly growing innovative startup that they had to sacrifice their unique historied corporate indentities in order to hang on. Unless they updated their business models too, the merger will only stave off their death, not prevent it.

Re:I think this calls for a googlegasm

[dustman]

Something to think about here is Wal-Mart.

Wal-Mart started out as a single store with a dirt floor (!). It was run extremely well by Walton, and he clawed his way to the top of an industry, beating out many established players.

While Walton was still around, Wal-Mart still seemed to have a heart. Now, it is hard to find a better example of the "soulless corporation" than Wal-Mart.

What's going to happen to Google when its "don't be evil" founders cash in their stock or retire?

Re:I think this calls for a googlegasm

[anaesthetica]

That's exactly right. Google is growing right now, and it's buying other companies so that it can amplify its fundamental innovation (search) using the small companies' innovative products (picasa, keyhole, etc).

It's not trying to buy startup competitors, which is what large declining un-innovative companies do when they're on the defensive. When google starts buying other competing search companies, we'll know they've jumped-the-shark.

You're absolutely right that in 10 to 20 years we'll be talking about the new company that can make Google irrelevant. Many people on Slashdot talk about Google being the Microsoft killer. At first, it sounds odd: how can an OS/Office Software company be killed by a web search company? But when you realize that Google's innovation has started a trend which could make rich client software companies less and less relevant, you begin to realize that direct competition is not what kills corporations, but asymmetric competition that makes them irrelevant. I give 100:1 odds that the Google-killer will not not be a search company.

Re:I think this calls for a googlegasm

[Karzz1]

Very insightful post. Thank you.

Re:I think this calls for a googlegasm

[maxpup979]

This is an excellent example of what happens when the founders of corporations die off--generally leaving their empire to their kids. I have worked for 2 large companies, that were fantastic, wonderful places to work. Until the founders kids took over, and turned them into horrible employers. power with no sense of accomplishment, or responsibility is a bad thing...

Re:I think this calls for a googlegasm

[Vince Mo'aluka]

In other words, the market was more of a level playing field before government got involved. No surprise there.

Without government and it's unique "right" to initiate force contaminating free trade, business must rely exclusively on voluntary association (otherwise they are criminals).

Re:I think this calls for a googlegasm

[MrAnnoyanceToYou]

The invention of the computer has changed our world, and one of the big changes is in how easy it has made 'scaling' an organization. Thus while corporations used to get big enough to die under the weight of their own fat, that fat can now circulate blood better, so they'll last longer. Getting fatter, more useless, and less in tune with reality all the time. So yes, you're right. Corporations don't last that long. Unfortunately, you're also wrong and corporations don't just 'come out of nowhere' like Google did that often. M$ had insider help in getting as far as it did, as did most of its competitors. The lines can be drawn better than you might think.

Just 'cause they lack complete continuity doesn't mean that there's continual change.

Re:I think this calls for a googlegasm

[anaesthetica]

I didn't say the Google doesn't buy other companies. They certainly do. But you don't see them trying to buy competing search companies in an effort to prevent competition. You see them buying companies whose products integrate well with Google's fundamental innovation (search).

I think your fear of brain-drain is a bit unfounded. Engineers go where they can be productive, and Google is innovating. Working on an alternative OS is an unproductive venture for nearly everyone except Microsoft and Apple. What Google is doing is innovating to the point where the OS becomes less and less relevant. Most companies don't die from direct competition (i.e. OS vs OS) but from asymmetric competition (i.e. OS vs cool thing that makes OS less relevant).

Re:I think this calls for a googlegasm

[Wylfing]

Um, no, you are wrong, my good AC. Your comprehension of history is truly miniscule. None of the things you list are new developments. There have always been laws put on the books to protect monied interests. The first extension of the term of patents in the U.S. occurred pricesly when the first patents were about to expire -- the patent owners went to Washington, asked for the term to be retroactively extended, and their pals in Congress complied. It's the name of the game. It has always been this way and it will always be this way.

Re:I think this calls for a googlegasm

[cp5i6]

Google is not what one would consider a "small" company .. a small company is less then 50 employees. and they are not the highest valued media corporation.. and usually large companies buy out small companies.. I dont see how this comment deserves a 5 ... it adds no value.

Re:I think this calls for a googlegasm

[anaesthetica]

AT&T is a shell of its former self, Sears declined so far it had to merge with KMart, U.S. Steel was broken up, Standard Oil was broken up, Western Union is not even close to as influential as it once was.

The point is that competition killed a majority of these companies, and the rest are nowhere close to as preeminent in their industry as they once were. Fifty years from now, Microsoft will probably still exist in some form or another. It may have been broken up, divisions spun off, merged, or bought out--it doesn't really matter. All of those transformations are a sign of weakness in the face of rising competition from new and innovative companies.

Re:I think this calls for a googlegasm

[anaesthetica]

I agree with this: unearned power, priveledge, and position are quite clearly antithetical to the spirit of free enterprise. This is one reason why I am staunchly against the Republican repeal of the inheritance tax. Stupid, stupid idea.

Re:I think this calls for a googlegasm

[anaesthetica]

Someone will start a new corporation that will make it irrelevant. If we were discussing this back in the 40's or 50's, we'd all be railing against this Sears & Roebuck monopoly on mail-order catalog and department store industry. Today, Walmart has innovated to the point where Sears had to merge with KMart in order to survive. The same thing will happen to Walmart in a decade or two, and the same thing will happen to Google not long after.

Re:I think this calls for a googlegasm

[anaesthetica]

Google didn't just start out with scads of money and thousands of employees. They started out with two students, an algorithm, a couple servers, and a free webservice. That *is* a small company.

They've since grown into a mammoth company with huge server farms, thousands of employees, and the biggest valuation of any media company. That's my point: they went from extremely small nobodies, to bigger than the giant blue-chip corporate conglomerate, and they did so very quickly.

Re:I think this calls for a googlegasm

[compro01]

But you don't see them trying to buy competing search companies in an effort to prevent competition.

exactly

Most companies don't die from direct competition (i.e. OS vs OS) but from asymmetric competition (i.e. OS vs cool thing that makes OS less relevant).

correct again.
light bulbs vs. oil lamps
LPs vs. CDs
CDs vs. digital distibution (hint to record companies!)

Re:I think this calls for a googlegasm

[TheSync]

1) 100 years ago: little indoor plumbing, widespread legal racial and religious discrimination

2) There was plenty of corporate lobbying and donations to government officials 100 years ago. The 1906 Pure Food and Drug Act was mainly the work of food producer Henry Heinz, for example.

1902 to 1912, often referred to as the muckraking decade, saw the publication of more than a thousand articles providing detailed accounts of the economic and political corruption caused by big business, especially the trusts.

3) Standard Oil never came close to cornering the market, by the time the antitrust case against it was filed in 1906, it had hundreds of competitors. Standard Oil oversaw a dramatic reduction in oil prices. It was convicted because of a general anti-business animus stoked by socialist intellectuals and journalists such as Henry Demarest Lloyd and Ida Tarbell and urged on by the company's higher-cost and higher-priced rivals. As a result the most efficient industrial organization of the time was crippled, weakening competition and pushing prices up.

AT&T was broken up into pseudo-monopoly ILECs, wow, thanks.

I can run Linux or OSX, don't need Microsoft. Who cares?

4) Western Union vs. Bell Telephone on telephone patents? 1878 Patent disputes between big corporations are old news. Of course, copyright extension is another matter.

Nothing is really all that new over the last 100 years...now go back 200 years, before the widespread legalization of joint-stock corporations...

Re:I think this calls for a googlegasm

[drsquare]

I think what he means is, it might not be a good idea for all these clever people to be rounded up like cattle, and, rather than advancing technology, being used to tweak the interfaces on web services and other insignificant things.

Most companies don't die from direct competition (i.e. OS vs OS) but from asymmetric competition (i.e. OS vs cool thing that makes OS less relevant).

What cool things are these? Is google releasing some web service that allocates memory for my programs and organised the files on my hard disk? I hear a lot about Google's 'innovations' but I've not seen much in solid inventions yet.

Re:I think this calls for a googlegasm

[Anonymous Coward]

The things are a lil bit deeper than their personal qualities I think. They just catch the right moment with the right shot.

For something to be succesful must be meet some conditions:

First and most important - the world must need it. Coz without it nothing, I mean NOTHING real big can happen.
Second - some bad guys must have profit from it. At least in the very beggining and often all the time unseen.
And third are some other factors among which are the creators virtues.

I bet that now in this world there are much bigger talents with much greater ideas that will never get that high.

Just an insight, not personal.

Re:I think this calls for a googlegasm

[shmlco]

And I'm not. I'd say that for every person who inherits undue control of enormous assets, there are a thousand who inherit their dad's store, their mom's house, or the family farm or business.

Personally, this simply levels the playing field so that the average family isn't penalized when someone dies. It has little effect on larger estates, as the wealthy could already play the hide-the-money lawyer game with trusts, funds, and so on...

Re:I think this calls for a googlegasm

[anaesthetica]

I think it's a gross mischaracterization to say that Google is getting "clever people to be rounded up like cattle." Clever people work for Google because Google pays them decently, gives them 20% free time to work on their own projects, and has other work that's at least interesting and relevant. We can argue about whether rich web services are the next wave on the internet, but the point remains that clever people work there because they're intellectually excited, not because Google is the only game in town.

Google's innovation is applying its unique algorithms and way of looking at information as it relates to itself on the internet, and applying that to every other existing web function. The web functions themselves aren't revolutionary, but Google's take on the web was and still is. Sure, they're no Bell Labs from back in the day, but they are working from geniune innovation.

BTW, if you're looking for Google to help organize the files on your hard disk, you're asking for the wrong thing. They're working on making the organization of the files less relevant--case in point: Google Desktop Search. It will find your files for you, regardless of how they're organized. In this manner, they've made the traditional domain of the OS proper less relevant (what business does MS have sending that damn puppy looking for my files anyway?), and relegated the OS back to simply allocating your memory.

Re:I think this calls for a googlegasm

[anaesthetica]

As far as I know, the inheritance tax, as it existed pre-repeal, only taxed inheritances of over $200,000. I could be wrong, but that's how I remember it. While that ceiling certainly could stand to be raised, I think that repealing it outright was a bad idea.

Re:I think this calls for a googlegasm

[orderb13]

Didn't GE buy Westinghouse?

Re:I think this calls for a googlegasm

[OwnedByTwoCats]

American Can was founded 1901; the name died in 1987 when the company changed its name to Primerica. Went through a bunch of owners, is now part of Citigroup.

American Car and Foundry, founded 1899 from a merger of 13 smaller firms, renamed ACF Industries Inc. in 1959. Now known as ACF Industries, LLC. Still in business.

American Locomotive, founded 1901 from a merger of 7 or 8 smaller locomotive manufacturers, commonly known as ALCO. They changed their name to Alco Products in 1955, were bought by the Worthington Corporation in 1964, and stopped making locomotives in 1969.

Fascinating history. How the mighty have fallen! Two makers of steam locomotives (ALCO and Baldwin); the industry would be dead in twenty years.

Re:I think this calls for a googlegasm

[trungson]

This raises a question for me: Will Google become too big it just becomes another big brother?

Re:I think this calls for a googlegasm

[bionicreagan]

Microsoft was never proven to be a monopoly, at least not by any objective standard. A monopoly by definition is an entity that is protected from competitors by the government. Microsoft enjoys no protection from the government and instead recieves regular crackdowns by our and other governments worldwide. The recent EU mandate that MS offer a version of Windows sans their own media player is repulsive. Who is the EU or any government body to set the terms by which a company provides its offerings to uncoerced customers? A court-ordered breakup of Microsoft would've been a complete inversion of the concept of justice and would hopefully be seen as the posterchild of the government's witchhunt against successful businesses everywhere.

Re:I think this calls for a googlegasm

[jwsd]

Although you hate TimeWarner for some of its practices, you cannot deny that TimeWarner produces a lot more useful products and services, movies, TV programs, cartoons, megazines, broadband access, etc. than Google. Google's value to most of it customers is still mainly a huge indexing service. I am afraid Google's high valuation is still a capitalists' game instead of the true value of the company. Just like AOL bought TimeWarner, but in the end, the combined company is just worth the old TimeWarner.

Re:I think this calls for a googlegasm

[Alex P Keaton in da]

Actually, if you look up the History of A&P it is almost identical to Wal Mart, except 100 years earlier- the expansion etc. I can't find it but there was a great comparison in I think Forbes a year or so ago.
One thing RE: Wal Mart- Wal Mart is hated, yet the people who work there make more than the the person who works where you buy your gasoline, and has a better chance of health ins. What shocks people, is Wal Mart employees make almost double what the people in mall stores make, yet no one is going after the gas stations or mall stores. There has been a lot of attention paid to the Wal Mart out here in Amish country (NE OHIO), with hitching posts in the lots. I hate to tell you but, many Wal Marts have hitching posts. Out here you see a lot of Horses and buggies, and at least half the time the Amish are on cell phones- hate to ruin the myth. Wal Mart got big doing what no one else would- opening stores in small towns where the big boys wouldn't tread. And guess what- it wasn't the prices we loved (they are great) it is the hours- the mom and pop stores that charge $3 for a roll of Bounty Paper Towels, well they were open till 5 on weekdays and maybe 3 hours on Saturday. Thats why we country Bumpkins (I am one) love Wal Mart- it is more the hours than the prices...
If I may mention something regarding the death tax- A: the money is taxed as it is earned, so if it is saved, it is taxed again when the person dies. B: You would be shocked to find out what our farms are worth- As urban sprawl attacks us, our farms are worth millions to deveopers, and are taxed as such at death.

Re:I think this calls for a googlegasm

[Anonymous Coward]

#1 I do standing up, #2 sitting down, and #3 bent over.

Re:I think this calls for a googlegasm

[Vengie]

What crack are you smoking in your .sig? Not "almost all Harvard Freshman" were valedictorians. Stop your Ivy bashing.

Re:I think this calls for a googlegasm

[Moofie]

"at least not by any objective standard."

No, they were proven to be a monopoly by a court of law. What is this "objective standard" to which you refer? Is it in a museum somewhere?

"Microsoft enjoys no protection from the government"

Who protects Microsoft's copyrights? Governments.

"The recent EU mandate that MS offer a version of Windows sans their own media player is repulsive"

Says you.

"Who is the EU or any government body to set the terms by which a company provides its offerings to uncoerced customers?"

They're soverign nations who get to set the laws of commerce within their borders. I also don't buy that the customers are uncoerced.

Re:I think this calls for a googlegasm

[halltk1983]

Next comes the memory stack search that finds all the momory that windows lost!

Re:I think this calls for a googlegasm

[TeraCo]

Yes, but back in the old days the government actually did break up companies. Would Standard Oil and AT&T be broken up these days? Recent events point to no.

Re:I think this calls for a googlegasm

[sloth jr]

Uh, talk about unearned power, priviledge, and position - give a portion of the estate to the state!

Re:I think this calls for a googlegasm

[Breakfast Pants]

Google does more business in advertising than any company except clearchannel. No, Google doesn't make TV shows and doesn't make magazines. The fact that their main value is in their index doesn't make that contribution somehow less important than TV shows and magazines. Their index has changed the way millions use the internet and have actually made the content therein much easier to access and navigate. Did they write this content themselves? No, but they have made it usable.

Re:I think this calls for a googlegasm

[TapeCutter]

"Google didn't just start out with scads of money and thousands of employees. They started out with two students, an algorithm, a couple servers, and a free webservice."

I'm not sure how much a "scad" is but TFA states they started out with an initial $1M investment.

Re:I think this calls for a googlegasm

[Net Spinner]

While I admire your moral stance (and agree), your understanding is quite flawed in regards to the tax.

Any sufficient level of wealth is easily able to bypass the inheritance taxes under the current system. It's all a matter of gaming the system. With any level of pre-planning it is almost trivial to avoid the majority of estate taxes that would be levied. Most if not all wealthy individuals have excellent tax and business consultation. As such, most understand and compartmentalize their wealth into chunks that cannot be easily dissected by the tax you're referring to through the use of corporate structures, limited partnerships, LLCs, and reasonable precautions.

In effect, the inheritance tax really only affects those individuals who:
1) have wealth to pass on
2) did not have proper planning/strategy for their wealth.

Who is that? That would be the middle and upper middle class. Most of whom may have a house and some money or stocks all in their own name.

The Rich DO NOT hold money in their name anymore, They own corporate interests and other non-persuable assets, all with transfer clauses in their corporate bylaws.

So really your stance puts a lot of middle class Americans in a position of continual generational mediocrity or poverty, while transferring those funds to an already wasteful and inefficient system (ie, the US government). Hardly ideal for anyone I think...

Re:I think this calls for a googlegasm

[Tiggs23]

Microsoft, proven to be a monopoly...

Uh, what? How was this proven, and what did they have a monopoly on? Please back up your opinion with facts. To my knowledge, the only actual monopolies are government-owned, such as the USPS.

Re:I think this calls for a googlegasm

[jwsd]

The argument here is not whether Google's service is valuable. There is no doubt it is very valuable. But whether Google as a company is worth more than TimeWarner, which I think not.

Re:I think this calls for a googlegasm

[bionicreagan]

The objective standard being that Microsoft has no means of forcing a customer to continue using Microsoft products against their will. People will argue that voluntary contracts between Microsoft and various vendors constitute "force" but I don't buy it. It's gotten to the point where any action taken by an unpopular company is deemed to be "force." Yes, says me. Anti-trust is corporate welfare for market losers. RealPlayer can't hack it on its own, so it figures why not use the courts to cut MS down to size? You provide no basis for the assertion that customers are coerced. By whom? To do what? Why?

Re:I think this calls for a googlegasm

[Moofie]

When Microsoft uses its monopoly power in operating systems to take over other markets, that's against the law. The courts at one point called them on it (and then totally failed to follow through).

Corporate welfare for market losers? You're being ridiculous. When any one corporation controls the market, it's not a market anymore. Not a FREE market, anyhow.

Re:I think this calls for a googlegasm

[bionicreagan]

Microsoft doesn't "control" the market. It's convenient how anti-trust law turns a completely blind eye to how a company comes to realize a dominant presence in a given market, only that it does. It's not about whether a company arrived at success through deceptive or forceful means, only that it IS successful. At no point were there any legal barriers to entering the operating system market, and in fact non-Windows operating systems see more use each year. I see no justifiable reason for Microsoft to defer to other software developers in their business strategy, except maybe to appease government regulators who craft anti-trust charges on the fly. Anti-trust law might be better named "anti-trust ideology" or "anti-trust theory" for the lack of clearly defined "crimes" it supposedly defines.

Re:I think this calls for a googlegasm

[Moofie]

"It's not about whether a company arrived at success through deceptive or forceful means, only that it IS successful"

I disagree, and the courts do too. Deceptive and forceful means are not acceptable in a free market.

If I were an individual acquiring wealth by deceptive and forceful means, I'd be a criminal. Same thing with corporations.

Re:I think this calls for a googlegasm

[bionicreagan]

No. What I mean is, the courts don't identify unlawful behavior as just being of a forceful or deceptive nature. That's what they should do, and within those parameters, we wouldn't be having this discussion b/c there would have been no case.

Re:I think this calls for a googlegasm

[Moofie]

No, the courts identify unlawful behavior as being against the law. That's kinda what they're for.

Want to change that? Change the law. Good luck.

Re:I think this calls for a googlegasm

[bionicreagan]

My point being that the laws in this case (and many others) have no root in any objective definition of physical force or fraud. Microsoft has not defrauded anyone or prevented any of its customers from choosing an alternative operating system, yet they still faced repeated investigations consuming valuable company resources. The anti-trust laws are firmly rooted in envy. How the various anti-trust suits against Microsoft couldn't reaffirm that sentiment is beyond me.

Re:I think this calls for a googlegasm

[Moofie]

You just finished Atlas Shrugged, didn't you?

Re:I think this calls for a googlegasm

[bionicreagan]

I read Atlas Shrugged a long time ago. Why, is there something terribly wrong with Objectivists?

Re:I think this calls for a googlegasm

[Moofie]

Not wrong. Just amusing. I thought Objectivism was great...when I was twelve.

Re:I think this calls for a googlegasm

[bionicreagan]

Of course, it's a much better use of your time to destroy successful people and live as if there are no fixed principles in life. That whole rational self-interest thing is for losers.

Re:I think this calls for a googlegasm

[Moofie]

The ad hominem attacks! Excellent. Anybody with the temerity to disagree with an Objectivist is, by definition, wrong and stupid.

One of MY fixed principles is this: Maximum freedom is the goal. Activities that needlessly restrict freedom are Bad. To steer this discussion back on track, Microsoft dumping IE on the market in order to kill Netscape was Bad. The fact that the courts were a couple years late and several billion dollars short of protecting a developing market is a secondary issue: What Microsoft did was Wrong.

Just because your principles are fixed doesn't make them right.

Re:I think this calls for a googlegasm

[bionicreagan]

Not necessarily, but the usual attack on Objectivism carries with it the belief that nothing can be certain. Anyway, to the issue at hand. Why is it the government's responsibility to "protect" a "developing market"? What makes a given market eligible for government protection? Popularity? Dominant participants that don't curry favor with the government? Whims? Why was it "wrong" for Microsoft to release its own web browsing software and place it on the desktops of OS software is created and sound to millions of voluntary customers? Netscape charged for its browsing software, whereas Microsoft realized such immense value from its operating system software that it could afford to release its own browser free of charge, thus garnering the lion's share of web browser users. What did they do wrong? You have a tortured definition of freedom in that you seem to stretch it to mean freedom from anything or anyone you happen not to like.

Re:I think this calls for a googlegasm

[Moofie]

By proceeding from the assumption that I would take the usual attack on Objectivism, you show yourself to be not very objective.

Look, I've really got no interest in pursuing this with you. I know that you've decided that you understand The Way Things Should Be, and there's nothing I can say to change that, so I won't waste either of our time.

There are plenty of things in life that are certain. If you think you know everything, then you know nothing. Of that, I AM certain.

Re:I think this calls for a googlegasm

[bionicreagan]

Well, the usual attack on Objectivism is unfortunately the norm. The only thing I've been awaiting from you is some justification for the court-ordered attacks on Microsoft. Thus far I've yet to see any cogent defense of what's taken place or how Microsoft gained its market dominance illicitly.

Re:I think this calls for a googlegasm

[fingerfucker]

I agree with this: unearned power, priveledge, and position are quite clearly antithetical to the spirit of free enterprise. This is one reason why I am staunchly against the Republican repeal of the inheritance tax. Stupid, stupid idea.

What you essentially said is that if wealth is transfered to someone else for free, the recipient should be taxed heavily because they did not "earn" it. This type of reasoning is nothing more but a great example of cry-baby economic jealousy ("waaah, waah, it's not fair that he became rich and I didn't....").

One more thing.

Exactly how is transfer of ownership of property from person A to person B "clearly antithetical to the spirit of free enterprise"?

In a free-market economy, I can sell all my possessions valued by some at $100B for exactly 1 dollar to my children. The government will get its sales tax of 7 cents (or whatever it is), end of transaction. The government has no business in dictating that that 1 dollar should have been $100B because the government has no business dictating prices; if the government dictated prices, the market economy wouldn't really be free any more, would it?

How much further until they surpass Microsoft?

[CyricZ]

How much further until they surpass Microsoft?

Re:How much further until they surpass Microsoft?

[toopc]

How much further until they surpass Microsoft?

Microsoft's market cap is about 275 billion, so Google still has a long, long way to go.

Re:How much further until they surpass Microsoft?

[nelsonal]

An additional $700 per share, assuming share count ratios remain fixed (which is a pretty poor assuption).

Re:How much further until they surpass Microsoft?

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft's market cap is about 275 billion, so Google still has a long, long way to go.

But what percentage of Microsoft's value is made up services equivalent to what Google does? 0.2%?

Re:How much further until they surpass Microsoft?

[tshak]

Microsoft's market cap is about 275 billion, so Google still has a long, long way to go.


Not to mention Google's P/E is almost 5x of MSFT's - this means that Google will most likely not be able to sustain this value, let alone gain anytime soon.

Re:How much further until they surpass Microsoft?

[Big Mark]

Google's stock is bubbling and it's going to plummet sometime soon. If I had the means I'd buy a load of shares and some put options so I could sell those things short.

Re:How much further until they surpass Microsoft?

[Fortran IV]

This compares weirdly to a story on NPR this afternoon that indicated the gross domestic product of the entire nation of Afghanistan is only about $5bn/year (maybe $200 per capita) of which $2bn comes from the illegal opium trade. The numbers involved in big business get more terrifying every year, even when the company is one of the rare good guys.

Re:How much further until they surpass Microsoft?

[espo812]

The numbers involved in big business get more terrifying every year

Yep, you don't want those big buisnesses employing thousands of people or increasing the gross national product now do you?

Is Google the New AOL?

[geomon]

How long until Google buys Time Warner?

Re:Is Google the New AOL?

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh yeah we all know how well that deal went....

Re:Is Google the New AOL?

[geomon]

They could buy VA Linux (or OSTG or whatever they call themselves this week) and fire CmdrTaco. (Do no Evil).

Heh... Let's hope they do it.

Re:Is Google the New AOL?

[DigiShaman]

Uhh no. It's more like "How long until Time Warner buys Google"

TWC has already branched out in to many markets such as phone, internet, music, and cable TV. Adding Google to the list would be a valuable asset to TWC.

Re:Is Google the New AOL?

[Momoru]

You gotta be kidding if you think the board of directors at Time Warner would approve another internet purchase after the debacle that was the AOL merger.

Re:Is Google the New AOL?

[hawk]

That wouldn't be nearly as unreasonable as Google's board being willing to approve it . . .

hawk

Re:Is Google the New AOL?

[HuguesT]

Who is talking about a friendly takeover? However the Google stock is probably overvalued, so also probably not a great long-term investment right now.

Re:Is Google the New AOL?

[Glaz]

How long until Google buys Time Warner?

Google will buy time warner when they become an old enough company to lose their creative edge and general desirability in the marketplace.

Or, as the punk rock community likes to put it, "When they sell out."

Re:Is Google the New AOL?

[miller701]

How long until Google buys Time Warner?

Only until the greed of the TW board of directors is enough to make the memories of the AOL "merger" disappear. then it shall happen.

Re:Is Google the New AOL?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Sell Out?"

How are they different now?
Both are businesses with the ultimate goal of creating profit, no matter what slogan some CEO purports to say. What do you think those ads are for on the search results page?

To quote a song I once heard....

"Well now I've got some advice for you, little buddy. Before you point your finger you should know that I'm the man, and if I'm the man, then you're the man, and he's the man as well
so you can point that f-n' finger up your a**!

All you read and wear or see and hear on TV
Is a product begging for your fata** dirty
dollar."

Re:Is Google the New AOL?

[Anonymous Coward]

Leo?? is that you?

Google is great!

[rice_burners_suck]

I am glad that a company that "does no evil" is better off than a company that does nothing but evil. That only goes to demonstrate the power of good.

Google is truly a remarkable company. Innovation at its best... There's probably not a day in my life that I don't use Google at least ten times. I don't know where I'd be without it. One day, I aspire to work for Google myself... Keep up the good work, guys.

Re:Google is great!

[ari_j]

Evil will always triumph over good, because good is dumb.

Re:Google is great!

[DeathFlame]

The google is good, the google is great. We surrender our will, as of this day.

The google is good, the google is great. We surrender our will, as of this day.

The google is good, the google is great. We surrender our will, as of this day.

Re:Google is great!

[Kainaw]

Google is truly a remarkable company. Innovation at its best... There's probably not a day in my life that I don't use Google at least ten times. I don't know where I'd be without it. One day, I aspire to work for Google myself... Keep up the good work, guys.

Don't listen to him. I love Google more. Just ten times a day!? I use Google 100 times a day! In fact, I'm going to legally change my name to Google. Please, please, Google, hire me instead!

(Somewhere, a professional comedian cries. There is a great disturbance in the comedy force.)

Re:Google is great!

[Anonymous Coward]

Um you have something Brown on the end of your nose Mate!

Re:Google is great!

[NekkidBob]

Nananananananana google!
Nananananananana google!
google! google! BATMAN! I mean...GOOGLE!

Re:Google is great!

[Anonymous Coward]

a share price has no true relavance to anything performance or anything elese. a share price represents how much someone is willing to pay for that share. a truely crappy company maybe able to convince you to pay a lot for its share or a good company wont be able to convince anyone to pay them for a share. in the end i would not buy a share due to the fact that it has gone from $95.96 to $283, which is its current price. it is going to bottum out and plenty of people will loose a whole crapload. it has already lost $10 today from its opening price. be careful because while it may have been a good buy when it went public i would be very carefull now about buying it because if a lot of people are not google will be the latest dot com burn out. and yes i will complain once more about this damn letter code we have to type it.

Re:Google is great!

[Datamonstar]

And don't forget how much more FUN evil is!

Re:Google is great!

[Darkman, Walkin Dude]

First of all, Google's stock is overvalued. Second of all, their ubiquitous control of the search engine market is not a good thing. Why?

Okay, here's how it goes, the majority of searches on the internet are done via google, therefore there is a massive incentive to comply with whatever google comes up with next, for anyone that ever wants their site to be seen. This is called leveraging a strong market position, and could border on a monopoly style abuse.

And just like MS, there will never be any public outcry, because the viewing public neither knows nor cares. All any web designer can do is dance to whatever tune google plays, just like they still have to dance to the tunes that IE plays. Mmmkay?

Also the quality of their search results seems to be reduced lately. Whether thats because of the massive effort by webmasters to "game the system" or because they are losing focus on their core strength remains to be seen. I dunno, Google is like a clown, many coloured and jolly, but it still gives me the creeps.

Re:Google is great!

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you ever heard of what googles Web Accelerator software does?


Nope. Enlighten us?

Re:Google is great!

[prgrmr]

Will Turner: You cheated.
Jack Sparrow: [shrugs] Pirate.

Re:Google is great!

[Anonymous Coward]

that's not his nose, it's his dick. yeah, it is short and dripping and covered with shit, though.

Re:Google is great!

[Anonymous Coward]

I, for one, welcome out new google overlords.

Re:Google is great!

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is the post insightful? What the hell ? Wait I have some mod points .. I will use them now.

Why people start worshipping google like religion ? It does few things so poorly that I switch to a9.com or even search.msn.com. Yes Google has indexed 8 billion pages but still sorts them so badly that many unique interesting pages show after 10th page.

People, be more reasonable. Google is not epitome of excellence or good-'sole'.

Re:Google is great!

[zerbot]

All you people who claim to use Google umpteen thousand times a day are liars, as evidenced by the fact that nobody has mentioned that Google appears to be doing a tribute to Frank Lloyd Wright today.

I've already used Google about half dozen times today and I'm just now having breakfast.

Re:Google is great!

[That's Unpossible!]

I am glad that a company that "does no evil" is better off than a company that does nothing but evil. That only goes to demonstrate the power of good.

And your post goes to demonstrate unabashed naiveté.

Re:Google is great!

[rev_icon]

What exactly did Time Warner do that was "EVIL" ?

Re:Google is great!

[Anonymous Coward]

We surrender our will, as of this DATE

Re:Google is great!

[exp(pi*sqrt(163))]

That only goes to demonstrate the power of good.

Good is just delayed evil.

Re:Google is great!

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm really thankful for the gift that I have the opportunity to create my world in my own mind and for the gift of having the ability to choose whether or not I will let beliefs like yours stick to me.

I noticed you were modded 'Funny' for your comment. Funny? I think not. It's this sort of justification that lets beliefs like this survive.

In my world good triumphs over evil. That belief is one of many that drive me and have allowed me me to live a great and fulfilling life.

Re:Google is great!

[Anonymous Coward]

You know it would rhyme if you changed day to date.

Re:Google is great!

[leonbev]

Who bothers to go to Google's web site nowadays? I just use the Google toolbar built into Firefox.

Re:Google is great!

[juanescalante]

Yeah, I thought so too, until I was pointed to http://www.fuckedgoogle.com/. I'm sure most of you have visited that page, could anyone tell me how is all the stuff exposed in it not being evil?

Re:Google is great!

[ReverendLoki]

100 times a day? Hah! That implies that, at least 100 times a day, you STOP using Google. Now take myself as an example. I just use Google once per day; from when I wake up to when I go to sleep. So clearly, *I* am the one more worthy of being hired by Google...

(Better haul back farther on your backswing there, Clyde, I think the horse is still twitching)

Re:Google is great!

[prgrmr]

I noticed you were modded 'Funny' for your comment. Funny? I think not. It's this sort of justification that lets beliefs like this survive.

And it's comments like yours that demonstrate that the sarcasm gene is not evenly distributed.

Re:Google is great!

[cursion]

Funny?! Thats insightful!

Re:Google is great!

[jandrese]

It's really a combination of Google being overvalued and Time Warner being undervalued. AOL really did a number on TWs market capitalization, but they still have enormous money making assets in their media companies that can't be overlooked. That said, I wouldn't be surprised to see a couple more rounds of layoffs at TW to cut costs and make themselves look batter to investers.

Re:Google is great!

[SamBeckett]

hmmmm batter. tasty TW Pancakes.

Re:Google is great!

[goldspider]

Thinking in absolutes like "good" and "evil" indicates an unwillingness to consider every aspect of the subject being considered. Claiming that Google is incapable of wrongdoing or that Time Warner does nothing but evil only identifies you as a mindless zealot. I doubt you are capable of seeing anything but good in Google, no matter what they might do.

Re:Google is great!

[BorgHunter]

Try watching Spaceballs, then get back to us.

Re:Google is great!

[pizen]

And it's comments like yours that demonstrate that the sarcasm gene is not evenly distributed.

Don't forget that it also demonstrates the lack of movie references that all Slashdot readers should keep in cache (or at least memory) instead of swapping out to disk.

There are just some things that are funnier when the reference isn't explicit.

Re:Google is great!

[MyLongNickName]

Talk about a bunch of lemmings.

History teaches that anytime ANYONE gets enough power, they begin to use it for less than altruistic purposes.

Google seems like a great company now. But they are sitting on more and more personal data. What happens when leadership changes hands at Google? What happens when the feds decide to confiscate that data? Then will they still be the "do not evil" company?

Despite the group orgasm Slashdot has at the name of "Google", they are a company. Companies are neither evil or good. They exist to generate wealth. The more successful the company, the more not-so-great things they can do to generate more wealth. This has happened for centuries. Unfortunately, the US has the collective memory of a gnat.... so history will repeat itself.

Re:Google is great!

[brokenwndw]

Not to mention he has no excuse for not knowing how to STFW if he's posting in this thread. :-)

Re:Google is great!

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, for crying out loud...it was quoted (or paraphrased) from Spaceballs.

Re:Google is great!

[datadriven]

If a person could not detect sarcasm, they might not have bothered to see "Spaceballs"

Re:Google is great!

[zerbot]

So do I, but you still end up on a page with a FLW'ized logo.

Re:Google is great!

[Anonymous Coward]

Or that Spaceballs is underrated

BTW, it's:

"So, Lonestar. Now you see that evil will always triumph, because good is dumb"

Re:Google is great!

[EvilMidnightBomber]

Bad is good, baby! Down with government!

etc

Re:Google is great!

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

Poser. I have all the original google day-to-day logo art tattooed on me, up to Halloween of 2004. I then ran out of room, so I had to start tattooing the rest onto my 4 month old son. It would have been nice to let him grow up to see his own unaltered adult face, but my plan to increase square inchage of my tattooable skin by becoming incredibly obese isn't progressing nearly fast enough!

Re:Google is great!

[Ioldanach]

I noticed you were modded 'Funny' for your comment. Funny? I think not. It's this sort of justification that lets beliefs like this survive.

Or you might just not know popular culture. Its a quote from Dark Helmet in Spaceballs: The Movie. Who, incidentally, loses.

Re:Google is great!

[IAmTheDave]

And it's comments like yours that demonstrate that the sarcasm gene is not evenly distributed.

He's just mad that his shwartz is small.

Re:Google is great!

[webview]

Evil will always triumph over good, because good is dumb.

I always thought that Evil will always triumph over good because good is contrained.

Re:Google is great!

[MaGogue]

And it's comments like yours that demonstrate that the sarcasm gene is not evenly distributed.

I really wanted to slap you in the face because of that, but I don't have anything funny to say now.
Moments of inspiration are not evenly distributed in time, space, or unfortunalety slashdot for that matter.
Do not make a mistake by thinking sarcasm is a variant of humor, it is a mix of SAdism, naRCissism and spASM.
In its own words, sarcasm is like a thick rubber sole; all the sh.t in the world will stick to it over time.

Re:Google is great!

[IAmTheDave]

And just like MS, there will never be any public outcry, because the viewing public neither knows nor cares.

Or there could be no public outcry because so far, their products are good. Just having some modicum of control does not immediately require public outrage. If one is responsible with the control given him, then there is no reason to rally against him. (Note: Google could easily be a her.)

Re:Google is great!

[webview]

Should have previewed...

Constrained.

Re:Google is great!

[dextroz]

I'd rephrase the start of your statement as:

"I am glad that a company that "does know evil" is better off than a company that does nothing but evil

Re:Google is great!

[ms47]

OK, let's not get carried away. Sure, Google is a great company that does good things, and everyone here loves them, but deserving of a stock price nearing $300? I think not. Where are their assets? What are their tangible products? For some reason folks seem to have forgotten what happened in 2000 when the bubble burst, or are wishing so desperately for the easy money of the early 90's that they're blowing up Google's stock.

Good for them, I say. Demonstrating the power of good with their ridiculously-inflated stock price? That's probably a stretch.

Re:Google is great!

[Andrewkov]

I dunno, Google is like a clown, many coloured and jolly, but it still gives me the creeps.

I think I just found my new sig...

Re:Google is great!

[prgrmr]

The lines seperating humor, sarcasm, irony, and even pathos are composed of juxtaposition and context. Slashdot comments are nortoriously lacking in context, which, in turn, leads to a lack of appreciation of the juxtapositions involved if the reader is unable to derive the appropriate context.

In other words, it's an education and experience issue. Being bitter over the lackthereof is just a cop-out.

Re:Google is great!

[rice_burners_suck]

(Somewhere, a professional comedian cries. There is a great disturbance in the comedy force.)

A million billion comedians out of a job and you try to make a joke.

Re:Google is great!

[rice_burners_suck]

I'm so glad I'm a woman. :-)

Re:Google is great!

[rice_burners_suck]

Or there could be no public outcry because so far, their products are good. Just having some modicum of control does not immediately require public outrage.

Control does immediately require public outrage. See, if an anarchist organization ever manages to overthrow the government, they will immediately dissolve themselves, because otherwise they would be acting against their ideals.

Re:Google is great!

[Anonymous Coward]

Who bothers to go to Google's web site nowadays? I just use the Google toolbar built into Firefox.

... and to which website does the nifty toolbar bring you to see the results?

Re:Google is great!

[mattspammail]

All the competing browsers need to give over their power to the senate, so that the senate can bring peace to the browser wars more swiftly. That's the best way to do things.

Re:Google is great!

[Johnny5000]

Google once per day; from when I wake up to when I go to sleep

You sleep? I don't have time for such things, as I need to use google instead, twenty four hours per day. So clearly, I am the true google lover. Hire me!

(looks for a spot on the horse carcass to beat)

Re:Google is great!

[ari_j]

Although someone has said I misquoted the movie, you are the first person to explicitly state my point: Evil loses almost immediately after saying that line.

Re:Google is great!

[88NoSoup4U88]

Google is truly a remarkable company. Innovation at its best...

While I do believe in their 'do no evil'-stance, and they have been showing great (free) services, I think you have to keep in mind that they -too- did alot of buy-outs of companies that probably make up for a few of your ten visits.

Good to see them do well though : I consider Google and its services to be very valuable online.

Re:Google is great!

[MaGogue]

Gimme a snapshot of a (wo)man's mind and I will understand him/her. Until then, (s)he'll have to explain things.

Re:Google is great!

[rice_burners_suck]

I love Google. I worship Google. It is my life. My sun, my moon, my starlit sky. Without Google, I dwell in darkness. Google is everything to me. I am obsessed with Google, true, but there is nothing else for me. Google.

Re:Google is great!

[mr_zorg]

Google is truly a remarkable company. Innovation at its best... There's probably not a day in my life that I don't use Google at least ten times. I don't know where I'd be without it. One day, I aspire to work for Google myself... Keep up the good work, guys.

Google is where they are because they don't hire dumb-asses like us.

Re:Google is great!

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually the reason evil will usually triumph over good is that in the same set of circumstances good has more rules constraining it.

Re:Google is great!

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course it's not evenly distributed. Full expression requires several alleles at different sites, not a single gene (a common misconception). The effects of only one or two of these are mild, and considered entirely "normal". Fortunately, some of the genes responsible are recessive, so it is only in rare instances that people are cursed with full-blown CBG Syndrome.

Having a few people who are entirely missing all of the necessary alleles is a small price to pay. The alternative would be much more frequent CBG expression in the general population, would would be unpleasant for everybody.

Re:Google is great!

[otis wildflower]

The alternative would be much more frequent CBG expression in the general population, would would be unpleasant for everybody.

But wouldn't that imply, however, that the CBG is gettin any?

Clearly not a problem to fret about.

(Sadly.)

Re:Google is great!

[otis wildflower]

I really wanted to slap you in the face because of that, but I don't have anything funny to say now.

Surprise, surprise.

Here's a quarter, kid, go put down that manifesto and buy yourself a sense of humor.

Re:Google is great!

[notasheep]

Great link, I hadn't seen that one before. Personally, I'm not sure why everyone is in love with Google. They made a great search engine, but where else have they innovated? Most of what they've done is nothing more than making Google-ized versions of existing products.

They're an ad company. Everything they do is an effort to drive more ad revenue. They're Gator with a less pervasive business model. Of course, now that they'll start pushing out animated ads we'll see how long the love-fest lasts.

Re:Google is great!

[Wdomburg]

The logo changes never really register for me unless someone points them out. I only noticed the current one after a friend pointed it out on IRC.

Re:Google is great!

[Ninwa]

Jack Sparrow: [after Will draws his sword] Put it away, son. It's not worth you getting beat again.
Will Turner: You didn't beat me. You ignored the rules of engagement. In a fair fight, I'd kill you.
Jack Sparrow: That's not much incentive for me to fight fair, then, is it?

I love that movie. :]

Re:Google is great!

[kz45]

Okay, here's how it goes, the majority of searches on the internet are done via google, therefore there is a massive incentive to comply with whatever google comes up with next, for anyone that ever wants their site to be seen. This is called leveraging a strong market position, and could border on a monopoly style abuse

google got this way because they are the best. If you want people to start using other search engines, you will either have to:

1) create a better one yourself (and get it more popular than google) or
2) tell people not to use google.

both are going to be difficult at this point.

google shouldn't be punished for being the best (which is the goal of any company)

Re:Google is great!

[drsquare]

I'm not so sure about that. What company has done nothing but evil? I think you're exagerating.

Innovation? I don't really know where you're coming from with that. As far as I'm aware, Google makes the lion's share of its profit from advertising and selling shares. They sell adverts using a search engine. They didn't invent that, it's an existing system with a few alterations. Context-based adverts were invented elsewhere. They just managed to get enough eye-balls to sell a lot of advert space. It's not like the results are much good either. Most sites on ALL search engines are crap, mainly because most of the Internet itself is crap. Short of AI, we're never going to hav a really good search engine. Sorting links based on popularity just gives you bland mainstream sites and fluff sites rather than solid information.

People here criticise Microsoft for being a purely marketing-based company, but is being a purely advertising-based company much better? Should we worship a company whose entire raison d'être is to get us to look at their adverts? The services they are currently developing (gmail etc.) don't seem to have a business model yet, but I'm sure it will revolve around advertising.

I think most of this fawning over Google is because for once we have a large successful IT-based company which seems to have good intentions, rather than because of their tangible achievements.

Re:Google is great!

[orderb13]

Because you like the short, shit covered, dripping dicks?

Re:Google is great!

[Mant]

Google doesn't have "ubiquitous control of the search engine market". Sure they get more press, particularly on slashdot but Yahoo! gets its fair share of hits.

Re:Google is great!

[rice_burners_suck]

deserving of a stock price nearing $300

Where can you get Google stock for so cheap? I just paid $450 to a friend of mine, and I thought that was a bargain!

Re:Google is great!

[MaGogue]

THAT kind of humor, my dear papa, is only relieving fear of your pipi being too small, and your belly getting too big.
Getting pleasure out of other people 'not getting it' is one, a most perverse, thing, but ad hominem is a brutality that is not tolerated in civilised parts of the world.

Re:Google is great!

[otis wildflower]

Getting pleasure out of other people 'not getting it' is one, a most perverse, thing, but ad hominem is a brutality that is not tolerated in civilised parts of the world.

Slapping in the face, now _that_'s about as ad hominem as you can get, genius.

And whining is not tolerated in America.

We scared the whiners and wimps (aka crown loyalists) right up past the 49th parallel. I love Canadians, and I even love the French, but I love them as they are. And they are wimps and whiners. And the English are starting to get whiney, which is actually quite disappointing, but inevitable as the NHS and social services crumble under the weight of collapsing demographic trends.

And don't get me started on the dhimmis in Spain.

Re:Google is great!

[MaGogue]

We could go on until Slashdot's thread depth is overrun and still not say anything substantial. I quit.

Re:Google is great!

[Dave2 Wickham]

IE was better than Netscape, too.

Google isn't the best any more (although this is debateable, the gap between it and other search engines has definitely shrunk). It's wise to use a combination of search engines. I tend to use AllTheWeb and MSN Search (yes, it actually gives useful results now, even if at one point it ranked my personal music collection extremely highly) in addition to Google in order to give a wider selection of results.

Nothing better..

[GarryOwen]

Nothing better than sane stock evaluations.

Re:Nothing better..

[rumblin'rabbit]

Nothing better than sane stock evaluations.

I can't tell if you're being serious or not. But if you are serious, well...

Google Price/Earnings ~ 50
Google Price/Sales ~ 10

For a value investor, 15 and 1 are considered good numbers. Anyone buying this stock is praying for growth, and not just a little.

Not only do you need earnings and sales growth, you need it on a per share basis. Growth for growth's sake does the shareholder little good. Historically, toothpaste has been far more lucrative than technology for the investor.

Re:Nothing better..

[sho222]

How did you get modded +5, Insightful for that comment? I assume you were being sarcastic... if you were being genuine, I might mod you the same.

Google's stock value is completely sane right now, in fact, it's probably undervalued. Look at the forward price to earnings ratio. It's at ~43 right now. Now take a similar company (Yahoo is probably the best one that you can compare with Google). Yahoo's forward price to earnings ratio is about 50. Google is growing (in terms of revenue) much more quickly than Yahoo (and just about every other company out there). They probably deserve a much higher multiple than 50, but at least give them that. This stock should be in the mid 300's to low 400's. If you believe Jim Cramer (and many people do), he's predicting $470 = (multiple of 50 X $9.40 earnings per share).

Re:Nothing better..

[coopaq]

Google's stock price will go down.

Re:Nothing better..

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh for crying out loud! The parent is being funny, not insightful!

Re:Nothing better..

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh christ, fuck off back to 1999, will you?

BULL MARKET NEW ECONOMY EXUBERANCE WOW JUST WOW E-SOLUTIONS INFORMATION SUPERHIGHWAY DISTRIBUTION REVOLUTION!

Cunt. I hope your balls explode and your dick falls off. Then I'm going to nail the remains to your head and kick you in the head repeatedly.

I was hoping for a diff headline...

[Anonymous Coward]

Internet search phenomenon Google has overtaken a swathe of venerable rivals to become the world's biggest media company by stock market value.

Re:I was hoping for a diff headline...

[Mithrandir86]

And considering that Google is way, way, way overvalued right now. It's just new and hip. Don't purchase it as a long term investment.

bah

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not using google any more. I'm sick of them and all the hype. It's not like there aren't other search engines and free ginormous webmails out there...

Whee

[Anonymous Coward]

Does this mean we'll see a Google ISP soon?

Gotta love those cache speeds.

Market Capitalization

[Anonymous Coward]

I remember the last time a technology company got headlines for "being the largest company on earth" in terms of market capitalization. I knew I should've sold my Cisco that day...

Top Spot?

[0kComputer]

I wasn't aware that 80bn in market capitol was the "Top Spot".

Another misleading headline...

Re:Top Spot?

[ndansmith]

Perhaps it has taken the top spot in the area of telecommunications or some other category. Obviously IBM and Walmart are worth more than Google.

Re:Top Spot?

[DustMagnet]

Perhaps "$80bn Google takes top media spot", but I will not admit to reading the article.

Re:Top Spot?

[nelsonal]

Of roughly 6000 public companies that trade in the US (or trade a portion of their shares as ADRs) 42 are over $80 billion in Market cap. UPS happens to be next up the list (as of yesterday's close) Google might have shed a spot with their decline today.

Re:Top Spot?

[Lawrence_Bird]

Around 435 ish it overtakes IBM. Either way, its in the
top 45 by market cap. For now.

Re:Top Spot?

[Anonymous Coward]

0kComputer, you post too much.
it would be okay except that you don't seem to have a clue how to spell. Stay in school.

over priced?

[Anonymous Coward]

the article does point out that some analystis think that google is over priced. Anyone remember what happened to the AOL/TW share price?

Re:over priced?

[bad_outlook]

~17$USD a share currently for AOL/TW, vs Google's ~297$USD!

bo

Re:over priced?

[Flying Purple Wombat]

What analysts think has nothing to do with what a share of stock is worth. The value of a share is determined solely by the price that a buyer and seller agree upon in the open market. There is no such thing as "overpriced" or "underpriced", only the market price.

Disclosure: long GOOG (wish I bought at the IPO)
current sentiment: hold

Re:over priced?

[notany]

Overpriced and underpriced are meaningful when you try to make make more money. Stock is overpriced when it can't make you more money in long term. Buyer and seller can make deals in any price they want. But in the long run actual performance of the company determines the right price.

Actually over- and underpriced depends from time span. Stock can be underpriced in long term and overpriced in short term. In this discussion timespan is something like 3-15 years. If I conclude that I can be richer by delaying my investment 5 years then we can say that GOOG is overpriced in 5 year scale.

WTF?!?!?!

[null etc.]

How come this article wasn't entitled, "World's Biggest Media Company by Stock Market Value"???

Re:WTF?!?!?!

[wankledot]

Because the person that wrote the headline is a complete idiot?

Re:WTF?!?!?!

[Anonymous Coward]

You're new here, aren't you? Welcome to Slashdot!

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Allow me to rephrase

[Nom du Keyboard]

...so is now worth more than Time Warner

Allow me to rephrase: Some people think it's worth more than Time Warner.

Re:Allow me to rephrase

[strongmace]

It is valued at more than Time warner...but yeah, the word 'worth' is not really appropriate.

Re:Allow me to rephrase

[Democratus]

"Some people think it's worth more than Time Warner."

Isn't that the very definition of worth?

Value only exists as an expression of people's faith.

Re:Allow me to rephrase

[Threni]

> Allow me to rephrase: Some people think it's worth more than Time Warner.

No, really, it's worth more. They're talking about market capitalisation - that is, the number of shares in circulation multiplied by what each share is worth. What people think has absolutely nothing to do with it.

Re:Allow me to rephrase

[Skeezix]

The worth of something is what people think it's worth, by definition.

Re:Allow me to rephrase

[D-Cypell]

...so how is the value of each share decided?

Re:Allow me to rephrase

[Elwood P Dowd]

"Some people think it's worth more than Time Warner."

Isn't that the very definition of worth?

Value only exists as an expression of people's faith.

Time Warner is only as valuable as the proletariat families it can feed, capitalist pig-dog!

Re:Allow me to rephrase

[Threni]

The short answer is - supply and demand. Currently, people believe Google shares are worth more than they currently cost (or if they don't believe that, they still believe other people will pay more for them at some point in the future) so they buy them, there are less for sale (from the broker) and the price goes up. In a while, when people turn around and say "why the f*** did I pay $350 per share for a company with no tangible assets or future", as might happen if Microsoft (or Yahoo etc) are successful with their search engine, people will sell their shares and there'll be more on the market so the price will drop.

If you're thinking `ah HA - so people's opinions and beliefs DO affect a company's share price` then of course you're right - shares are bought by people, and people have all sorts of stupid, inefficient ideas about how to beat the stock market, but the bottom line is that market capitalization is the usual way people rank companies against one another.

Re:Allow me to rephrase

[FlimFlamboyant]

Allow me to rephrase: Some people think it's worth more than Time Warner.

Exactly. Look at all the money people dumped in to the stock of dotcoms that are now bust. Not that I think that there's any chance of Google going under, but are they really worth that much? What do they sell and what assets do they hold that makes it so valuable? I say look for Google's stock to crash very hard once people start asking themselves just what it is that they're investing in.

Re:Allow me to rephrase

[going_the_2Rpi_way]

And despite the objections to your post, you've hit the nail on the head.

Sure, the GOOG EPS of 2.53 is higher than the current TWX EPS of 0.72, but the P/E of GOOG is at a whopping 115 while TWX is at a much more classical 24.

A P/E this high is usually a strong sign of widespread enthusiasm for a company. You should exit under these conditions, not get in. To gain a profitable exit if you enter now, GOOG needs to either needs to hit an even higher P/E valuation or continue to maintain it's current unusually high valuation and substantially increase it's EPS.

If the GOOG valuation drops to more classical levels like, say, 30, then the EPS will neeed to be approximately 4 times higher than current just to maintain the ticker price.

For an investor, $1000 of TWX is much likely going to be worth more in the long haul than the same amount of GOOG.

Re:Allow me to rephrase

[HermanAB]

Yup, some 2300 years ago, Democritus said: A thing is worth whatever someone is prepared to pay for it.

Except that he said in Greek of course...

Economists have been struggling with that concept ever since, but the simplest trader in a bazaar (ancient name for stock market) understands it perfectly.

Re:Allow me to rephrase

[Xiaran]

Your post made me think of an old story I heard a while ago that is related to company worth.

There was once an English Financial COnsultcy company based in London, that was basically a startup by a grow of fin services types who were all very very good at whatever it is that fin services types do. Anyway... they became very successful enterprise.

A German company wanted to break into their particular market niche, so offered to by them out. For an obscene amount of money.... seven figures UKP. The German company was very foolish and didnt get the company founder to sign and bits of paper saying they would stay on. The Founders and Germans didnt get on, and after a while they all left. The German company was surprised to find they now owned a 7 figure business that consisted of a leased office, leased furniture and office equipment and admin and reception staff.

In complex service type industries, including software development/innovation, the most valuable asset is the talent of your employees. Having a building in the Valley means dick.

Re:Allow me to rephrase

[Anonymous Coward]

Gold. The ultimate store of value. Nobody's promise to pay.

Re:Allow me to rephrase

[Anonymous Coward]

So I guess when the Soviet Union collapsed everyone switched to the "gold standarc"? Or Iraq? Or Afghanistan?

I don't think so.

Re:Allow me to rephrase

[maxume]

It is somewhat instructive to look at the forward P/E, where the comparison is still better for Time Warner, but Google is still higher than many people would consider reasonable. Time Warner currently has a forward P/E of about 19, and Google has a forward P/E of about 43. 43 compares to 19(2.3x) a lot better than 115 compares to 24(4.8x). This relates to the fact that Google is still a growth company, and Time Warner really isn't. Paying 120 times earnings for growth is still a bad idea.

It makes me uncomfortable when people try to compare Google to other companies. The comparison to Microsoft seems odd, as Google doesn't sell much other than eyeballs(Advertising impressions and some ad brokering), and Microsoft pretty much makes all thier revenue on software sales. The comparison to Time Warner is also not that good as they are a combination media delivery(cable and isp) and media library company, with some content generation thrown in. Neither makes a good comparison for Google. Sure Time Warner and Google are both internet companies and Microsoft and Google both have lots of big heads, but they just aren't in the same types of business.

Google is thier own animal. They also face some pretty interesting challenges in growing thier business. They own search right now, no growth there, so they have to do stuff like create google maps. How long can they keep doing that? Another problem they face is competition(for ad impressions and clicks and whatnot) from Yahoo! and new startups.

Re:Allow me to rephrase

[radish]

A Bazaar is a market, typically selling regular products, not a stock market. The idea of stock ownership is much, much newer than Democritus.

Re:Allow me to rephrase

[tekunokurato]

watch the forward P/E... you're not buying yesterday's earnings, are you?

Re:Allow me to rephrase

[Anonymous Coward]

What is your point? I can guarantee you that anyone sitting on a pile of gold in any one of those places is better off than those who arent. Nothing to do with monetary systems.

Re:Allow me to rephrase

[justinpfister]

How about call it the backwards P/E ;)

Re:Allow me to rephrase

[tekunokurato]

jesus justin you're everywhere!

Re:Allow me to rephrase

[justinpfister]

I have a ich to find my niche -- so I continue to stich my social cloud.

So how soon...

[Anonymous Coward]

So how soon until Google creates their own ISP?
Seriously, their HTML ads are a LOT nicer than AOL Time Warner's pop-ups.

I'd say

[Anonymous Coward]

They're both overvalued.

NYSE?

[Anonymous Coward]

Google dosen't trade on the NYSE.

Re:NYSE?

[ran-o-matic]

Market cap is market cap regardless of where the shares are traded.

Re:NYSE?

[Anonymous Coward]

That may be true, but it doesn't change the fact that the /. article is mistitled. TFA only says, "After its shares hit an all-time high on the New York markets on Tuesday, ...". No mention of the NYSE.

Re:NYSE?

[Rude Turnip]

These days I'd rather trust NASDAQ than the old boy's network that is the NYSE. Information flows freer, which is important for capitalism to work. In fact, Microsoft refuses to be listed on NYSE, even though the letter "M" is reserved for them as a ticker symbol.

Re:NYSE?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm wondering why you have a +5 Informative.

The NASDAQ is an Index

the NYSE is an Exchange

Completely different things, GOOGLE is listed on the NASDAQ and traded on the NYSE.

Re:NYSE?

[geniusj]

Thank you. I was wondering the same thing. These people are thinking of Dow Jones, the other big index.

-JD-

Re:NYSE?

[zippthorne]

Different like, American league vs. National League or Major league vs. Little League?

Re:NYSE?

[Thu25245]

NASDAQ is both. It's a "virtual" electronic exchange...no trading floor, no men in suits running around, but plenty of shares changing hands.

It's also an index of prices of the companies listed on it.

Re:NYSE?

[kavau]

I'm wondering why you have a +3 Informative.

NASDAQ: A computerized trading system established by the NASD for over-the-counter stocks.

You are probably thinking about the Nasdaq Composite Index, COMPX.

Media?

[Anonymous Coward]

But how is Google a media company?

Re:Media?

[QMO]

Books are a communications medium
Newspapers too.
Television is another medium.
Radio is another.
Internet is another medium of communication.
Google is a company that is very concerned with the medium of the internet, and all of the sub-media that the internet uses (text, pictures, audio, video).
So, Google is a media company.

Get it?

Re:Media?

[timster]

Well no, it's a stupid argument. It's like calling a paper company a media company because books are printed on paper. It's like calling a construction company a media company because they build radio towers.

Google is a technology company and everybody knows it, except apparently the BBC. This is the non-story of the year, but at least it gives Slashdotters a chance to say dumb things about the stock market.

More than TW??!!

[Mad-Mage1]

I mean come on, this is so completely unrealistic that ity smacks of the old days of the Internet Bubble. TW at least has real assets that can be valued, while Google is primarily a IP (intellectual property) company. Yes they do make search devices, yes they do have a Proven (albeit short) track record of innovation, but valuing this company at that figure is totally over-reaching. Their P/E ratio is so over-blown that no serious investor can look at this as anything other than a over-correction based upon the fact that Google is an Internet darling and one of the few that surivived the purge and actually PROFITED.

Re:More than TW??!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Because google has no physical property like massive server farms or any real revenue stream like advertisning.

Re:More than TW??!!

[Thaelon]

I was thinking that if they're one of the few that survived the dotcom bubble then maybe they really are worth what they seem to be.

Re:More than TW??!!

[MoonBuggy]

As another poster said, Google's got server farms and related infrastructure that aren't exactly worthless, but they are obviously barely a drop in the $80bn bucket. Having said that though, Time Warner is also an IP company. Physical DVDs, film reels etc. aren't worth too much really - it's the IP that you put on them that people are paying for.

It's still overvalued, but not necessarily for the reasons you said.

Re:More than TW??!!

[infochuck]

TW at least has real assets that can be valued, while Google is primarily a IP (intellectual property) company.

Oh, I bet they could get a few bucks for their servers.

Re:More than TW??!!

[Comatose51]

Correct me if I'm wrong but stock prices are supposed to reflect future value as well as assets. So yes there is a good amount of speculation involved. However, this also means the market believes that Google WILL generating the same or more profit than TW. To price a stock, you take what the company is worth now, discount all expected future earnings, and add that back to it's current networth.

Re:More than TW??!!

[andy1307]

I'd say that Time Warners IP is more valuable and durable than googles IP. Google is more innovative than Time Warner but the value of their IP will sink if the pace of innovation slows. If google stops innovating today, MSN could catch up in 2-3 years. OTOH, TimeWarner's IP is in the form of movie/music rights which will always retain some value.

Re:More than TW??!!

[lommer]

Um, actually as another posted pointed out - TW's physical assets are $45 billion, while Google's are worth $3 billion. So actually, those DVDs, projectors, recorders, archiving equipment, broadcasting equipment, and everything else that Time Warner has does add up.

Re:More than TW??!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Please, Oh please, for God's sake, please stop calling movies and music Intellectual Property.

Do you really see it that way or have you been programmed?

Re:More than TW??!!

[Anonymous Coward]

"no serious investor can look at this as anything other than a over-correction"

hmm... seems like a lot of serious investors are buying... and buying... and buying. The P/E is fairly high, but compariable to Yahoo and Ebay. You can sit on the sideline and not own shares, but I'd rather take a chance on this Internet darling.

Re:More than TW??!!

[robklaus]

I don't know it may not be that off base.

Someone on here the other day was going on about how TV shows are not the product of a media corp, rather YOU the viewer are, and the TV show is the net they capture you in.

Similarly, today, how often are you using google? All day at work, at home, on the weekend, etc. You are being served in a very targeted manner to advertisers on a continual basis.

Perhaps that is where this high value comes from.

Re:More than TW??!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Depends on how you look at it, because those DVDs could very well be heavily overvalued 'product in stock'.

Add to that that DVDs are counted as profit when they are shipped to the retail location...

Guess I'll be buying the stock at 282.64 then!

[Yo Grark]

No seriously. It's insane. I scoffed at it's opening bid of $116.00 and just proved why I don't play the stocks :/

How many other geeks actually invested and how much? Any life savingers?

Yo Grark

Re:Guess I'll be buying the stock at 282.64 then!

[jacquesm]

you know you want to get out of the market when everybody and their brother want to get in :)

And search engine optimization jerks are doing a pretty good job of making google less useful than it was two years ago.

Re:Guess I'll be buying the stock at 282.64 then!

[rimmon]

Those morons who bought google during the IPO. They multiplied their money. We should truly feel sorry for them... :)

Re:Guess I'll be buying the stock at 282.64 then!

[jacquesm]

I feel just as sorry for them as I feel for those that lost their shirt in 2000 or '87, they're gamblers.

That doesn't mean that some gamblers don't get lucky, it does mean that if you play the odds long enough you will probably lose more than you can afford at some point.

Play the market, cool. Play the market with borrowed money or options that can put you out of any future income you might generate and you're stupid.

Just use cash that you know you can miss and don't when if your bets don't pay off.

Re:Guess I'll be buying the stock at 282.64 then!

[drsquare]

If it were a bet, that would be odds of 3/2. You could probably make more money betting on horses.

My new baby's first words...

[BigAlexK]

"goooooogle, gooogle, google, gogle, gooogle"

oh, uh, sorry, I meant

"gurrrrgle, gurgle, guuurgle"

Ahem.

Great choice of news for google.

[NRAdude]

It's a statistic, and judging by the frontpage on google, every advertiser should take a hint that people want simplicity. Can we dump holy water on the flames of hell caused by shockwave advertisements, or websites consisting of one single image with URL mapping its regions? After-all, Google can't profile a website that is more a media center than a DOCUMENT.

vi /ducks

Re:Great choice of news for google.

[wickedmm]

Did you know that 90% of statistics are made up?

curse you, google!

[Anonymous Coward]

i'd be rich today if google hadn't been unable to find "should i invest all my money in google stock?" back in august 2004.. :-/

Google can only go so high...

[Anonymous Coward]

before it becomes stagnant or spreads itself too thin. The problem with too many technical firms is that they try to do too many things well. it may work for a bit of time, but in the long run it will not work so well.

submitter screwed up the headline

[Anonymous Coward]

should read "Google now World's largest media company".

Re:submitter screwed up the headline

[Golias]

Bah!

The only reason this is a "top spot" is because, unlike many of the top media and technology companies, they are traded on NYSE instead of NASDAQ.

If they were a NASDAQ company, would anybody think that "Google stock now worth slightly more than Time/Warner stock" counts as news?

Sorry kids, they are still a smaller company than the eeeeeeevil one over in Redmond that manufactures full-screen error messages.

Re:submitter screwed up the headline

[Anonymous Coward]

Back in the early 90's being traded on NASDAQ would have been the boobie prize ;)

Re:submitter screwed up the headline

[casefive]

Google is traded on the NASDAQ, symbol GOOG (four letter ticker symbol == not NYSE).

...and also, market cap == market cap. If a company traded on the NASDAQ is worth more dollars than a company traded on the NYSE, well, that's more dollars. More is more. Actual price of the stock is sorta secondary here, people aren't saying that the price of a single share of GOOG is now more than a single share of Time/Warner, though that is also true: TWX is going for ~$17, while GOOG did their IPO at $85 and are now flirting with $300!

Re:submitter screwed up the headline

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry kids, they are still a smaller company than the eeeeeeevil one over in Redmond that manufactures full-screen error messages.
___

And this has what to do with this article? And c'mon now, it's not the size that matters...

Re:submitter screwed up the headline

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, everyone in the office laughed their asses off when I asked which company was described as 'the one that manufactures full-screen error messages'. I guess one could mod it Funny ?

Not that I'm anywhere near being an investor

[PrimeWaveZ]

But it seems way overpriced. But for a company that has bitchen products, I'll most certainly be a customer of theirs for a long time to come. I just don't plan on investing any money in their company's stock, that's all.

Wait a second..

[Sethus]

I still don't understand. What do they sell that makes their stock worth that much?

Re:Wait a second..

[Anonymous Coward]

Nothing. This is typical of dot-bomb tech stock overvaluation. Time will come and Google's stock will deflate down to reasonable levels when investors realize that Google doesn't make enough money to justify its percieved worth.

Re:Wait a second..

[burndive]

They sell YOUR EYEBALLS!!!

Re:Wait a second..

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh by the way, since I see I offended some moderator's sensibilities, the above comment was not intended to be demeaning of Google. I just simply think that Google is overvalued. There is no reasonable way to say that Google will pull in more money than Time Warner now or any reasonable time in the future.

I dont want to see Google turn into one of the many dot-bomb tech companies.

They can't buy Time Warner.

[CyricZ]

They can't really buy Time Warner. Right now it's only their stock value that exceeds the stock value of Time Warner. Like the article says, Time Warner has a net worth of $45 billion, compared to $3 billion for Google. While it is possible that Google could raise the finances necessary to purchase Time Warner, it is most likely not something they could do at this time.

Re:They can't buy Time Warner.

[Anonymous Coward]

I think that's useful, and it's nice to feel needed, but I think it draws attention away from what's really important. Instead of staking out new territory and beating the holy crap out of the next street's bicycle club, which is what you should be doing, you're sitting around and pontificating about the importance of your position as the treasurer of the bicycle club (which is to say nothing about what an ass the president is going to be).

Re:They can't buy Time Warner.

[nelsonal]

Sure they could, same as AOL did most mergers aren't made with cash (although that changes from year to year). They just have to get TWX shareholders to agree to half ownership of the combined entity (which is basically what AOL did in 2000).

Re:They can't buy Time Warner.

[surprise_audit]

But first ask yourself, why would they want to?? I think we all agree that Time-Warner didn't really benefit from merging with AOL, and I don't think there's anything for Google to gain from acquiring Time-Warner. Aside from the possibility of opening up some of Time-Warner's IP, that is...

Re:They can't buy Time Warner.

[nelsonal]

If you think your stock price is artificially inflated, it makes a ton of sense to buy hard assets. How much do you think AOL would be worth if they hadn't bought TimeWarner? Strategicly I concur, there is nothing that makes a whole lot of sense.

Re:They can't buy Time Warner.

[inigomntoya]

But first ask yourself, why would they want to??

The same reason we bought an ancient PBX phone system from some private school. It was great for long range target practice.

Too bad it trades on the NASD and not the NYSE...

[detex]

"BBC News reports that Google hit $80bn on the NYSE yesterday, so is now worth more than Time Warner..."

It was all in the first paragraph:

"After its shares hit an all-time high on the New York markets on Tuesday, Google is now worth $80bn (£44bn)."

The stock traded at: 293.12 yesterday... NOT $80bn... that is the value of all the shares.

well...

[dlefavor]

Somebody please remind me what Google actually makes.

...apart from money, that is.

Google's potential for evil is a temptation I don't think they can resist forever.

This annoucement on top of

[pthor1231]

a at least 10 point drop in its stock today. Damn that shit is expensive, wonder if its really worth it.

Was...

[slashkitty]

Was worth more than TW. Today the market corrected that.

Re:Was...

[Threni]

> corrected

How do you know it's now `correct` and it wasn't right the first time? Tricky business, this stock market thing...

Good for Google but will the ads bubble burst?

[Anonymous Coward]

Will we see another Ad revenue crash like in 2k? I mean with popup blockers and other tools becoming mainstream(I am using flashblocker in FireFox, so nice not having these annoying flash ads everywhere) sooner or later these ads may be devalued again.

What is both of these companies only product?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ad space.

1999

[mushupork]

Woohoo! The bubble is back!

Re:1999

[wheelbarrow]

Yes, but in this case the bubble is limited to one company.

Re:1999

[RichM]

Well the browser wars are back too, it might as well be 1999. :)

Re:1999

[Anonymous Coward]

Well the browser wars are back too, it might as well be 1999. :)

Does that mean I can party like 1999?

It's Down Again

[DrinkingIllini]

According to CNN Money google is down 10.36 since yesterday. Wonder if that puts them back in second place.

Re:It's Down Again

[ran-o-matic]

Yes, at least right now. Look at the two in a few minutes and the results could be different again. The joys of the free market.

They should buy Netzero...

[Anonymous Coward]

...so they can maximize synergies right into the ground.

Google Should Buy GM or Ford

[Doug Dante]

Both have Market caps at about $18B. If Google were to make a strategic investment of $5-9B in either or both, they could run the internal IT as well as insert Google things in cars. Employee e-mail, calendar, document management, and search by Google, Google maps and yellow pages in the cars, etc.

Re:Google Should Buy GM or Ford

[Anonymous Coward]

More likly they could just get the On star thing from GM. That and Huges satalite for the maps.

Re:Google Should Buy GM or Ford

[gr8_phk]

Google, MS, Sun, none of those west coast companies know anything about putting things in cars. That's not to say they can't learn. MS has been trying for years. Sun came once and said a car is just "a browser on wheels" and hasn't been seen since. Now google maps have something to offer, but there is the whole question about how you go after it. You don't just drop by detroit one day and revolutionize the automobile.

Even the SAT radio guys haven't figured out the obvious: They will not really succeed until they get the monthly radio charges included in the lease payment or other financing. People will pay for radio if they don't see it. Perhaps they know this but just don't know how to make the deals happen. Either way, getting into cars is non-trivial. Buying GM or Ford won't work either, if you think so it just shows your ignorance of the industry.

Re:Google Should Buy GM or Ford

[solitarian]

That would only be a good idea if Google wants to go bankrupt. GM is so heavily burdened with debt that they may have trouble surviving the next 5-10 years.

Re:Google Should Buy GM or Ford

[andy1307]

s insert Google things in cars

If that happens, more men will buy GM/Form cars. With google maps in the car, they can get where they want to go without having to stop and ask for directions.

Re:Google Should Buy GM or Ford

[nostriluu]

Its true I know nothing about the stock market, and I have no doubt Google is a great company with much potential. But from my understanding, in the 1990s internet boom, companies took their inflated stock market values and bought other companies, which sounds like a wise move, if it can be managed.

I just saw the film "Enron: smartest guys in the room," which talked about how Enron kept up the hype by constantly diversifying and pumping their overall value (along with using mark to market techniques: basing their accounting on future potential earnings), so it had nothing to do with any real capabilities in the short to medium term, aside from their ability to keep hyping, which was eventually burst.

So, as much as I believe in good guys and the value of hype for positive change, it seems likely that if Google tried to diversify in "unnatural" ways they would certainly come crashing down, probably with a few skeletons in their closests as various humans tried to cover for the pressure that would no doubt be at the centre of their empire.

Retooling a company like GM, which is probably very finely balanced based on conservative principals and would start going through massive amounts of money if they tried to change suddenly, would probably be a good way to get themselves in a lot of trouble.

I think they are much more likely to crawl into bed with Apple or other companies that are trying to line themselves up as progressive lifestyle information service providers, but I really think they cannot sustain their hype as they get deeper and deeper into change management and working with old boys networks.

Re:Google Should Buy GM or Ford

[HarvardAce]

insert Google things in cars. Employee e-mail, calendar, document management, and search by Google, Google maps and yellow pages in the cars, etc.

Right...so now I'm not only driving on the same road as people talking on their cell phones, reading the newspaper, sending e-mail on their blackberry, doing makeup, and shaving...now I've got to deal with people surfing the web too...

Re:Google Should Buy GM or Ford

[Anonymous Coward]

No, they shouldn't - Both GM and Ford have billions due in bonds over the next few years. GM in particular has $10 billion in bonds this year, and $25 billion next year. And several billion every year until 2016. There's a reason Ford's and GM's market caps are so small.....

Re:Google Should Buy GM or Ford

[fingerfucker]

Google Should Buy GM or Ford. Both have Market caps at about $18B. If Google were to make a strategic investment of $5-9B in either or both, they could run the internal IT as well as insert Google things in cars.

OMFG... look up some numbers first. Google's balance sheet shows total current assets (assets that are easiest among all their assets to actually liquidate/use) of $2.7B as of Dec 2004.

Conclusion: They do NOT have enough cash to buy multi-billion-dollar businesses liek GM or Ford, or even enough cash to make "strategic" investments.

Re:Google Should Buy GM or Ford

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey idiot- may I quote you?

"Michael D. Griffin, the new NASA Administrator, has given 20 senior NASA officials their walking papers, in a first purge that can see as many as 50 loose their positions, reports the Washington Post."

It's fucking LOSE not LOOSE you imbecile!

Of course...

[Anonymous Coward]

Since as we all know: I still haven't found what I've been searching for...

cost vs. value

[StandardDeviant]

As a long-time Crime Warner customer (the other options suck even worse), I can assure you that what my girlfriend's cat leaves in the litterbox is more valuable than Time Warner, so being valued more than them isn't hard. ;)

Of course, if you're talking cost, I'm sure TW would cost more than a few pounds of sand and various other items.

Re:cost vs. value

[Shadow Wrought]

I can assure you that what my girlfriend's cat leaves in the litterbox is more valuable than Time Warner

Value is in the eye of the beholder. For instance, a lot of dogs value your girlfriend's kittybrittle a lot more highly than they do Time/Warner. Which is also one of the many reasons why banks don't extend credit to dogs. That plus their tails always give them way in loan negotiaions.

NYSE?

[adenied]

It's worth pointing out that Google is traded on the NASDAQ, not the NYSE. A bit different.

If you own stock...

[divisionbyzero]

now might be a good time to sell it. I don't Google is worth that much, but I'm not a stockbroker so what do I know? When this thing pops its going to drop like a rock. It's better to make a profit now rather than be locked out when the selling frenzy starts.

Re:If you own stock...

[Flying Purple Wombat]

I don't Google is worth that much, but I'm not a stockbroker so what do I know?

You probably know more than a stockbroker. The broker wants you to buy or sell something, anything - he doesn't care what - so he can collect his commision.

Re:If you own stock...

[justinpfister]

Google Selling IF STATEMENT:

Question: IF I gave you $80bn, would you be able to build google from scratch?
IF yes.. Sell the Stock
IF not, buy the stock.

In general, ask yourself what you think it should take to build google and it's lovely position in society, then calculate the share price.

Re:If you own stock...

[entrigant]

Then short it and make another fortune on the way down :). If I only had any money to invest with...

Time Warner is a huge company

[AtlanticGiraffe]

Had I been asked earlier today, I would have thought Time Warner was orders of magnitude bigger than Google. Were you all aware of Google's worth before this article?

Re:Time Warner is a huge company

[Anonymous Coward]

Google's revenue: 3.79 billion
Time Warner's revenue: 42.39 billion

The danger with inflated price/earnings ratios is that when the stock disappoints even slightly the P/E multiple drops like a rock.

Google is evil

[91degrees]

I was fortunate enough to visit google's main HQ. They gave mea tour of thei server room. Now, on any server, you expect to have a few daemons. Google seem to have taken this literally. They summoned thousands of daemons from hell, and chained them to keyboards to answer people's queries.

I was a little shocked by this, but I put my surprise aside. I've worked with a lot of tech companies. I can forgive them their idiosynchrasies. But then we went to their CEO's office. To even meet the CEO, you have to sacrifice a goat, and if you actually want a full length meeting, he demands nothing less that a virgin sacrifice. So I sacrificed someone who was there for a job interview. The COE was pleased with this sacrifice, and I got to see him. To my shock, I saw that the CEO was Satan himself!

So don't believe the Google "Do No Evil" lies.

Re:Google is evil

[kertong]

> he demands nothing less that a virgin sacrifice.

That's ok. Here at google, we have plenty of those running rampant.

Re:Google is evil

[Anonymous Coward]

>> he demands nothing less that a virgin sacrifice.

>That's ok. Here at google, we have plenty of those running rampant.

Somehow, the image of virgins "running rampant" eludes me.

Re:Google is evil

[SirTalon42]

"They summoned thousands of daemons from hell"

Daemons aren't evil. Demons are.

Re:Google is evil

[Anonymous Coward]

its a shame geek girls have the same problem as geek boys - they are below standard in hygiene and looks

Re:Google is evil

[91degrees]

Daemon and demon are the same thing when applied to supernatural beings. Maybe the daemon spelling is considered in American English, but in Britain, it's quite common.

Re:Google is evil

[91degrees]

Doh! I meant to say "Maybe the daemon spelling is considered archaic in American English"

Mod parent up (+5Inightful)!

[RLiegh]

And can we get a repost of "surprised by wealth" while we're at it?

Minamlist humour

[MarkusQ]

Google hit $80bn on the NYSE yesterday, so is now worth more than Time Warner

For some reason this reminded me of an old minimalist joke:

So the guy on his way down sees a woman on her way up, and figures it wouldn't hurt to ask. "Hey lady," he shouts as they pass, "do you know anything about parachutes?"

"No," she shouts back, "Do you know anything about gas ovens?"

--MarkusQ

Re:Minamlist humour

[Anonymous Coward]

Color me stupid, but I don't get it.

Re:Minamlist humour

[X_Bones]

no, it's "minimalist" humor. In that the amount of humor in the post is minimal...

Re:Minamlist humour

[sunwolf]

Now the real puzzle is figuring out how BOTH of the above posts got modded up...

Re:Minamlist humour

[dr_dank]

Sorry, Crayola doesn't make that color. Can we color you Retarded Magenta instead?

Re:Minamlist humour

[adyus]

I think he omitted a very important part. It should have been something like: "A guy who jumps from a plane suddenly finds his parachute won't deploy. Looking down in fright, he's surprised to see a nice little old lady heading upwards at phenomenal speed. He then proceeds to ask..." and then the part he posted. That kinda makes more sense.

Just $80 Bil?

[Anonymous Coward]

Didn't AOL/TW make headlines some years back for losing $99 bil in one year?

Indeed.... from the article

[Anonymous Coward]

The valuation comes in spite of the fact that Google's annual sales total just $3.2bn, a fraction of Time Warner's $42bn.

Search is important. Google does make money. Google is profitable.

But lets look at how they make money. They rely on advertisers. In other words, they rely on Internet commerce. That means Google's income growth is tied to Internet-based commerce growth. This does not spiral off into infinity! Much like eBay, there comes a point where the number of people setting up shop stabilizes, the income generated stabilizes, and therefore the advertising revenue expended stabilizes.

Google won't become less profitable because of this, but they can not grow to $80bn market capitalization on it either.

Since when is Google a Media Company?

[bradleycarpenter]

Last I checked they were a search company. Oh, and Time Warner has sales of 42.45 billion a year compared to Googles 4 billion in sales. I can't wait for Googles stock to burst. Whoever is investing in this company in the $300 range is crazy. Don't complain when you lose all your money because you are a dope.

Re:Since when is Google a Media Company?

[geekpolitico]

I completely agree. That is why I am shorting 100,000 shares of Google stock!

Re:Since when is Google a Media Company?

[AtlanticGiraffe]

A company's worth has absolutely nothing to do with income. Its worth on an open market tells you how much _profit_ the market players expect from it in the future. If Big Corporation Ltd. spends 50 billion to make 42.45 billion while Small Corporation spends 1 billion to make 4 billion, which one is worth more? Even better: What if Small Corporation is expected to grow exponentially without much added cost?

I want what they are smoking.

[Shivetya]

The P/E is already 111. So they think it can bear getting even higher? This sounds like investment house pump and dump, stuff we saw at the end of the 90s with the Internet boom.

Google would be foolish NOT to buy out companies using stock. Companies would be foolish to accept that type of buyout though.

As someone else said, some people think it is worth that much. Once the honeymoon ends we might see realistic values which I suspect are a third of what it is now.

Re:I want what they are smoking.

[Anonymous Coward]

That's Trailing P/E. You obviously know little about stocks if you're basing your whole argument on that statistic. Please shutup.. (and no I don't own a penny of google)

Re:I want what they are smoking.

[jafac]

This sounds like investment house pump and dump, stuff we saw at the end of the 90s with the Internet boom.

. . . thanks to the PLSR Act, graciously given to us by the Republican congress (overriding Clintons one and only Veto). It makes it nearly impossible to sue companies for the kind of fraud Enron committed, and more importantly, the kind of fraud that pumped up the stock market in the late 90's.

It's still with us today.

And now, the SEC is going to be run by the guy who WROTE this vile law.

New York Stock Exchange? Try Wild West Stock Exchange.

Re:I want what they are smoking.

[mo]

I heard this argument about ebay too, back when it's P/E was somewhere around 2000 (yes that's right, 2000). Take a look at ebay's stock graph and note that they never really went down. When everyone else was busting, ebay mostly stayed the same. And had you bought ebay at the height of the dotcom boom, and held it til today, you'd be quite happy.

Now, I'm not saying that google isn't overvalued right now, but if they can sustain their income growth, they still might just be a good buy. Considering I spend more time looking at google ads than just about any other media channel, it's a good bet that they can continue to grow.

Re:I want what they are smoking.

[xenocide2]

Partial Least Squares Regression?

Re:I want what they are smoking.

[jafac]

PSLR = Private Securities Litigation Reform Act

Nice business model!

[Anonymous Coward]

An $80 billion valuation for selling online ads!

Wrong

[Prien715]

TW at least has real assets that can be valued, while Google is primarily a IP (intellectual property) company.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the vast majority of TW's worth is their film/music catalogue. Which is um...IP.

Google's major earnings come not from licensing IP, but from advertising revenue, making it not unlike a traditional media outlet (e.g. TV station) as far as revenue model goes.

I would agree with your earnings assement. Google has shown that they can grow fast while remaining profitable on a sustainable revenue model. Does anyone remember the companies during the .Com era actually making profits? Certain tech companies (IBM, MS, Apple) on the other hand, have managed to justify these high IPO values since their stock rises are now near-legendary on wall street.

Re:Wrong

[Bimo_Dude]

And while this may be old news, to me it indicates that AOL (now pw3nd by TW) is trying to copy Google. No surprise that Google is worth more than TW.

Re:Wrong

[SoupIsGood Food]

Google's major earnings come not from licensing IP, but from advertising revenue, making it not unlike a traditional media outlet (e.g. TV station) as far as revenue model goes.

You tryin' to tell me Google's got better market penetration and distribution than Time Warner, one of the largest cable providers in the US? One of the largest periodical publishing houses in the world?

Nnnnnnah. Didn't think so, neither.

By way of comparison, Cosmo.com, the internet courier company, was profitable... before it had more venture capital than it could ever repay rammed down its throat. There were a lot of medium-sized dotcom business who were funded like multi-billion dollar ventures instead.

It's not Google's fault their stock is worth stupid money, and they've been very careful not to live beyond their means and to keep control of their company, but that won't prevent the shareholders from throwing a fit when the price comes back down to earth. It will probably clobber the just-now-recovering tech sector when it does, too.

SoupIsGood Food

Re:Wrong

[Canonymous Howard]

You tryin' to tell me Google's got better market penetration and distribution than Time Warner, one of the largest cable providers in the US?

Um... yes.

I can't even get TW cable in my area. But my neighbors and I use google every day.

Re:Wrong

[syphax]

I'm too lazy to look up the exact stats, but I seem to remember that Yahoo was also around P/E = 100, with several records of increasing revenue and profits, before the bottom fell out of both in 2000-2001...

Google is frickin' awesome right now, but I personally don't think their business is defensible enough to be awesome indefinitely. They have a ton of smart people and apparently a great culture, but both of those advantages are not inherently self-sustaining, and can be reproduced (with some difficulty) elsewhere.

I hope Google the best, but won't buy at the current price.

Re:Wrong

[OakDragon]

TW at least has real assets that can be valued, while Google is primarily a IP (intellectual property) company.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the vast majority of TW's worth is their film/music catalogue. Which is um...IP.

At some level, all technology is Information Technology.

Re:Wrong

[Thuktun]

I can't even get TW cable in my area. But my neighbors and I use google every day.

So you're a regular customer, but you pay them nothing. You wouldn't [legally] do the same for Time Warner if you were one of their cable customers.

Welcome to postmodernism

[tezbobobo]

So you are suggesting then that everytime one makes a claim they should qualify it. It is ludicrous to even suggest this. It is common practice to scale business based on their stock market value. You sound like you've got an axe to grind.

For example, if I were to reply to an article stating that linux was better than windows you could respond,"Well sure in terms of speed and security. Or you could respond to the diametric opposite, "Well sure .

For commonly adhered to scales of measurement it is more than appropriate not to qualify statements. It would be ludicrous to respond to the claim "America is more advanced than Kalahari Bushman ethnic regions" by saying, "Well yeah, but not as far as tribal culture is desirable" is true; it is not in this sense that the author intended.

Re:Welcome to postmodernism

[2short]

"So you are suggesting then that everytime one makes a claim they should qualify it."

No, just that it should be clear what they are claiming. Google does not have the biggest stock market value.

"For commonly adhered to scales of measurement it is more than appropriate not to qualify statements"

Absolutely. What commonly adhered to scale of measurement puts Google in the "top spot" over Time Warner? What categorization or measurement system does so whether common or not? I have no idea. The headline is idiotic, because its obvious meaning is false, and even thinking about it, I can't come up with what it's actual meaning might be. Maybe Google has the highest market cap of companies with less market cap than both Time Warner and Google?

Re:Welcome to postmodernism

[DeepHurtn!]

Whoa, it sounds like *you're* the one with an axe to grind. First of all, the headline was misleading -- asking "top spot WHERE" is a totally valid question that the summary didn't address. The headline seems to imply that a market cap of $80b makes Google the biggest corporation period, when that is obviously incorrect. Anyways, as I said, you seem to be the one with an axe to grind; you sound like one of those people trying to defend their social privelege by whining about postmodernism and "moral relativism". My apologies if I'm wrong, but that's how you came across.

Re:Welcome to postmodernism

[tezbobobo]

Sure maybe. But you're still wrong. You'd not contest that Microsoft is the market leader in OS's. Unless of course you measure it in employees, or developers, or the range of colours used in their desktops. market cap is a valid measure and your only defending yourself for the sake of being right. but your not. live with it. dickhead.

Re:Welcome to postmodernism

[tezbobobo]

sorry, you're not a dickhead. that was just mean coz I had a bad day (data entry).

Re:Welcome to postmodernism

[tezbobobo]

Whoa, it sounds like *you're* the one with an axe to grind. First of all, the headline was misleading -- asking "top spot WHERE" is a totally valid question that the summary didn't address. The headline seems to imply that a market cap of $80b makes Google the biggest corporation period, when that is obviously incorrect.

but my point was that the author did not need to qualify' period' because of the largely accepted measure of market status. Is he wrong?

Anyways, as I said, you seem to be the one with an axe to grind; you sound like one of those people trying to defend their social privelege by whining about postmodernism and "moral relativism".

and by saying that you imply that you disapprove of social provlege. you too have an agenda so whats your problem? Is this your 'axe to grind'? Also, last time i check, moral relativism and postmodernism where the formost arguements in post-positivist discourse.

My apologies if I'm wrong, but that's how you came across.

i did not mean to sound whiny but being critical is and should be socially acceptable. To be otherwise is socially irresponsible, intellectually bankrupt, and PC crap. please don't shoot me down for sounding whiny - instead attack my arguements, that i don't mind. a personal attack I do.

also, at the bottom of a slashdot page the other day I read something along the lines of "those who have nothing to fight for will die for nothing." I think its pertinant.

Re:Welcome to postmodernism

[2short]

That was my first post in this thread, so I wasn't "still" wrong, nor defending myself for the sake of being right. Now to continue being right for the sake of enlightening the ignorant:

Sure, MS is the market leader in OS's, I'll agree with that even if you don't specify how you're measuring "leader". You have, however, specified what they are the leader in: OS's.
The headline in dispute says Google has overtaken Time Warner for the top spot. Leaving it at that would be absolutely fine if it were obvious what the "top spot" in question refered to. It is not only inobvious, it is obscure, and now that I've taken the time to figure it out, I say it is bogus to boot. Apparently, Google now has the "top spot" instead of Time Warner in a particular category. It is this category I feel is inobvious, obscure, and even bogus. It is unreasonable of the headline author to think everyone will assume that the natural way to categorize companies groups together Google and Time Warner, but not Microsoft (who's market cap is seveal times that of Google and TW put together.)
Next Headline: Slashdot is the top website in the world! (no need to mention the obvious fact that this is only amongst sites named after punctuation)

Perceptions drive Google

[Anonymous Coward]

There are many perceptions of tech stocks and one of them is growth. Tech is mostly associated with growth and higher returns. And there are very few tech companies which the public knows about and feel good about.

But, Google fits this bill. Many use Google products (mostly search engine) and therefore can associate with it. They probably have a good experience of using it and they are probably told that Google is the best search engine out there. Any failure is the failure of the user not knowing how to use it.

So, if someone wants to buy stocks, with growth in mind and a good experience of the products, Google is probably it. Note, these are all based on public perception, not hard facts.

Even though Cisco's products power a large proportion of the internet which enables people to get to use Google, how many in the public can say to really have used (in the sense of seeing, touching visibly) a Cisco product. Besides the network engineers, probably not many.

Google currently does not qualify for such a high price but the market is based on perception. Once again, the Efficient Market Hypothesis is proven wrong.

Re:Perceptions drive Google

[Professr3]

I agree - to all those saying "It's a bubble, it'll burst," you should consider the fact that people are investing in google's future. They've shown a remarkable ability to come up with ingenious new ideas, VERY fast. People are obviously buying their stock in expectation of google eventually coming up with a killer app, and getting rich. Stocks trade on innovation, not just current profits.

Re:Compare peak values...

[nelsonal]

Roughly $250 billion in Feb of 2000 (highest price I could find post merger*~4,000,000,000 shares outsanding).

Oh, of course.

[game kid]

What did AOL start out with (until popular backlash)? Pop-ups when the AOL session started (and ended? the memory escapes me). I never saw any popups with teh Google, and every time I can search Google, view the Maps and upload something with GMail, [breaks into R&B music] I bless the day...that I found Goo...

Good For Them

[Anonymous Coward]

Good For Them

What do they say?

[Anonymous Coward]

Concerning the stock buyers behind the outrageous market capitalization of Google, what do people say? "One born every minute."

on the NYSE?

[LoganEkz]

Just to clarify the incorrect information in the article posted, Google (GOOG) is traded on the NASDAQ market, not the NYSE.

Re:on the NYSE?

[Anonymous Coward]

This might be a good time to clarify the incorrect information in your post. The NASDAQ is an index. Stocks cannot be traded on an index, they are listed on an index. The NYSE is an Exchange, stocks are traded in exchanges.

Another example of an Index, not an exchange, is the DOW.

thats what scares me

[tont0r]

thats what sort of scares. i pretty much rely on google. and i know A LOT of peopel that rely on it. i hope it stays on its path of 'do no evil' but if the CEO has a wife that might die and the only way he can save her is by turning to the dark side, a lot of us are screwed :P

I've used google...

[exp(pi*sqrt(163))]

...50 times a day for many years. I've clicked on an ad maybe a dozen times in my life. I don't think any of those led to a sale. I wonder how long it will be before the advertisers notice this.

Re:I've used google...

[AutopsyReport]

But multiply those twelve clicks by millions of people over the course of x years, and you've got plenty clicks that have led to sales.

I think all Internet advertising should be done the same way television advertising is: pay to show, not pay to show and click / visit.

Re:I've used google...

[Anonymous Coward]

Advertisers do notice this.

I click on an ad every week or so, mostly from products and services advertised based on my mail in gmail. Of those, with more than a third I have made purchases.

Re:I've used google...

[sadr]

Well, I was shopping around for $14,000 in mulch for my homeowners association, clicked on a google ad for a local company, and they got a sale out of the deal.

$1.75 for an ad sounds like a pretty good deal for that company.

Re:I've used google...

[akuma(x86)]

Well maybe you're not representative.

In fact, Google and their customers can track exactly how many times the link was clicked. Google makes real money. Their earning are growing at a tremendous rate.

When the company went public last year nobody knew how much it could earn. Given the numbers it's putting up today, it had an IPO P/E lower than Gillette or Coca-Cola (2 companies that are hardly monster growth stocks).

Investors are assigning a high value to google because they believe that earning can continue to grow at that fantastic pace, so that by this time next year, the P/E will have shrunk again because the E is growing so freaking fast.

The E is growing fast because boatloads of people are clicking on those non-descript non-intrusive ads. Frankly, I hope google annihilates the traditional media companies and sucks out all of their ad dollars so we won't have to put up with ridiculous commercials on TV, in magazines and on billboards anymore.

Go google!

Waiting for the bubble to burst

[mzkhadir]

Waiting for the bubble to burst

ma nah ma nah

[djdavetrouble]

since this will be a pointless discussion, for your viewing pleasure:

manahmanah

Re:ma nah ma nah

[mandrake*rpgdx]

don't you mean-> This?

Re:ma nah ma nah

[djdavetrouble]

(link directly to server instead of coral cache.)
no, I used the coral cache intentionally to be nice to the server that is not mine, and of unknown capacity.

For more about coral see their homepage.
http://www.coralcdn.org/

The bigger they are...

[gUmbi]

Remember when AOL was valued at $200 billion in 1999? But wait, we're so much wiser now...

Currently by any definition of worth

[SuperKendall]

Allow me to rephrase: Some people think it's worth more than Time Warner.

Well the stock market thinks so.

And frankly, on many other levels I'd have to agree that I think Google is "worth" far more than Time Warner. In terms of my daily life Google is worth much more. In terms of respect I have for people owning and operating the companies Google is worth a lot more. In terms of value to humanity, no question that Google is worth more.

So I would say you could almost make the case that people do not just THINK it's worth more, but all measures it is in fact worth more - currently even monetarily.

Re:Currently by any definition of worth

[emmons]

I dunno.. the relative ideological balance and international coverage of news that CNN provides is certainly of value to society.

Re:Currently by any definition of worth

[webview]

And frankly, on many other levels I'd have to agree that I think Google is "worth" far more than Time Warner. In terms of my daily life Google is worth much more.

Well in terms of daily life, I would bet the water department (unless you are one of those bottled-water types :) ) or power company is much, much more important to you than Google. Case in point, my power went out the other night and it just plained sucked walking around in the dark. My access to google was the farthest thing from my mind. Perspectives.

I think Google is a great company, but if some other search engine came along, I would switch in a second. Right now they provide me something useful--and quite frankly, I haven't even looked to see if there were others better (they might very well have been). I use Gmail, but it is hardly something I need. I need email, but certainly not Gmail.

Google is the hot company right now (what that means, who knows). They have mindshare, but marketshare (at least what I consider) is something completely different.

If google 'went away' tonight at midnight, tomorrow would be a 'talkative' day, but I hardly think most (I say _most_) businesses would suffer. If Microsoft went away tomorrow, business would continue, but it would suffer a much bigger impact (all easy pot-shots aside).

When I say impact, I mean what the majority of businesses do with MS products (boy am I setting myself up) not your typical Linux geek who thinks all Microsoft products suck.

Re:Currently by any definition of worth

[argent]

In terms of my daily life Google is worth much more [than Time Warner]

I dunno. It's Time Warner that gets me to Google.

They always forget to mention. It's on paper.

[zymano]

And it's an internet company. Lets remember how fast the dot.com's all fell.

One new idea from someone else and this company is the next AltaVista.

Apple?

[kc0re]

Where is apple in all this mess? Anyone aware? Go Fruit!!

Obligatory...

[Wampus Aurelius]

...I, for one, welcome our new Google overlords. They are certainly preferable to our old Yahoo and MSN overlords.

Unlike Microsoft...

[Baldrson]

Google isn't much of a natural monopoly so they can't hold onto their dominant position the way Microsoft can.

The first kid who hacks a better search engine and is offered more money by Microsoft than by Google will make Microsoft a major contender against Google. Google's market cap will plummet.

If they want to stay competitive while fighting against evil, Google should use their political influence as a high market capitalization company to lobby for a shift of corporate taxes away from income and capital gains as a basis and toward market capitalizaton as the basis for corporate tax. The rate of taxation of market capitalization should be the interest rate on the national debt. That would tend to cancel out the economic rent value of corporations -- and since Microsoft's value is entirely due to its natural monopoly position, almost all of its market capitalization would evaporate.

Re:Unlike Microsoft...

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think you understand what a natural monopoly is. I suggest doing some more research on it.

google is broken

[Prince Vegeta SSJ4]

i just googled for google and came up with zero results

Re:google is broken

[Arhat]

Looks like you googled for "-google". You might want to rethink your definition of broken, I do not think it means what you think it means.

baloney

[MrDiablerie]

That's got to be inflated. Time Warner owns record labels, HBO, the Harry Potter franchise, lord of the rings movies....80+ magazines, movie studios, cable television providers... Either that or Time Warner is seriously undervalued right now due to it's SEC mishandlings and the AOL crew giving them a bad name.

Re: use this year's P/E instead

[falser]

If you use last year's profit to gauge Google's P/E (113) it looks like an overvalued stock. But Google posted an HUGE 1st quarter profit with a target of about $6 per share this year. At the current price of $285, that makes Google's current P/E 47.5 which is less than both Yahoo and Ebay and they're not growing anywhere near as fast as Google. This is what is fueling the recent rally.

I HATE GOOGLE FAN BOYS!

[Anonymous Coward]

I hate fan boys. Especially the XBOX and greasy linux nerds who spend all day typing "M$ SUCKS" into their cult object called google. I really, really do hate fan boys.

Google is a fine company, but not worth $80B+

[oldenuf2knowbetter]

Or at least not worth that much when the combined market caps of Daimler Chrysler ($41.5B), Ford ($18.9B) and General Motors ($18.2) is only $78.6 billion. Compare and contrast their combined real, physical assets to those of Google.

Yes, I understand what Publius meant when he said "everything is worth what someone will pay for it", but I still suspect that selling off the assests of Daimler, Ford, and GM (dozens of huge factories, countless acres of land, ships, airplanes, etc.) would produce larger revenues than selling off those of Google (dozens of thousands of old PCs).

Re:Google is a fine company, but not worth $80B+

[egypt_jimbob]

selling off the assests of Daimler, Ford, and GM (dozens of huge factories, countless acres of land, ships, airplanes, etc.) would produce larger revenues than selling off those of Google (dozens of thousands of old PCs).

But those dozens of thousounds of old PCs happen to be running the best search engine in the history of the Internet.

Re:Google is a fine company, but not worth $80B+

[Anonymous Coward]

But when you have to pay off the massive debt those corporations are saddled with, you'll burn through those assets pretty quickly.

What is this, superlative day or something?

[FunWithHeadlines]

Two stories ago: "World's Biggest Hacker"

Last story: "World's Fastest Inkjet Printer"

This story: Google Takes Top Spot."

Next story: "World's Most Obvious Dupe."

Re:What is this, superlative day or something?

[springMute]

Best post ever!

Re:What is this, superlative day or something?

[AutopsyReport]

Come on, get with it.

It's world's best post ever.

Re:What is this, superlative day or something?

[FuzzyBad-Mofo]

Obviously, they're preparing for the new show on Fox, "World's blankiest blank"

Um

[Anonymous Coward]

AOL

Well if thats true then...

[JaF893]

...I'm going to party like it's 1999.

Google is overvalued, yeah

[drix]

I passed on Google at around 200 thinking it was overvalued... here I could have made almost 50% in 3 months. The price will continue to climb as long as people are hysterical about the company. People will continue to be hysterical the company until something comes along to jolt them, at which time there will be a correction. Is there anything jolt-worthy on the horizon, I ask you? Not in my mind. But I'm guessing that when it happens, YHOO will be to blame.

Or praise, if you own it like me :)

Eventually...

[Cursive23]

They'll realize how much money is in evil, and turn to the darkside. No one can resist the temptation of that much power. I'm sure Bill Gates was once a youthful idealistic programmer whose company just wanted to make the world a better place.

Heh

[FreeUser]

How long until Google buys Time Warner?

The kiss of death for any company is to buy the toxic entity that is Time-Warner.

Just ask AOL.

Re:Heh

[soft_guy]

Or get bought by it.

Just ask Atari.

P/E is over 110 ... where have you been?

[Anonymous Coward]

it looks overpriced compared to ebay or yahoo

Re:P/E is over 110 ... where have you been?

[rumblin'rabbit]

I based my figures on last quarter's results, without compensation for special items (if any):

Price = $293
Q1 earnings = $1.39
P/E = 293 / (4 x 1.39) ~ 43

Okay, it's 43 not 50.

eeeeewwwwwwww

[Anonymous Coward]

I've farted a lot at work today. Now my chair stinks like asshole. I hope my co-workers or that cute girl don't come in now. Need to air this place out.

Sattelite radio

[QMO]

I see two possibilities for sattelite radio:

1 - It slowly subsides back into the swamp where fad electronics emerge now and then.

2 - It becomes like cable TV. You know, that TV that doesn't have commercials because you pay a subscription instead.

Re:Sattelite radio

[mydn]

>blockquote>2 - It becomes like cable TV. You know, that TV that doesn't have commercials because you pay a subscription instead.
I think that's misleading. I have to pay for a lot of cable channels that still have commercials. MTV, Comedy Central, SciFi...I have to pay to watch their commercials. And yes, I hate it!

Re:Sattelite radio

[beanyk]

I'm pretty sure the grandparent post was being sarcastic.

Re:Sattelite radio

[QMO]

Are there any cable channels that don't have commercials?
Or are there just channels that don't interrupt programs to show commercials?
Or perhaps channels that limit commercials to ones that advertise the channel itself?

(I haven't had cable for a years, so I really don't know, but when I stay in hotels it seems that all channels have commercials.)

Re:Sattelite radio

[Hrodvitnir]

Are there any cable channels that don't have commercials?

The NASA channel.

finally

[metroplex]

Aah, finally we've moved along. All those "Intel" and "Apple" news had begun to worry me. Let's go back to google, the real stuff that matters!

Enough said...

[johansalk]

From TFA: "Google is now worth $80bn (£44bn). This takes it ahead of media leviathan Time Warner, which is valued at $78bn. The valuation comes in spite of the fact that Google's annual sales total just $3.2bn, a fraction of Time Warner's $42bn. "

Re:Enough said...

[glenrm]

Insightful, sales but no mention of earnings, insightful.

Re:Enough said...

[imaginate]

Yeah but how much of Google's sales are profit vs. Time Warner's?

Re:Enough said...

[johansalk]

With numbers as varied as $42B and $3.2B, what profit margins do you think google makes versus those of TW that justify valuing it higher?

Re:Enough said...

[glenrm]

Well let us say (hypothetical numbers to explain the point) that it cost Time Warner $43B to get sales of $42B and let us say that it cost Google $1B to get sales of $3.2B. Then Time Warner losing money and have the burn through cash the will need to borrow money and then when they can't borrow money anymore they will cut costs and/or go out of business. Google however would be getting $2.2B extra cash which it could use for other project or send to the share holders as a dividend. So it is critical to look not just at sales but at the amount of money it cost to get those sales.

Let's look at the numbers....

[SurfTheWorld]

Google's market capitalization has nothing to do with being "worth" more than AOL Time Warner. The fact that Google has issued more stock and has a higher stock price than AOL Time Warner only means that Google has more publicly held debt. That's all stock is: publicly held debt.

Like privately held debt, Google must pay interest on the stock they issued. Those are called dividends. Additionally, Google may have to buy back shares at some point. Stock != value. Stock == debt. Earnings == value. Plain and simple.

From an investment standpoint Google is a tulip bulb. Let's compare the financials of the two companies at a macroscopic level.

TWX: Price of $17.08 on $0.73 earnings per share, giving a PE of 23.41.

Google: Price of $282.30 on $2.50 earnings per share, giving a PE of 112.92.

Simply put, Google stock is 112.92 / 23.41 = 482% more expensive than AOL's stock.

If you had $100 to invest TODAY, and your investment horizon was 1 year, and you had to choose between AOL and Google, this is how it would work out:

AOL: $100 at $17.08 / share = 5.85 shares. 5.85 shares * $0.73 earnings per share = $4.27. This is a 4.27% rate of return.

Google: $100 at $282.30 / share = 0.35 shares. 0.35 shares * $2.50 earnings per share = $0.88. This is a 0.88% rate of return.

The only way that Google can "even the score" and become a comparable investment would be either for the earnings per share to rise. The price of $282.30 is not sustainable given Google's earnings, and if you think that Google's stock price will continue to reside north of $200 you're smoking crack.

I'll continue to pick on Google financially and point out that in the state of Maryland, you can open a savings account at Bank of America where the annual interest rate for an account with $2500 is 0.55%. This is better than 0.44% and is insured money.

I love Google and think they provide wonderful services on the web. But as a financial investment I'd rather place my testicles in a vice and ask someone to squeeze rather than purchase their stock.

-c

Re:Let's look at the numbers....

[flanman]

I think you've been misled, stock != debt

While there are share issuances that act like debt such as preferred shares that have a financial obligation from the company, not all shares have a cash value on them.

Preferred shares generally have a fixed time to live and are "bought" back by the company at a future date (paying off the principle) with a fixed debt servicing cost (usually a dividend).

While the common shares of a company may be evaluated with EPS or EBITDA or whatever, the shares could be reduced to 0 value (or infinite value) without a direct consequence to the issuer. (without the implied challenges/opportunities to raising additional capital)

That's why some stocks, like google's, trade at significant multipliers to their actual earnings (exactly what happened in dot bomb) based on the "expert's" view of where the company's earnings would be in the future.

This is a dangerous game as we all know.

Re:Let's look at the numbers....

[Anonymous Coward]

0.55% interest rate? isn't that a little, uhm, low for a savings account?

Re:Let's look at the numbers....

[falser]

Your math isn't right. Google's projected earnings this year is between $6 and $7, not $2.50.

Re:Let's look at the numbers....

[SurfTheWorld]

My math is based upon historical numbers and not future speculation.

It's important to note that Google's $6 and $7 earnings statement for this year is projected. Only on Dec 31 will we know if that number is accurate.

It's also important to note that even at $7 / share, assuming the stock price is flat the remaining 6 months of the year you're still looking at a PE of 40. By historical standards, 40 seems overpriced.

There is a great article in Fortune magazine from a few months ago that talks about how PE ratios for technology stocks are still at pre-bubble levels. The message the article sends is that: tech stock prices are STILL too high in comparison to stock prices of non-tech companies.

Re:Let's look at the numbers....

[the eric conspiracy]

There are quite a few differences between holding debt and holding a share of stock. For example:

1. Debt implies a contractual obligation for repayment. There is no such contract with a share of stock. The company cannot change debt repayment terms unilaterally without getting into trouble. It can change dividends unilaterally.

2. Debt does not convey ownership of the company. Ownng a share conveys ownership of some fraction of the company, debt only incurs a repayment obligation. Primary debt does not include a component that increases in value if the issuer of the debt does well.

Now when you are investing you certainly do compare debt instruments to stocks. Debt is usually less risky, however stock purchases include the potential for much more significant gains. If you are a prudent investor those gains are usually worth the additional risk. Of course if you are on crack and buy Google futures you may well lose every cent and wish you had kept your money in a matress instead.

Re:Let's look at the numbers....

[SurfTheWorld]

Actually my number was off. The rate of return on Google stock assuming last year's earnings is 0.88%, which is greater than the 0.55% offered by BoA.

Additionally, BoA charges account fees of $10 a month. At the end of the year you'd eat up all your principal just in fees! ($120 fees > $100 principal).

But you are right in that there are higher rate-of-return "safe" investments. Money market funds, CDs, etc. None are FDIC insured, but other insurances exist that make loss of principal extremely unlikely.

Re:Let's look at the numbers....

[SurfTheWorld]

*Nods*.

I'm intentionally oversimplifying an extremely complex system: a stock investment.

My purpose in saying that stock == debt was illustrative. My intention was to encourage readers to not think of stock the same way they think of cash in their wallets, but rather to think of stock as an IOU a friend wrote to them.

With stock you give money to the company (if in an IPO) in exchange for that same money back plus some interest for the risk you bear. Hopefully you get the principal back as well as some interest, but many times you do not.

That fundamental behavior is consistent with the spirit of debt.

Re:Let's look at the numbers....

[falser]

The stock market doesn't work backwards, it works forwards. Let's put it this way - if you wait until Dec 31st to decide to buy Google because it's P/E in fact did turn out to be $7/share then guess what... the stock will already be trading well above $300, probably more like $350 because traders will then be anticipating what Google will earn in 2006. You will have missed the opportunity to profit. That's why you don't use historical numbers to predict where a stock will be worth in the future.

Re:Let's look at the numbers....

[Anonymous Coward]

Some risk free money can be made from depositing into a 3.25% APY checking account from presidentialbank.com. It is FDIC insured and provides a better return than a mattress.

Re:Let's look at the numbers....

[TheWizardOfCheese]

The fact that Google has issued more stock and has a higher stock price than AOL Time Warner only means that Google has more publicly held debt.

As other replies to you have stated, equity is not debt. I see in one of your responses that you are aware of this, and reckon that you are "simplifying a complex issue." Not to me: I think you are complicating a simple one. The idea that a higher stock price equates to more debt is at best worthless. In general, debt issuance has a neutral effect on stock price because the liability (debt) is balanced by the asset (money borrowed.)

Equity is equivalent to a long call on a firm's assets; debt is equivalent to a short put. Debt and equity are polar opposites, not equals.

Like privately held debt, Google must pay interest on the stock they issued. Those are called dividends. Additionally, Google may have to buy back shares at some point.

No, on all counts. Dividends are not interest, Google has no obligation to pay dividends, and "they" never need to buy the shares back. You shouldn't be thinking about "they" at all; as soon as you buy their shares, you become "them". That's the point of equity.

The only way that Google can "even the score" and become a comparable investment would be either for the earnings per share to rise. The price of $282.30 is not sustainable given Google's earnings

Well, that's exactly right, but the stock isn't trading on current earnings; it's trading on anticipated future earnings. Why are those future earnings implied to be so high? Because earnings have grown very rapidly during Google's existence. Isn't it just a guess to assume that past earnings growth will continue? Of course. But any other earnings assumption would also be just a guess.

Personally, I don't own any Google stock and don't intend to buy any because I don't see any reason why earnings should grow any faster than the current stock price already implies. But I am not going to short the stock either, because I don't know of any specific reason why earnings shouldn't grow. There's just as much risk on the upside as on the downside.

Re:Let's look at the numbers....

[BooRolla]

Stock!= Debt. Stock = ownership. If I buy stock, I do not loan Google money, I buy a tiny part of it. No loan. Bonds = Loans = debt. If i buy a bond, then I am buying a companys debt. Sometimes called "loanership."

Re:Let's look at the numbers....

[Peldor]

And in case you are wondering, Google explicitly owes nothing to its (common) shareholders. They have no (worthwhile) voting rights on the activities of the company and no rights to a share of any profits (dividends).

It was clearly detailed in the IPO no one bothered to read. I guess you can still call that 'do no evil'.

Re:Let's look at the numbers....

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm intentionally oversimplifying an extremely complex system: a stock investment.

No, I think you just fucked up and revealed yourself as another member of the "I'm 14 but pretend to know everything" set.

Debt is debt. Ownership is ownership, no matter how hard you try to call stock an 'IOU'. Of course, I also see that a half dozen other people have jumped on you for this.

Re:Let's look at the numbers....

[akuma(x86)]

I think you're confused. Stock is not debt. Debt is debt. If google issued bonds, then you could make a case for google's debt.

A share of stock entitles you to a share of all future earning of the company. Stocks are valued based on how much the investor thinks the company can earn from today until the end of time with future earnings discounted to the present value (which is why stock prices are a function of real interest rates and inflation).

If google quadruples earnings next year and the stock price remains flat, then the P/E goes from 113 or so to 28.25. People are very optimistic about GOOG increasing the "E" in the P/E at a very fast and sustainable rate.

TWX grows earnings as a function of how many subscribers it has - TWX has saturated the cable market already and is trying to diversify into telco services. It's hard for TWX to grow, so the value of future earnings is limited.

GOOG is growing much faster than TWX. It is an infant in the media industry. Last year there were 600 billion dollars spent on advertising. How many of those dollars do you think GOOG can catch?

Google's revenue:
2002 $0.439 Billion
2003 $1.465 Billion
2004 $3.189 Billion

Do you see a trend here?

3 is nowhere near 600. Investors are betting that GOOG gets a much larger share of that advertising market.

Why do advertisers prefer GOOG? Directed audiences... Cheaper production costs... higher hit rates... the list goes on and on.

How much time do you spend getting your news from cable-tv vs. the internet? How much time do you spend reading magazines vs. articles on the net? Once Hollywood starts getting a clue and builds out an online content distribution model, how much are you going to be willing pay for cable-tv, when you'll be able to stream at your convenience to your HDTV wirelessly?

The stock market is always looking forward. Investors can see the giant potential here. GOOG may be cheap at this price, but it is obviously not without risks - I am not an investor, since I think that Yahoo and Microsoft will throw up some big speed bumps to GOOG's earnings growth.

Re:Let's look at the numbers....

[Dachannien]

Google has consistently trumped Wall Street estimates by a significant percentage, and the projected growth takes that into account. Google is making actual, real money. This isn't the vaporcash of the dot-com bubble, where companies would have an IPO and then blow all the cash on a giant fountain for their lobby.

The significant earnings growth (estimated based on Google's dominance of browser search combined with estimates on actual search advertising pricing) indicates the reason why Google commands such a high P/E. The forward P/E is currently about 42, compared to Yahoo's 50, but Yahoo isn't experiencing nearly the growth that Google has, so one would expect Google's P/E to increase (hence the significant run-up in price over the past month).

Re:Let's look at the numbers....

[Anonymous Coward]

you are *insane* and are completely talking out of your ass.

1 - stock is not debt. companies do not have to pay back investors.

2 - investors ASSUME THE RISK when they buy shares in a company. they are hoping that the value of the company will go up, and that they can sell their shares at a later date and make more money.

3 - companies do not have to pay (what you called) interest on shares. dividends are not interest. they aren't even close. they are profits that the company has made and redistributed back to the investor.

microsoft went for a LOOOOONNNNGGG time without paying out dividends, and people certainly made money on that stock.

my head hurts from reading your post, i don't even want to get in to how you completely misunderstand PE ratios and ROI

Re:Let's look at the numbers....

[HongKongnese]

According to finance 101, you are wrong. Stock != debt.

Alwas was

[brickballs]

The Big G always was #1 in my <3.

^_^

Feeling relieved...

[eldacan]

Nice to know that oppressing big corps of today will be replaced by fresh ones tomorrow...

For your argument to really put capitalism in a favourable light, I think you must explain how the rise of those new compagnies is a good thing for us (is it just that they bring cool technology? (which is possible without growing to mega corp status))

The correct term?

[Baldrson]

If natural monopoly isn't the correct term, then what is the correct term for the situation where Microsoft's operating system is in demand not because of its high quality but because the information industry's infrastructure must use it as a standard means of communication?

This seems higly analogous to the situation where you have one electrical utility because to extend the reach of the grid requires interoperation with that utility's existing grid.

Please point me to an article that draws the distinction between these two and has the proper term for the Microsoft case.

Re:The correct term?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not sure what the correct term is, but a natural monoply is where the most efficient production is through a monopoly. So the local phone infastructure, the cable infastructure, roads, etc. would be natural monopolies. It's just not cost effective for each company who wants to play to lay down their own lines.

You're FIRED!

[NRAdude]

<DonaldTrumpHoldingKnifeToMyNeck>
Post it, Gregory. Anyone that insults statistics will get a visit from me. If you don't post it, I'll buy all of PrimeTime and you'll be watching Survivor and DeadlyChallenge 'till 2012. No more History Channel, no more NASA channel, maybe I'll even buy Transmeta and dub their next chip the TRUMP and have Steve Ballmer advertise it (*Hint)
</DonaldTrumpHoldingKnifeToMyNeck>

Ok. OK. YOU're FIRED.

Not really

[SuperKendall]

The same function is performed far better by the BBC. CNN is really not providing as much added value as it would seem.

Timing is everything....

[DiamondGeezer]

Where do I buy some put options? This is a bubble waiting to burst *takes out Tub of Glee and rubs hands in it*

Re: use this year's P/E instead

[Momoru]

I seem to remember reading something in the WSJ that said their first quarter profit was going to look boosted because of options schnanigans...If 98% of their profits are from advertising, and they have not gained anymore market share as a search engine, where the fuck is all this magical growth coming from, just because they went public?

Stock price != company value

[birge]

Isn't that the very definition of worth?

Not when it's the stock market we're talking about. Stocks don't value companies, they value shares.

In reality, it just means people are currently willing to pay for incredibly small chunks of the company in amounts that happen to sum to $80B, but that's completely meaningless. Google's not worth $80B unless there's somebody willing to pony up the whole $80B for the company.

Just watch what would happen to the stock if even 10% of the stock holders decided to cash out their share of the $80B "value". Just because the last few tiny fractions of the company were sold at a certain price doesn't mean the whole company is worth the extrapoltion of that price in any way shape or form.

we learned nothing

[jafac]

from the late 1990's.

Re:we learned nothing

[in4mation]

- Oh look a big bubble
- I want to get in
- Sheesh...its really tight in here uh...
- POP!!!
- oh oh the bubble burst :-(
I love google, but I seriously doubt that we're going to see a dramatic increase in their revenues any time soon. And by the time bubble lovers realize that they're going to be left with nothing but popped bubble frizz in their pockets.

--
I'm ranting cause this was my story and it was rejected only to be accepted from another submitter. Go Slash Go!!!

Stockmarket

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope.
LIVEstock has always been sold in the bazaar.
The term "stock" is directly decended from cows.

So.. your nit stands picked.

If you had wanted to disagree with his logic:

The truth of "a thing is worth what the buyer will pay" does not depend on what kind of thing is being sold. It is stated as an absolute, what you needed to do was to show that there is *any* example where that does not hold in order to disprove the claim.

have a nice day.

Google will bring world peace

[Everyman]

Google CEO Eric Schmidt on Charlie Rose, June 3, 2005:

"Search is a force for peace and a better world. Google will reveal how everybody lives and thinks and speaks and looks and that is beneficial to world peace. Societies get along better when they know/see/hear more about each other."

If world peace isn't worth $80 billion, then what is?

Compared to other search enginers

[ad0gg]

More value than yahoo who's been public longer,around longer, and has higher growth profit.

Re: use this year's P/E instead

[gjt]

The growth is coming from several directions. First, the number of searches done with the core search product is ever increasing as the Internet grows around the world. Secondly, they keep on finding new products to throw in front of users like GMail and Google Maps. If someone starts using Google for multiple services, that's a lot of adds that they can show an individual person. And e-mail is something that many users check several times a day - hence several more opportunities for Google to show ads to someone.

The stock price is very high. But if they keep on making money hand over fist, they might actually be worth the price. It's a very different situation from the 1990's when companies that were losing money had multi-billion dollar market capitalizations.

Will there be jail time once Google pops?

[ChickenFan]

Unless Google use their $80bn to acquire something tangable, their bubble is going to burst eventually. Their revenue is almost all ad sales, and if they started charging for their free services, we all know we'd find something else that was free. Their doom may be inevitable. Question is... if the bubble does burst, and billions are lost (AGAIN) will there be lawsuits and jail time... or will it just be a case of "well, if you can't afford to lose, you shouldn't invest"?

Stock market valuation != Real world valuation

[WillAffleckUW]

if it was, then all of Europe would be worth less than Google, and that is obviously a false statement.

Short 'em, baby!

[Electric Eye]

This all reminds me of the nuttiness that went on with Netscape and about 100 other dot coms. At a price over $200, I'd say it's probably a good bet to short the hell out of this stock. Now.

Re:Short 'em, baby!

[WillAffleckUW]

Most IPOs have a big drop at the lockup expirations which are usually at the 90, 120, and 180 day periods after the IPO is issued.

Keep that in mind if you're shorting - which is buying an option to sell stock at a lower price than the current price at a fixed date in the future.

Of course, when you short, realize someone bought the other end of the option and is betting against you. The only person who always makes money on options is the brokerage firm and/or broker.

Re:Short 'em, baby!

[Anonymous Coward]

Shorting a stock is different from an option. When you short a stock you make money as the value declines and lose money when the value appreciates. If you buy an option you are buying the right to purchase or sell 100 shares of the underlying stock at a specific strike price for a specified time period.

For any stock transaction with the exceptions of IPOs there is always someone on the other end of the transaction betting against you. For every purchase there is someone selling you the shares, for every call option there is someone selling you the call etc. Your brokerage is only receiving fees for executing the transaction, they are not betting against you. Brokers dont care if you make money or lose money, they just want you to trade more!

Re:Short 'em, baby!

[Anonymous Coward]

If you short this stock you will lose money, period.
EPS est of $7 @ multiple of 40-50 (which is what yahoo is at) gives a share price of $280-$350. Plus, in not too long a time, many mutual funds and institutions will have to buy shares of Google as it will be added to the S&P 500. Guess what, these institutions have to buy at market price, they can't wait for dips. When the S&P announcement comes, expect at least 10% jump in Share price.

It's not debt, it's ownership

[WillAffleckUW]

Like privately held debt, Google must pay interest on the stock they issued. Those are called dividends. Additionally, Google may have to buy back shares at some point. Stock != value. Stock == debt. Earnings == value. Plain and simple.

Actually, a BOND is a debt. A Stock is a share in both the assets - and DEBTS - and potential earnings and losses, capped at a maximum loss of the total value invested (translation - you can only lose what you paid, no more).

A Stock has (optional) Dividends, which may or may not coorelate with earnings, but are usually a fraction as some money is saved in Cash (Google has lots), stolen .. um ... paid (whatever) to executives in options to dilute other owners or pensions to dilute future earnings or salaries to just make you angry or loans (rarely repaid) to make you hopping mad, and the stock price is an estimatation by the totality of the market as to what the company will be worth in current and future earnings and returns on investment. In general a stock price is close to, but not the same as, a bet on the worth of a company in six to twelve months from now, but in some cases - such as Google - this estimate is a lot of hooey or fluff.

As an example, take my holdings in EBAY - which is highly speculative, so I've only got $4000 in that - it's based on a projected growth rate of DOUBLE what GE will make in the same 2-5 year growth pattern. Who knows if it's true? Noone.

Now, if you'd like to talk Bonds (DEBT), or Options (Risky Bets on the Future Price of a Stock), or Preferred Stocks, we could do so.

Regardless, Google is not worth more than the EU, no matter how you slice it. No matter what price fools ... um ... investors are willing to pay for it TODAY.

Re:Google vs FireFox

[aap]

I hate the separate search box... it's the #1 reason I'm still using seamonkey. I have grown quite accustomed to only having one location bar to click and start typing in.

let's not forget...

[dwntwnboi]

let's not forget...

4. constantly developing cutting-edge technologies in Google Labs
5. providing a majority of services for free
6. only charges *nominal* fees for pay services
7. AWESOME customer support
8. (and my favoriite) DOES NOT make a huge income from selling your information to as many others as possible

If you live in the state of Maryland...

[R2.0]

...your testicles are already in a vice and being squeezed. Mine are on the bench grinder next to yours.

Re:If you live in the state of Maryland...

[SurfTheWorld]

Hahahah.

I was dismayed to learn that "PG County" is actually a word in the Urban Dictionary:

http://tinyurl.com/bnjb4

future speculation isn't as reliable as you think

[Anonymous Coward]

If you decide to buy Google now because you speculate the P/E is $7/share by ignoring historical trends and common sense, then guess what...you've lost all your money. That's why you don't use speculation as fact to push around like a fool.

Put Another Way...

[bullitB]

Google is now worth about as much as Sri Lanka. (population: 20 million)

Correction... not NYSE

[Anonymous Coward]

Google isn't listed on NYSE. It's NASDAQ.

Nope. Google is the new Arkwright

[Colin Smith]

And we are the spinners and weavers.

Some bean counting (a la Warren Buffet)

[notany]

Today internet usage penetration is around 14 % with ~ 900 000 000 users woldwide. Usage Growth
2000-2005 has been 146.2%.

If we expect Google to give investors 10% yearly revenue for their current market capitalization they need to get 10$ profit from each current internet user per year.

If we assume that internet usage reaches 50% of world population (3x10E9 people) in future, they must get average 2.7$ from _each_ user per year. Think if they have some competition and have 33% market share They must get 8$/year.

Notice that 2.7$ or 8$ per user must be solid profit to shareholder after all expences and taxes. This calculation is therefore quite forgiving to Google.

If each ad click is 0.05$ there must be 160 clicks /year/user to get 8$/user. 1 click every other day. How many times you click google ads per year?

Conclusion: current price of Google contains the best possible future for Google for next 10-20 years. Assumption is that (world population) must consume more Google than Coke, MacDonalds, CNN or GM.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

multi millionares?

[AndreySeven]

"Now still in their early 30s and both multi-millionaires, Mr Page and Mr Brin are said to continue to live modest lifestyles" Wow, try multi billionares...

You call THAT Minamlist humour?

[roman_mir]

Here is a better example:

-Trunk (as in elephant snout)

Sounds better in Russian though:

-Khobot.

But Google *is* Evil!

[Anonymous Coward]

returned links aren't filtered, so search content is poorer nowadays

most returned links are for commercial operations

you can buy your way into preferred search returns

Google will 0wn U s00n!

MOD PARENT UP

[JeffMagnus]

The author of the parent of this message is the only person in this thread who knows what she is talking about.

AOL and Google are partners in action

[dygital]

AOL is a strong partner with Google and google adds to AOL services. I dont think they are viable "competitors" but just for metric purposes, its interesting to see google surpass a media conglomerate. Luckily, AOL switched to Google search results and dumped Yahoo/Inktomi from its SERPs

Insightful!?

[Anonymous Coward]

Someone posts stock advice on Slashdot that says absolutely nothing more than "I think everyone should sell their Google stock, but I don't really know anything," and this is insightful? What "insight" does it offer, exactly?

SOMEONE GET MY BROKER ON THE PHONE!! I just got the inside scoop on Google from Slashdot!

Innovation, a lost art

[Evro]

In the computer/Internet industry, there are very few companies that actually innovate (strange for an industry based on innovation). Among those who make the short list are Apple and Google. Look at the sheer number of look-alike products their competitors make - the latest Dell catalog sent to my house has a Dell MP3 player that looks like an iPod without the wheel control. Microsoft and Yahoo have both tried their hardest to copy Google -- Microsoft has also tried to copy several concepts from Apple. I don't quite see why Google is so highly valued on top of such low income, but maybe it's the growth potential. They keep coming out with valuable products and services that do cool, interesting, and useful things. Very few other companies in the industry can make that claim.

mod down

[geekee]

"I think you misunderstand. We don't rail against the eternal corporation, they do indeed die. Often times, this is not a good thing though... it usually means they were killed by an even worse corporation. It's like locking 1000 psychopaths in the room with guns and knives, the ones that are left are the *worst* of the bunch.

All you are saying is that some of the psychopaths are female also, and assuming that they fuck around enough, babies are born. Gee, I wonder how that kid will grow up, eh?
"

Corporations become successfull because people choose of their own free will to buy their products. Who the hell mods up this gibberish. So you're saying we're all pychopaths for supporting corporations? If you think you're not supporting corporations, go check the brand name on your car, tv, stereo, computer, refrigerator, etc.

Re:mod down

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

Really? That's funny, that's why they spend hundreds of millions of dollars doing advertising. For things we can't even legally buy, like prescription medicines.

That's why they spend more money on psych and subliminal studies than black ops DOD projects.

Corporations like Enron don't become successful because of free will, they become successful because of fraud. Small frauds, big frauds.

Psychopaths in that analogy were the corporations. Not the consumers.

CAST YOUR VOTE HERE!

[exp(pi*sqrt(163))]

Well maybe you're not representative.

OK, I hate anecdotal evidence as much as the next person, so I'm now trying to make this really scientific. I'm sure that using all caps in the subject line will attract a high quality sample. So, everyone line up to answer my question...

How much money did you spend on products advertised through google per times you used google?

A healthy dose of Slashdot-style irony

[Dachannien]

The irony of this story is that by the time it was posted to Slashdot, it was no longer actually true.

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=TWX
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=GOOG

no way...

[Cryptnotic]

Cars are totally outside of the company goals for Google (whose stated goal is "to catalogue and index every piece of information on Earth"). And who'd want to deal with UAW?

It's worse than that

[Anonymous Coward]

Not only is it a non-dividend-paying, 100+ P/E ratio dog of a stock, the shares are non-voting, and of course dilutable at the pleasure of its board.

What exactly are you getting when you buy this stock?

Coolness factor

[UncleScrooge]

Still Time Warner owns BATMAN. That gives them the edge. Batman alone must be worth gazillions!

Then maybe you are just dumb

[tezbobobo]

Maybe its really obvious and you only think your metanymical or archtypical.

Maybe the author and I are really smart and so its immediately obvious to us what he means,

maybe he and I have a psychic connection and you're not allowed to join.

I thank I'll go email him and ask him

Re:Then maybe you are just dumb

[2short]

Maybe I am really dumb, and you are smart. On the other hand, I don't try to look smart by using big words without knowing how they are spelled, or for that matter what they mean. Unless, of course, you can explain how it is even possible for a person to be metonymical. Unless of course you meant "metronymical", in which case I don't understand the relevance, but in any case, I assure you I have poor rhythm.

metonym

[tezbobobo]

Yes, you apparently try to look dumb by admitting you have a small vocabulary.
3 syllables
7 letters
From :

www.sil.org/linguistics/ GlossaryOfLinguisticTerms/WhatIsMetonymy.htm

Metonymy is, broadly defined, a trope in
which one entity is used to stand for another associated entity.

So in summary:
1. Yes you really are dumb due to: your small vocabulary (large part of IQ tests); your inability to use a search engine; your insular upbringing which did not introduce to key literary concepts such as metonyms; your tendency to assert your opinion even though it is wrong.
2. Yes I am smart - but that may be only when compared to you.
3. I don't think you try to look smart at all.
4. If you had the patience to correct my spelling, the smart thing to do would be to read three words ahead for the definition. Who is the real idiot then?

And finally as you corrected my spelleing I shall correct your grammar, it is deplorable.

Maybe I -really am- dumb, and you -- smart. -Use of colloquialism (incorrectly used)-However/Yet/Adversely/Many, I don't try to look -intelligent- by using big words -without means outside the scope of- knowing -not- how they are -spelt-, or --what they mean. Unless, of course, you can explain how it is -even never belongs before possible- possible for a person to be metonymical(which should be obvious after redaing the definition). Unless of course you -mean (due to the current nature of the debate, until it is considered settled whence one changes to past tense )-"metronymical", in which case I don't understand the -pertainence-. -Unrelated Concept-In any case, I assure you I have poor rhythm.

AND THE END RESULT (FUNNIER)
Maybe I really am dumb, and you smart. I though, do not try to look intelligent by using big words, knowing not how they are spelt or what they mean. Unless, of course, you can explain how it is possible for a person to be metonymical. Unless of course you mean "metronymical", in which case I don't understand the pertainence. In any case, I assure you I have poor rhythm.

Re:metonym

[2short]

I'm sorry if I gave you the impression that I object to the use of a wide vocabulary. Quite the opposite. Proper use of the correct word is to be aplauded, and if you reach beyond your readers vocabulary, he should see it as an oportunity to expand that vocabulary.

In this particular case, it seemed clear (and your latest post cements the case) you reached beyond your own vocabulary in an attempt to intentionaly reach beyond mine. As it happened, you failed. I was already aware of "metonym", the root of "metonymical", the latter being the word you misspelled and continue to misuse. You asked if I thought I was "metanymical"

"Metonymy is, broadly defined, a trope in which..."

A trope is a figure of speach. "metonymical" is an adjective that can only be properly applied to a figure of speach. I am not a figure of speach, and cannot possibly be metonymical.

Your second reply at this level is most pompous. So glad you are here trying to elevate the discussion to your own lofty level. I really appreciate your shining example. Allow me to set about attempting to emulate it immediately, dickhead.

Re:metonym

[tezbobobo]

A trope is a figure of speach.

again, use a dictionaryyour not a noun either either, but you can be used in many contexts as a subset of the noun group. Really, you are wrong, just live with it.

Your second reply at this level is most pompous. So glad you are here trying to elevate the discussion to your own lofty level. I really appreciate your shining example.

you may have missed the gentle (read obvious) use of dramatic irony in my last post. The reason I went through corecting your grammar and such was to point out the childish nature of your arguement. Instead of picking on my rhetoric, and critiquing my arguments, you instead take potshots at my spelling. grow up, dickhead.

Re:metonym

[2short]

Hmmm, who was it that accused someone of continuing to argue just for the sake of being right, even though they were wrong?

Thank you for your advice to use a dictionary, but I keep a dictionary in reach at practically all times. I have not heard a word I didn't know and failed to look it up in the last three decades. My own spelling is rather poor, and so I have only critiqued your spelling in a single instance, and only as a side note to pointing out your misuse of the word you misspelled. I don't particularly care if your spelling or grammar is any good. However, when someone tries to impress me by showing off their big vocabulary, they'd best get it right if they don't want to get called on it.

I may be refered to by nouns or by figures of speach, but I am not that noun or figure of speach. A trope is the figure of speach itself; it is the words, not what they refer to; it is the words themselves that may or may not refer to something metonymically. That which is thus refered to cannot itself be metonymical, unless it also is a figure of speach.

You corrections to my grammar were largely incorrect, but I saw little point in widening this discussion. I did in fact find it ironic that you argued for raising the level of discussion only after calling me a dickhead. I assumed your post was not meant to point out this irony, as that would be, in effect, pointing out that you are a vulgar idiot. If that was in fact your intent, well then, I concur whole-heartedly.

In any case, rather than calling me childish, and me calling you an idiot, let us indeed stick to the argument at hand: You do not, or did not, understand the meaning of the word "metonymical". Perhaps you disagree, and in that case please explain: Why you were suggesting I might think I was a figure of speach using the name of one thing to refer to something else?

Re:metonym

[tezbobobo]

Firstly, I did apologise for xalling you a dickhead - read the full discussion if you don't believe me. I was posted about thirty seconds after the first. Not once have you apologised for your juvenilie behaviour; what does that say about you. And once again I assert, I wasn't trying to raise the level of the discussion by using 'big words.' Those 'big words' are actually what I use and deal with every day.

As to the arguement at hand, that was on a completely different issue. You digressed and chose to focus on my use of the word 'metonymical' rather that follow the arguement.

Re:metonym

[2short]

Well, I thank you for the apology, though it might be better not to have done it in the first place, and you have in any case insulted my inteligence in practically every post. I beleive I have largely refrained from responding in kind, but for the couple exceptions, I too will apologize.
As to the original argument about whether it was natural to assume Google and Time Warner are both in some category that doesn't include numerous bigger companies in more closely related businesses. Yes, well, you are still wrong about that, but that discussion had effectively ended. You had descended to suggesting nonsensical justifications for why that grouping would make more sense to you and not me, without offering any idea of why in fact it did make sense. If you really wish to continue that discussion, please explain to me why Google and TW are so obviously more closely related to each other than either is to MS that such a grouping should simply be assumed. Feel free to spell it out in detail, for it is genuinely a mystery to me.

I did focus on your use of "metonymical", because misuse of words is something of a pet peeve of mine. While I enjoy obscure words, misuse of them particularly ticks me off when it seems apparent to me that their obscurity is intentional. Perhaps that obscurity was not intentional, and you have been using "metonymical" regularly. In that case, I trust you will thank me for pointing out that you have been using it incorrectly.

Oh, and by the way

[tezbobobo]

I'm not some jackass computer nerd. First I've a business in IT, providing WAN services to differing government departments. My second (and more recent professionalism) is law. Computer nerds I find to be anally retentive due to some deep seated insecurities. Law folk you will find appreciate language as a tools. Words caontain and construct subtley and meaning. The use of 'big words' (polysyllabilic) is not for the sake of being pompous, but for the purpose of conveying correct and true meaning. Perhaps you don't like it because slashdot is used to nerd jargon and vernacular.

I think it would be more true to say that when an individual brings a new way of thinking and speaking to an institution the community protects itself. They are naturally warey and overtly hostile towards intruders. For example, most computer nerds would have no fare with post-modernism nor any other form of post-positivist thought (critical theory/gender studies/social contructivism). They therefore would hold no truck with these. To you it seems belittleing and offensive, like using unknown words to intellectually intimidate the arguee. For people from those fields of study, this is standard fare. The value of humanities is just that - to bring a range of methodologies and paradigms to any arguement. I'm sorry if you don't like what I say, but I am not going to reduce it to the terms which you want it in. To do so would be to strip my arguements of meaning. In turn, I don't care if your brain cannot deal, or is unfamiliar, with what I say.