Google Doubles its Profits

Yawho? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-07-20 20:29 · Score: 4, Funny

Seriously guys, thanks for playing.

Re:Yawho? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-07-21 03:21 · Score: 0

F' Yahoo. They rat on reporters talking about democracy so that the Chinese government arrests the reports and throw them into prison for 20 years. F' Yahoo

Am I missing something? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-07-20 20:29 · Score: 0

Net income != profits

Re:Am I missing something? by baadger · 2006-07-20 20:32 · Score: 2, Interesting

But would you have said their expenses has doubled in the same period of time?

No.
Re:Am I missing something? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-07-20 20:40 · Score: 0, Informative

Well then what do you want to measure profit as? Gross profit? Because we all know how accurate a measure of gross profit is.

Net income is the most effective measure of profit there is. It's revenue minus pretty much every expense you can think of. Isn't that more or less the definition of profit?
Re:Am I missing something? by anagama · 2006-07-20 20:52 · Score: 3, Interesting

Awsome investment. At this earnings level, it will only take 166 quarters of revenue to pay for a share. Expenses of course, will stretch that out to much more than that 41 year figure. I just don't understand how people value stocks.

--
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
Re:Am I missing something? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-07-20 20:56 · Score: 1, Informative

The EPS ratio is a bit absurd. But investing isn't just about the current earnings of the share, it's about the potential earning of the share in both the short term and long term future.

Now, as to whether or not this justifies the ridiculous EPS ratio, I don't know. It depends on how large you believe the potential Internet advertising market is, or if you believe that Google can begin to branch out into non-advertising based endeavors.

Coincidentally, the captcha for this post was "predict" :)
Re:Am I missing something? by caluml · 2006-07-20 21:57 · Score: 2, Funny

I just don't understand how people value stocks. Buy low, sell high?

--
Get your own free personal location tracker
Re:Am I missing something? by clickclickdrone · 2006-07-20 23:45 · Score: 2, Interesting

Not sure why this got marked Troll. It's a valid point, Google (and others) are making good money but operating on an insane ratio that makes their current stock price look highly optimistic. Many industries operate on a 20-25 ratio but some of the newer tech stocks are on 400+. Much of the problem though is that the markets have no real way yet to analyse how well a tech company is doing.

--
I want a list of atrocities done in your name - Recoil
Re:Am I missing something? by rmjohnso · 2006-07-21 00:22 · Score: 1

I think you misunderstand the EPS ratio. Financial statements are NOT forward looking. They are historical statements or a snapshot in time (balance sheet). EPS is a measure of if a company paid all of its earnings out as dividends and took zero from Net Income into Retained Earnings, how much would go to each share of stock that is outstanding. Diluted EPS gets into exercisable stock options and convertable debt.

Research has shown that when a company pays any dividends, the stock price tends to go down because investors view it as the company not reinvesting in future growth potential.

Yes, you are correct that investing is about the potential earnings, both short and long term, but those earnings are tied to the stock market, not EPS

--
"Extremism in the pursuit of liberty is no vice. Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue." --Barry Goldwater
Re:Am I missing something? by vishbar · 2006-07-21 03:07 · Score: 1

Speculation.

It's not about what you get from the dividends. It's about how much the stock goes up in value and the capital gains that will result from selling the stock at a higher price.

--
Ride the skies
Re:Am I missing something? by kinglink · 2006-07-21 03:14 · Score: 1

Reading Comprehensive aint no good here.

But yes, net Income - expenses = profits.
Re:Am I missing something? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-07-21 07:05 · Score: 0

What an accurate assessment taking in to consideration Google's 0% growth!

Oh wait....
Re:Am I missing something? by vr · 2006-07-23 19:08 · Score: 1

I just don't understand how people value stocks.

Look into technical analysis of stocks and the psychology of the stock market, should be some good books available ... Very fascinating. The stock market has a life of its own. The current price of a stock can have as much to do (if not more) with its price history as with good/bad news and press releases.

The value of engineers by ph1ll · 2006-07-20 20:42 · Score: 4, Insightful

<irony>Google? Are they still around? I thought The Economist had predicted their demise ages ago</irony>

Seriously, it's nice to see a company that values its engineers doing so well.

--
--- "We've always been at war with Eastasia."

chairs.... by linRicky · 2006-07-20 20:44 · Score: 4, Funny

I sure would be modded down for this.. but just can't help wondering how many chairs are being thrown at Microsoft after this announcement....

Re:chairs.... by Cr0t · 2006-07-20 21:02 · Score: 0

The rumors has it MicroSoft has a special chair contract with IKEA. It is getting to expensive to buy good chairs!
Re:chairs.... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-07-20 21:13 · Score: 0

You threw in a slashdot cliche and used reverse psychology to trick the mods into giving you points, yet you're still at +1. Good luck whoring next time.
Re:chairs.... by shelterpaw · 2006-07-21 02:57 · Score: 0

I'm not sure what good will come from chairs being thrown at Microsoft. Not necessarily, the way people should fight the behemoth, but if it's helping, I'll throw one.
Re:chairs.... by IorDMUX · 2006-07-21 03:56 · Score: 1

Whenever I see a new story out about how well Google is doing, the first thing I do is find all instances of the word "chair" on the comments page.

I see my strategy continues to succeed.

--
>> Standing on head makes smile of frown, but rest of face also upside down.

Amazing by Life700MB · 2006-07-20 20:45 · Score: 1, Interesting

The folks at Google never cease to amaze us!

The bring out new programs and almost ever hit the mark, with a great rate of success, but without hesitating to remove from the net their fiascos, like that Google Accelerator thing.

Just please don't be sooo US-centric and release your goodies for all the world, for example, I'd love to throw out my paypal account, but non-Americans are not able to log into Google CheckOut still!

--
Superb hosting 20GB Storage, 1_TB_ bandwidth, ssh, $7.95

Re:Amazing by WCD_Thor · 2006-07-20 21:03 · Score: 0, Flamebait

Then move to the US, shesh, even though we do have Texa's state idiot as President.
Re:Amazing by ibjhb · 2006-07-21 02:10 · Score: 2, Insightful

Do keep in mind, especially with financial transactions, there are different laws in different countries and they may not be able to quickly release a certain product in your country.
Re:Amazing by HoboMaster · 2006-07-21 02:58 · Score: 1

Hey, he only pretends to be Texan, thankyouverymuch. Yes, he was Governor of Texas, but that's a pretty much irrelevant job. The Lt. Governor actually has more power than the Governor down here. Ross Perot would beat his ass. Now there's a real Texan. In fact, if it was up to us, the Presidency would be decided by a good, old-fashioned fight. We'd throw all the candidates into a ring and tell them to have at, Grand Old Fight style. Arnold would be our next president, constitution be damned, just because he wouldn't allow anyone else who entered into the ring to live. It would either be him or no one. Okay, I'm done now.

--
Remember kids, tin foil doesn't work, so use LeadHat.
Re:Amazing by rainman_bc · 2006-07-21 03:51 · Score: 1

The bring out new programs and almost ever hit the mark, with a great rate of success, but without hesitating to remove from the net their fiascos, like that Google Accelerator thing.

I think they missed the mark with Hello.com. What a stupid investment - at least so far. What the hell were they thinking?

--
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
Re:Amazing by bruno.fatia · 2006-07-21 05:55 · Score: 1

>The bring out new programs and almost ever hit the mark, with a great rate of success,

Fact is, today, anything that has the prefix "Google" is wanted by everybody, even useless stuff. Stuff nobody would never ever need, like a couple friends that downloaded Google Earth. What for? See Niagara Falls from the top? Yes I know, nobody never did something like that but still useless, atleast for me
Re:Amazing by WCD_Thor · 2006-07-21 07:28 · Score: 1

I agree with your points about Bush not being a real Texan, and that the Governer has no power in Texas, I knew that already, but its so easy to make fun of Texas. Really some town in the north is missing its village idiot, but I don't remember which one. Also, fuck Arnold, I hate conservatives, so fuck em all.
Re:Amazing by HoboMaster · 2006-07-21 07:34 · Score: 1

Oh, come on. The fact that Arnold got electd in Cali should tell you something. He's California Republican, which about equates to Texas Democrat.

Also, I wouldn't recommend spending too much time making fun of Texas. We tend to get unhappy when people make fun of our state, and bad things tend to happen around unhappy Texans. Just a word of advice.

--
Remember kids, tin foil doesn't work, so use LeadHat.
Re:Amazing by WCD_Thor · 2006-07-21 08:35 · Score: 1

Ok, so Arnold isn't the worst republican out their, big deal, his policies still suck ass, just glad I don't live in Cali all the time (just go to school there). And I will still make fun of Texas, despite the possible risk involved. The only place is Texas I would go is to, oh great, I am forgeting names of major Texan cities. I have the worst memory for names ever. Anyway, it has been called a really hip, cool place with good music going through all the time. Favorites to twenty-somethings. I'll probably remember the name when I go to bed tonight, knowing my luck.
Re:Amazing by HoboMaster · 2006-07-21 09:02 · Score: 1

Austin. Fun city, but the people there annoy me. San Antonio is an awesome city too. I love the riverwalk, and the people there are really cool. I live in Dallas, and I love it to death.

--
Remember kids, tin foil doesn't work, so use LeadHat.
Re:Amazing by WCD_Thor · 2006-07-21 09:15 · Score: 1

Yes Austin. Thanks.

Google's Bad Business Model by Umbral+Blot · 2006-07-20 20:51 · Score: 5, Insightful

And all this money comes from adwords? Does it bother anyone besides me that google has only one source of revenue? It's like a company that sells only one product ... if demand for their product decreases the company dies. For example consider this possible situation: Microsoft bundles an adblocker with IE, automatically turned on, that blocks, among other things, google's adwords. Even if google sues MS could keep it in court long enough for google to go under. Scary isn't it?

--

Philosophy.

Re:Google's Bad Business Model by AIX-Hood · 2006-07-20 20:56 · Score: 0

Microsoft bundles an adblocker with IE

Err... they do? I haven't seen this feature; where's it located?
Re:Google's Bad Business Model by Umbral+Blot · 2006-07-20 20:58 · Score: 1

That is why before that were the words: "imagine this possible situation". Were you reading every other sentance?

--

Philosophy.
Re:Google's Bad Business Model by Umbral+Blot · 2006-07-20 21:01 · Score: 4, Funny

Oops, I forgot: Microsoft isn't evil anymore. I guess the folks at Google can sleep safely.

--

Philosophy.
Re:Google's Bad Business Model by bluebox_rob · 2006-07-20 21:09 · Score: 5, Funny

And all this money comes from adwords?
Are you kidding? Have you even been to the Google Store?! They do t-shirts, mugs - heck they even sell Lava Lamps! I'd like to see the adblocker that can block those babies...
Re:Google's Bad Business Model by AIX-Hood · 2006-07-20 21:10 · Score: 1

Indeed I missed the hypothetical setup, but you're talking about a situation that would never happen. Any browser that shipped with an ad blocker (other than pop-ups or malware stopping) would immediately get pummeled into the ground. One could argue that anyone who installs ad blocking software on their machine isn't in the 2-3% demographic that clicks ads anyway. I dunno.. Google is an advertising and search company. If you told some of the top advertising companies in New York City that you worry about their future because they're a one trick pony, you'd probably be escorted out.
Re:Google's Bad Business Model by Umbral+Blot · 2006-07-20 21:13 · Score: 1

Why would it get "pummeled into the ground"? Legally? They're MS! And users would love it (magically there are no more banner ads, yay!) I know I certainly am attached to the adblocker plug-in for firefox, I wouldn't surf without it. I hear Opera has content blocking built in as well? Are they being "pummeled into the ground"?

--

Philosophy.
Re:Google's Bad Business Model by WindBourne · 2006-07-20 21:15 · Score: 2

Not really.
At this time, MS is blocked by the feds and europe from doing what you suggest.
Second, they are in the process of diversifing right now.

--
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Re:Google's Bad Business Model by Umbral+Blot · 2006-07-20 21:17 · Score: 1

Because MS never ever does anything illegally. I mean they're currenly ignoring the legal sanctions in Europe and simply paying the fines, at least last time I read a story about it. Isn't it worth a few million in fines to MS to kill google?

--

Philosophy.
Re:Google's Bad Business Model by killjoe · 2006-07-20 21:22 · Score: 3, Interesting

Ms would never do that because they are about to go into the ad business themselves. I suppose they could block all ads except theirs but I think that would end them up in court in a jiffy.

They have been floundering a lot lately, it's a mystery to me why they are so keen on getting into the search and advertising business at all. Who knows what makes Ms tick anymore. As far I can see they gone insane.

--
evil is as evil does
Re:Google's Bad Business Model by DrEldarion · 2006-07-20 21:30 · Score: 2, Insightful

Currently, Adwords is the MAJOR source of revenue (they sell a few search appliances, but that's pennies compared to Adwords), but Google Checkout will hopefully be a decent income source, especially once Google Base becomes more popular.
Re:Google's Bad Business Model by AIX-Hood · 2006-07-20 21:32 · Score: 2, Insightful

There's a big difference between something that requires user intervention to get going, and something which blocks all ads when you install the main browser.
Re:Google's Bad Business Model by Anonymous Coward · 2006-07-20 21:35 · Score: 0

Next thing you know, they'll break their non-agresion pact with the Soviet Union and try to storm St. Petersburg late in the fall.
Re:Google's Bad Business Model by kripkenstein · 2006-07-20 21:35 · Score: 1

"Ms would never do that because they are about to go into the ad business themselves."

Pro: f**king kill off Google
Con: lose potential future ad revenue

Tough choice?

Even if you look at it rationally, it makes sense to do this. With Google dead, Microsoft lose a lot of risk to their existing revenue streams.
Re:Google's Bad Business Model by Zardoz44 · 2006-07-20 23:18 · Score: 1

Um...They also sell Enterprise products. Given their brand-name recognition and expertise, selling this stuff shouldn't be too difficult.
Re:Google's Bad Business Model by khendron · 2006-07-20 23:26 · Score: 3, Insightful

Isn't this like say TV networks and radio stations have a bad business model, because all they sell are commercials?

--
Life is like a web application. Sometime you need cookies just to get by.
Re:Google's Bad Business Model by Ph33r+th3+g(O)at · 2006-07-20 23:43 · Score: 1

I would think another source of revenue (that they certainly wouldn't talk about if true) would be trading on the buzz they can find out about before everyone else does (e.g. searches regarding mergers before they're public). Even though this would be trading on inside information morally, it probably wouldn't be legally, since Google isn't an insider.

--
I too have felt the cold finger of injustice.
Re:Google's Bad Business Model by instantkamera · 2006-07-20 23:59 · Score: 2, Insightful

" Does it bother anyone besides me that google has only one source of revenue? It's like a company that sells only one product..."

1) no. it doesnt because no, thye dont. What about the new google payment system? What about the google-store.com that was mentioned already (not that i think that is a huge revenue turner)? That is not to mention all the free shit they give away that they could charge for. There's gold in them there hills.

2) Even if it was, tons of companies only sell one product. As long as they keep the buyers of said product buying ...
Re:Google's Bad Business Model by AngryDill · 2006-07-21 00:13 · Score: 1

It has been my observation for some time that Microsoft could easily destroy Google by cutting of their lifeblood, since the vast majority of people use Microsoft's technology to even get to Google.
Know this: Googles Achilles' heel is Microsoft's TCP/IP stack.
I can't think of anything about MS that depends on Google, so no threat there.
-a.d.-

--

I'm Erwin Schrodinger and I approve of this message, and I do not approve of this message!
Re:Google's Bad Business Model by AngryDill · 2006-07-21 00:15 · Score: 1

Mod Parent up! At least some of us still realize that Microsoft is still Microsoft!
-a.d.-

--

I'm Erwin Schrodinger and I approve of this message, and I do not approve of this message!
Re:Google's Bad Business Model by cornjones · 2006-07-21 00:35 · Score: 1

MS is already in the ad business. It is the primary source of revenue for MSN and they have decided to push it more agressively.

Ads aren't going anywhere. It is an industry unto itself. Saying google only has one revenue stream in ads is like saying Microsoft only has one revenue stream in software.
Re:Google's Bad Business Model by Anonymous Coward · 2006-07-21 00:44 · Score: 0

Just in case your sarcasm is not the sum of your knowledge, Google has a number of products both hardware and software which contribute to its total earnings.
Re:Google's Bad Business Model by stunt_penguin · 2006-07-21 01:40 · Score: 1

Another killer product will, I think be Gmail for you domain; Gmail is a wonderful product, and it's even better when used for your domain. When ready for deployment Google should offer GFYD it as a paid-for service. USD $100 per year wouldn't be such a high price for a small company to pay for that kind of mail service. Times that by a million companies and you're talking about grossing $100m a year for a product that has already been developed and the type of hosting that Google are so good at already.

--
When the posters fear their moderators, there is tyranny; when the moderators fears the posters, there is liberty.
Re:Google's Bad Business Model by WilliamSChips · 2006-07-21 02:06 · Score: 1

One word for you: Antitrust.

--
Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
Re:Google's Bad Business Model by pimpkracker69 · 2006-07-21 03:02 · Score: 1

LOL:)

Nice!!
Re:Google's Bad Business Model by jrock-jr · 2006-07-21 03:07 · Score: 1

I cant get over the number of people who drool over each new product google hits the market with. Does it bother anyone else that all google wants is to know more about you?? from their Desktop Search software: Google Desktop Search may collect certain non-personally identifiable information that resides on your computer, including, without limitation, the number of searches you do and the time it takes to see your results.
Search engine, sure. Any of their other software, no thanks.
Re:Google's Bad Business Model by Anonymous Coward · 2006-07-21 04:17 · Score: 0

It's anonymous. Why should i care ? i care more about Microsoft WGA check and politics.
Re:Google's Bad Business Model by HonkOnBobo · 2006-07-21 07:04 · Score: 1

Does it bother anyone besides me that google has only one source of revenue?
I'm not a shareholder, so why would I care how they run their business? I agree that its a massively flawed business plan, though, a holdover from the dot.com bubble (Hey, lets write a bunch of software, throw it up on a wepage, don't charge our users any money, then sell advertising. It can't possibly fail!) but yet it still seems to be working for them, Yahoo, and others. At least MS has cash cows like Office, Windows, etc. that they sell for real money. If/when MS ever gets their search/ad business together, they could do some serious damage to Google.
Re:Google's Bad Business Model by Frenchy_2001 · 2006-07-21 07:18 · Score: 1

Isn't this like say TV networks and radio stations have a bad business model, because all they sell are commercials?

And do you see where they stand now that a device that can block Ads is out (tivo or any other PVR)?

Google is subject to the same kind of problem, but to a lesser extend. Why? Because their ads are usually relevant (contextual) and moreover, they are un-intrusive (text only, not some loud flashing banner with sound).

People want to see advertisement, as strange as it seems. It's part of our information. It tells us what product can be found and where. There is a bright future in advertisement if done right and so far, this has been google's doings (hence those results).
Re:Google's Bad Business Model by cyberformer · 2006-07-21 10:15 · Score: 1

This is one reason why Google is promoting Firefox so aggressively. It's also why Google has already complained to the DOJ about MS's intentions in the online ad market.

IE already has a popup blocker (admittedly, only after every other browser and toolbar offered one first), so a text-ad blocker isn't too different. MS would white-list their *own* ads, of course, so that only Google's would be blocked. I expect there'd be some option in the preferences menu to white-list Google sites too, but who would bother wanting to see more ads?
Re:Google's Bad Business Model by AngryDill · 2006-07-21 11:42 · Score: 1

One word for you: Antitrust.
Four words in reply: slap on the wrist
-a.d.-

--

I'm Erwin Schrodinger and I approve of this message, and I do not approve of this message!
Re:Google's Bad Business Model by bigpicture · 2006-07-21 16:14 · Score: 1

What has TV survived on for over 50 years? Is it not advertising? What has happened to TV lately that very few new shows are being produced? Could it be that a big chunk of their ad revenues is going to Google? Could more people be surfing Google than are watching TV?

Also after MS gets over all it's anti trust-hassles, it won't be pissing around with anyone for a while. Now a "kinder gentler" twelve step MS, on recovery from a chair throwing addiction.
Re:Google's Bad Business Model by lonecrow · 2006-07-21 20:17 · Score: 1

Yes but wouldn't MS also alienate the millions of web site publishers who earn adSense revenue? I certainly would not be very pleased.

A lot of this by thealsir · 2006-07-20 20:51 · Score: 5, Interesting

was due to one-time gains, such as the sale of stock in BAIDU.com. That's why the stock was down in after hours. This nonsense of beating estimates by a huge amount is a giant Wall Street smokescreen. Non-recurring things factored out, Google barely beat estimates. Growth is slowing, the CEO himself said that. I imagine more money is going to be pumped out of this in the future (admittedly YHOO had a negative effect on GOOG and BIDU).

--
Do not downmod posts "overrated" simply because you disagree with them.

Re:A lot of this by smittyoneeach · 2006-07-20 21:33 · Score: 1

Wall Street smokescreen.

pleonasm

--
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
Re:A lot of this by kjart · 2006-07-20 23:54 · Score: 1

I'm curious where you got that information from. I browed through Yahoo finance quickly and didn't see that explained anywhere. You'd think Yahoo at least would have that kind of information ;)
Re:A lot of this by Anonymous Coward · 2006-07-21 00:36 · Score: 0

well, that's not completely accurate. most analysts agree that the reason that the stock declined initially (and then did tick back up, to some degree) is because after google paid out commissions to its partners, its revenue figure adjusted to $1.67billion vs the $2.46billion before the commissions were factored in. (for comparison, their revenue was $1.38billion a year ago)

Google is a verb now by William+Robinson · 2006-07-20 20:53 · Score: 5, Funny

Offtopic -1

Does somebody else find it funny, how the web sites have become verbs. Look at the button 'Google Slashdot'. Imagine 'Slashdot Google' or 'Slashdot University of California' buttons to kill the web sites.

--
hilarious

Re:Google is a verb now by halivar · 2006-07-21 00:30 · Score: 1

Does somebody else find it funny, how the web sites have become verbs. Look at the button 'Google Slashdot'. Imagine 'Slashdot Google' or 'Slashdot University of California' buttons to kill the web sites.

Very appropos. If Slashdot were a university, it would definitely be in California.

Ba-DUM-bum-CCCCHHHHH!!!!

Value for money by simon_hibbs2 · 2006-07-20 20:54 · Score: 3, Interesting

$2.33 earnings per share, at a cost of $387 per share. That's a return of 0.6% per year on your investment so at this rate it will take about 166 years to get your investment back in earned value.

Yep, these Internet stocks sure are amazing value for money.

Simon hibbs

Re:Value for money by Frogbert · 2006-07-20 21:10 · Score: 1

Yes because I'm sure this will be the only growth Google sees in the next 166 years.
Re:Value for money by Threni · 2006-07-20 21:27 · Score: 2, Insightful

> $2.33 earnings per share, at a cost of $387 per share. That's a return of 0.6% per year on your
> investment so at this rate it will take about 166 years to get your investment back in earned
> value.

Er..you own the share too, so you'd have $389.33. Then there's dividends - many people own shares in companies that have negligable growth for years, purely because the dividends return more money than they'd get as interest from a bank.
Re:Value for money by Anonymous Coward · 2006-07-20 21:27 · Score: 5, Informative

That's $2.33 a quarter, buddy. Google's P/E is around 60, which is triple the typical blue chip, but typical blue chip companies are not growing at 70% annualized growth rates. And that's just the trailing P/E. Their forward-looking P/E is 30. Blue chip companies like Coca Cola and General Electric are trading at P/Es of around 20. And Google's profit margins, at around 25%, continue to astound.

Google is quickly becoming a cash cow. They have $9 billion in cash right now. Microsoft has around $30 billion. That is a truly incredible comparison, given Google's relative youth.

It's an expensive stock, but hardly as mis-priced as you seem to think.
Re:Value for money by KokorHekkus · 2006-07-20 21:35 · Score: 2, Interesting

Yes because I'm sure this will be the only growth Google sees in the next 166 years.

Totally agree with you there that Google will continue to grow.

Acutally I don't see no reason why Google shoulde become as big as Microsoft (no, just as big, not the NEXT Microsoft), Currently Google has the a revenue that's about 1/6 of Microsofts and a market value that's roughly half. Profit margin looks good as well even if it's 3/4 of Microsoft. On the other hand O think Google stands a better chance of continued expansion and renewal than Microsoft which has had a bad trackrecord (financially) with trying to expand into new areas after pretty much saturating the desktop niche and facing stiffer competition on servers.

Will Googles stock rise even higher though? Don't think so.
Re:Value for money by Anonymous Coward · 2006-07-20 21:39 · Score: 0

You're wrong. It's $2.33 in earnings per quarter. With the metrics you used, that would be 2.4% per year on your investment and 41.5 years.

Of course, your metrics are shit. There's just too much to correct here, but you should know that a stock's price has little to do with current earnings. It has everything to do with the sum of all future expected earnings (dividends) discounted over time.
Re:Value for money by FirienFirien · 2006-07-20 21:44 · Score: 1

Er... you own the share anyway, so that $387 was yours in the first place. If you put it into a bank savings scheme, you'd get a few % a year... and, whoah! The $387 that you put in originally!

The comment is about growth and return on investment, not on sum capital. You can put money into almost any stock and get somewhere near 100% out if you look at it your way; but what people are interested in is the ± value that affects the 100%.

--
Browsing with +2 to insightful posts and a higher threshold makes the average post seen seem a lot more ingenious
Re:Value for money by Scarblac · 2006-07-20 21:53 · Score: 1

But if the net profit is 0.6%, there's no way the dividend is going to be more than 0.6%.

--
I believe posters are recognized by their sig. So I made one.
Re:Value for money by ClassMyAss · 2006-07-20 21:58 · Score: 4, Interesting

...at this rate it will take about 166 years to get your investment back in earned value.
Only if you assume that Google sends back 100% of their earnings to the shareholders - as I recall, it's generally a bad sign if a company is paying out everything it takes in, and the ideal situation is more like 50%. I don't know what Google does, but in any case, I get your point.

However, pricing on tech stocks (in particular) has always been more about capitalizing on fear, greed, and hype as they pump up and drag down the stock price than about any sort of reasonable analysis. Everyone knows that everyone else is irrational (and everyone knows that everyone knows, etc.), so it's quite difficult to assign any sort of "value" to normal stocks, let alone public sweethearts like Google. You're just irrationally speculating on other people's irrationality in the hopes that it's the most rational move to make. You'll probably recall that before the IPO a lot of people were screaming that $100/share was way too high for a company with so little potential for further growth. It appears they were wrong, clearly. Is $400 too high now? Who knows...all I know is I don't have the money to be playing these kinds of games with it!

Besides, how many stock traders do you know that got rich sitting on a basket of stocks and watching the dividends trickle in?
Re:Value for money by simon_hibbs2 · 2006-07-20 21:58 · Score: 1

>Yes because I'm sure this will be the only growth Google sees in the next 166 years.

They need to increase their profitability, from it's current doubled return, by another 10 to 15 times at least in order to become even nominaly worthwhile at this share price. They need to do this pretty fast too, because every year their shares give their current pitifuly low return means the eventual jump in profitability required to make up for it becomes even higher.

Of course none of this is realy a problem for Google. They're a profitable business and even if their share price collapsed by 10 times, that wouldn't materialy affect their business operations. It's only their shareholders that would suffer and that's not Google's fault. Nobody forced anyone to buy Google shares.

Simon

NOTE: I am not an investment advisor and this is all back-of-an-envelope.
Re:Value for money by simon_hibbs2 · 2006-07-20 22:07 · Score: 2, Interesting

Fair enough, and thanks for the correction.

Their share price still seems horribly overblown. Yes I know they're aprofitable business, as I said in an earlier reply, none of this is realy a probelm for them as an operating company. They have plenty of cash and are very profitable, but their shares simply are not worth half what they currently stand at. The problem with cash though is that it's not earning anything (much), and any investment you do make with it has to earn at least as much as your current business or it will actualy make you look worse.

I think Google has a bright future. It's share holders (if buying at anything like this price) not so much.

Simon Hibbs
Re:Value for money by vidarh · 2006-07-20 22:11 · Score: 4, Informative

As someone else has commented, the share is yours to start with so you can't count the price you aquired the share for as part of the earned value.
The earnings does magically not get added to the share price, so you still have only $387, UNLESS the share price increases OR the company pays the full earnings out as dividends (in which case you'd have to subtract tax on it anyway, so your net return would be even lower than 0.6%, the same would apply if the share price increase and you sell).
Most tech companies, though, never pay dividends (and if they do, it will certainly never be more than portion of their earnings - and so in this case 0.6% is the upper limit) - people speculate in continued share price growth.
So if you hold the share the maximum return is equal to the earnings per share. In Google's case this is far below what you'd get at far lower risk elsewhere (case in point: I get around 5% on my UK savings account and short term bonds)
Of course, if you sell the share you may or may not make money from fluctuations in the share price which may make it a worthwhile investment.
Grossly simplified, people look at the earnings per share because it is one of many measures of whether the share is cheap or expensive. A high earnings per share (in percent of share price) means there is a higher likelihood of continued share price growth (but note that many other factors will also play in). A low earnings per share in percent of share price means that continued share price growt is unlikely unless the market believes that earnings will continue to grow rapidly to catch up with the share price increases.
Re:Value for money by Threni · 2006-07-20 22:17 · Score: 1

> A high earnings per share (in percent of share price) means there is a higher likelihood of
> continued share price growth (but note that many other factors will also play in).

Naah. I wouldn't believe in all that. You simply can't predict the future, whether it's the weather or stock market prices. Rea Burton Malkiel's "a random walk down wall street" and tell me which predictive algorithm you're going to use. Risk, p/e etc all work and have been proved to be as much use as astrology.
Re:Value for money by asuffield · 2006-07-20 22:40 · Score: 1

The comment is about growth and return on investment, not on sum capital.

The comment should have been about growth and return on investment. The comment actually was:

so at this rate it will take about 166 years to get your investment back

which is a comment about sum capital. The correct statement would have been:

It will take about 166 years to double your money.

(Ignoring for the moment the fact that the number is wrong, as others have pointed out, and that it fails to account for the possibility of compound interest)

Google's p/e may not be very good but that's no excuse for being sloppy when discussing it.
Re:Value for money by stormlead · 2006-07-20 23:25 · Score: 1

google doesn't pay dividends, and has said they never will. So basically you have a stock which gives you no voting power (even if you bought all the class A common stock out there you would still be automatically outvoted by Sergey Brin and Larry Page based on how the stock offering was structured), and pays no dividends.
Re:Value for money by DarkSarin · 2006-07-21 00:41 · Score: 1

Pays no dividends? How then do you have stocks? Please provide proof.

If that is true, however, it essentially makes google stocks valuable only in a speculative sense, and it is unlikely that they will maintain the incredibly high cost per share.

--
"We don't know what we are doing, but we are doing it very carefully,..." Wherry, R.J. Personnel Psychology (1995)
Re:Value for money by xenocide2 · 2006-07-21 01:19 · Score: 1

Proof. The value of Google's stock is derived from the fact that reguardless of their voting rights, any dividends must be paid out equally. There is no preferred stock. So if the company was purchased by another company, they'd be duly compensated. Certainly, the current management has expressed a large disinterest in compensating shareholders. I guess you could say the growth in valuation reflects shareholder's hopes that the company's rising asset value will eventually be transferred in part to shareholders, perhaps after managment has left.

There is another company in a situation much like Google's, only far more intense: Berkshire-Hathaway. At this point, the buyers for the company are nearly non-existant. Still, it turns an incredible profit that Warren Buffet reinvests by purchasing entire companies, each year making it that much more unlikely that anyone could ever afford to purchase it. The primary difference appears to be that Google's stock structure isn't as well understood as Bershire's.

--
I Browse at +4 Flamebait
Open Source Sysadmin
Re:Value for money by panaceaa · 2006-07-21 01:52 · Score: 1

Besides, how many stock traders do you know that got rich sitting on a basket of stocks and watching the dividends trickle in?

Warren Buffett? But he's only the second richest person in the world.

--
my blog
Re:Value for money by schmiddy · 2006-07-21 02:48 · Score: 1

Besides, how many stock traders do you know that got rich sitting on a basket of stocks and watching the dividends trickle in?

Ah yes. But on the same note, how many traders do you know that got caught up in the heydays of the late 90s, and bought into some dot-com stars and ended up broke? There's something to be said for value investing. Might not make you rich (though Buffet et. al did quite well with it) overnight, but IMO it's a much better long-term strategy.

--
http://cltracker.net -- powerful craigslist multi-city search
Re:Value for money by msevior · 2006-07-21 02:50 · Score: 1

You forget the Market's expectation of continued profit growth. For example if they maintain 100% profit growth for 5 years, their yearly income per share will be (4*2.50 = 10.00)*2**5 = $320.00.

In which case your current $385 share is looking like a fantastic investment.

Of course it is very unlikely they will maintain 100% profit growth for 5 years straight but you get the idea.
Re:Value for money by Lord+Flipper · 2006-07-21 16:28 · Score: 1

Besides, how many stock traders do you know that got rich sitting on a basket of stocks and watching the dividends trickle in?

Warren Buffet, for one. He's held a ton of shares for ages now.

And, if you look at real 'old' wealth, you will find tons of 'value' investors, with blue chips, a spread of indexes, and bonds, piling up money, retaining value during the down movements in the markets, and, in the long run, doing way better than the 'genius' market timers, and that whole 'new economy', 'this time it's different' crowd.
Re:Value for money by Lord+Flipper · 2006-07-21 16:46 · Score: 1

Pays no dividends? How then do you have stocks? Please provide proof.

Proof???

Most companies don't pay dividends. If you want to make cash back on a regular basis, you loan them money, that's the Bond Market.

Shit, Google, if they went off their rockers, could do a ten-for-one stock split. Dilute the shares like mad, and then you'd have a whole world of n00bs buying them at far lower prices, and jacking the value of the shares back up, in the process.

As it stands, though, their shares are expensive, which makes it real easy for huge institutional investors to park Big Cash in Google, without 'taking a position', as far as wielding anything like shareholder clout. And believe me, the big funds (Fidelity, and all the others) hold a ton of Google. Why? Because they want to run Google? No, because they want o participate in Google.

There's a school of thought [we'll call it "Old School"] that says: "If you like a company, and the way it is run, enough to invest in it, then why get in there and start telling it how to run it's business?". In other words, if you don't like XYZ's management, or the direction of XYZ, then don't buy into XYZ. Pretty friggin' simple, if you think about it. If you want 'dividends', bu power companies (Utilities), and Banks and Bonds. Simple stuff.
Re:Value for money by jrentona · 2006-07-21 17:09 · Score: 1

Yeah, its pretty obvious that next recession; that 60 times multiple is gauranteed to disintegrate 90's style. We are already at the tail end of one of the longest continuous bull markets in history. Global tensions are heating up. Oil prices are through the roof. 13% and growing of companies are missing expectations. It is only a matter of time.

When the economy goes sour; cyclical stuff like advertising is the first to go out the window. If you are smart and you own google now; I'd wait out this rally until the next time it pulls back. Then take your profits and buy a nice safe CD. You can can get 5-6% APR guaranteed thanks to Bernanke's rate raising.

Wait things out and buy back in when everything blows over in a few years.

James
Beverly, MA

Is it? by WindBourne · 2006-07-20 20:57 · Score: 3, Insightful

Is it the value of the engineers?
or is the value of a natural monopoly in a truely open market as opposed to a tied monopoly in closed market such as the MS's?
Do not get me wrong. Google's engineering is what got them to this size. After all, Alta Vista, Yahoo and MS held 95% of the market when Google started. It is Googles superior ideas that enabled them to beat these other companies.

--
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.

Re:Is it? by masklinn · 2006-07-20 21:08 · Score: 4, Informative

Reading comprehension 101: Google's engineers are valuable != Google values its engineers.

GP used the later, you understood the former, they have fairly different meanings.

--
"The way we can tell it's C# instead of Haskell is because it's nine lines instead of two." -- wadler
Re:Is it? by Millenniumman · 2006-07-21 01:32 · Score: 0

It is Google being "cool" that got them where they are today. Ask most people who use Google, and they don't have a real reason for it. I just like the page layout.

--
Stupidity is like nuclear power, it can be used for good or evil. And you don't want to get any on you.
Re:Is it? by WindBourne · 2006-07-21 01:54 · Score: 2, Insightful
I switched in the early days for a number of reasons:
1. The search is the most applicabale that that I seen. Yahoo was better when they were young , but did not scale.
2. AV, Yahoo, and MSN had the entire first page as paid ads (even though it looked like they were real).
3. Several simple text ads vs. the huge number of ads that AV/Yahoo/MSN ran.
4. Simple page means it loads fast. Real Fast.
5. They pushed the distributed tech.
Call it cool if you like. They were simply one of the most advanced tech firms going and getting better.
--
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Re:Is it? by rainman_bc · 2006-07-21 03:45 · Score: 1

Personally I switched to google when Yahoo thought it was a good idea to inundate me with the X10 popups.

I switched because it was a clean, no frills search engine.

Now google is just rife with Link Farms, Google Spam, Usenet clone sites, and sites that replicate themselves across multiple domains just to get higher page rankings.

If it wasn't for usenet search I'd have switched long ago.

--
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
Re:Is it? by shaghab · 2006-07-21 04:37 · Score: 1

I guess for me (back in 2001) adopting Google as primary (and now sole sole) search engine was natural.

As Google was:

1) "Fast" as compared the yahoo, Excite, AltaVista then
2) "Simple", thus making sure i have my intended contents to focus upon rather then a lot of things which were irrelevant at that particular instance of time.
3) "Light", thus took less time in downloading. and back then in my country bandwidth was a major problem.
4) "Relevant" in more searches then not.
Now Google is indispensable because it's still faster, simpler etc and now it has loads of cool new services especially Gmail.
Re:Is it? by Quino · 2006-07-21 07:32 · Score: 2

I'm sorry but that's crazy.

It was a practical, pragmatic choice: Google worked, *none* of the other search engines did. And it worked well, I remember specifically thinking that Google made the internet useful again to me, I could find information on the internet again. The only thing that amazes me is that there are some people who swear by other search engines (they must not have tried Google, in my opinion!).

I know that the other search engines started copying, to some degree, Google's way of doing things. In my last Pepsi challenge only Yahoo came close, but Google was still getting me the most relevant search results.

I wonder... by kripkenstein · 2006-07-20 20:57 · Score: 4, Interesting

Google had a net income of $721 million, according to TFA. Microsoft's net income last quarter was $2.83 billion in their last report.

So, Microsoft still have a far greater net income than Google. Still, Google is rising fast. Will we someday see Google's net income overtake that of Microsoft, I wonder?

Re:I wonder... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-07-20 21:33 · Score: 4, Funny

You could buy a lot of chairs for $2.83 billion :)
Re:I wonder... by Elemenope · 2006-07-20 23:09 · Score: 2, Insightful

Not to be a Microsoft-Bash party pooper, but MS has made a few things that 'work', and even work well (as you mentioned, BASIC). The two that come most immediately to mind in the present world are MS Word and MS Excel. I personally use Open Office, not because it is better (because it isn't), but because I am poor. For those who can afford it, these programs are worth the investment. Though, I will admit this does not make up for the crap we have had to put up with from their OS department.

--
All the techniques ever used to make men moral have been themselves thoroughly immoral... (Nietzsche)
Re:I wonder... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-07-20 23:17 · Score: 0

Of course WIndows has gotten a verb. Don't you remember,

"Crap... this really Windows ME."
Re:I wonder... by Alioth · 2006-07-20 23:44 · Score: 1

Well, for Microsoft to make money is about as difficult as falling off a log - they get paid for virtually every PC sold by default. Add all the PCs sold in a quarter, and that's a lot of money - Microsoft basically have a license to print money.

Google on the other hand actually have to compete to get paid.

--
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
Re:I wonder... by AngryDill · 2006-07-21 00:06 · Score: 1

Will we someday see Google's net income overtake that of Microsoft, I wonder?
No.
Next question?
-a.d.-

--

I'm Erwin Schrodinger and I approve of this message, and I do not approve of this message!
Re:I wonder... by CitizenJohnJohn · 2006-07-21 02:16 · Score: 1

"MS has made a few things that 'work' ... MS Word and MS Excel" Say what? One of the greatest mysteries in the history of computing is that the same company makes both Word and Excel. While both undeniably have their faults, Excel is very successfully geared toward enabling *you* to Do Stuff while Word constantly tries to Do Stuff For You and gets in the blasted way all the time as a result. Word is also packed with half-assed implementations of things that have no place in a writing tool, like its foul, kludgy attempts to be a (very) poor man's DTP app, and its excruciating html generation. Excel is data analysis tool that anyone can start to use and that reveals its power with deeper exploration. Attempts to use Word's 'power' features just reveal their many weaknesses. Word ended up dominant because businesses buy Office to get Excel, not because it works.
Re:I wonder... by CynicalTyler · 2006-07-21 02:40 · Score: 1

Let's just take a moment to step back and remember that the world isn't as simple as Google vs. Microsoft: Octagon Cagematch. It's tempting to compare two big companies that do stuff with computers, but there just isn't enough market overlap to relate Google's business to Microsoft's business at such a high level. I'm no expert, but just look at where there is direct competition: there's the search engine thing (let's face it, Google won that battle: it doesn't matter if you think Google is the best search or not, "googling" is now part of society's vernacular and nothing is more powerful than that), and hopefully soon there'll be the online office thing. But I wouldn't say that these are quite enough to say Google's success is Microsoft's failure. Not yet, anyway.
Re:I wonder... by masouds · 2006-07-21 02:52 · Score: 1

Heh, dude...
MSFT has around 60000 employees
Google has around 6000
MSFT has around $50B cash in bank
Google has around $10B (or 7? I don't remember)

Trust me, chairs ARE being thrown in MSFT.

--
This .sig was intentionaly left blank.
Re:I wonder... by mamer-retrogamer · 2006-07-21 03:13 · Score: 1

Google had a net income of $721 million, according to TFA. Microsoft's net income last quarter was $2.83 billion in their last report.
Still, a net income that is 25% of the industry's monopoly/#1 player ain't too shabby.

--
Schrödinger's cat is not amused—maybe.
Re:I wonder... by fm6 · 2006-07-21 03:33 · Score: 1

Still, Google is rising fast. Will we someday see Google's net income overtake that of Microsoft, I wonder?
Well, right now, Google's revenue is mainly driven by the growth of the Internet, since it comes mostly from those little ads. I suppose if the Internet grows by a factor of 4, then yeah, they'll have more income than MS. But it'd be better if they had more followthrough on their other ventures, so they weren't so dependent on one single business.
Re:I wonder... by fm6 · 2006-07-21 03:43 · Score: 1

Compete with whom? Nobody has a search engine that's nearly as popular as Google. And if you want to buy cheap pay-per-click ads, Google is your only serious option.
Which is not to say that Google doesn't deserve its success. They didn't blunder into their main business, the way Microsoft did. Their search engine succeeded because it was designed to keep working as the Internet grew. And althought they sort of blundered into the ad business, they didn't make the kind of stupid mistakes MS made when it blundered into the OS business.
Still, Google is almost as much as monopoly as Microsoft. The fact that they got there through their own smarts, as opposed to Bill Gates' blind luck in the IBM/Digital Research fiasco, is beside the point.
Re:I wonder... by Firehed · 2006-07-21 05:19 · Score: 1

Huh? Google doesn't force itself down everybody's throats, unlike Microsoft (what the fuck kind of monopoly can have "micro" in their name?). Hell, I used to use MSN search just to save myself the three letters. And it was by choice. Then I realized that Google only has four different characters, and their homepage is cleaner (read: not one giant ad), loads faster, and gives me far better search results. When Google somehow manages to come preinstalled on every computer and blocks you from using it until they've sold enough ad clicks, they'll be a monopoly. Any prebuilt computer in a major retail store (save the Apple store, of course) has Windows preinstalled, and they sell you a copy whether or not you want it.

Don't get me wrong. They got lucky to an extent. But it wasn't sheer luck, it was designing something that's actually desirable, and taking some risks trying new things. I hate the UI on most eCommerce software, so I just decided to screw it and make my own, and address those usability issues. Google realized that the UI and effectiveness of the other search engines largely sucked, and they did something about it.

Popularity couldn't be farther from deciding if someone has a monopoly. You can't compare something that people use by choice to something effectively forced on you. It's like if Microsoft made 95% of the cars out there (God help us!), and Apple the other 5%. Sure, you could go out and hack together a heavy box of parts to build your own. For the vast majority, it's not a realistic option (far less so than a DIY computer). And Google would be one of the dozens of brands of maps that lets you get more out of your car.

--
How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
Re:I wonder... by fm6 · 2006-07-21 05:32 · Score: 1

Where did I say that Google forces themselves down anybody's throats? I only pointed out that they have no real competition in the search engine and online advertising businesses. Not having competition is the definition of monopoly. You can play fair and still be a monopoly.
Re:I wonder... by blugu64 · 2006-07-21 05:35 · Score: 1

or one really really really big one

--
"Personal ownership is a hallmark of conservative capitalism. And I don't believe I am entitled to anything that I did n

The funny thing by Anonymous Coward · 2006-07-20 21:03 · Score: 0

Of course the funny thing is, if Google's stock value ever lowered to match their actual money flow, people would see it as a "drop" in value and see it as a massively negative sign.

Stupid stock market

Yahoo = adserver and other problems by sjwest · 2006-07-20 21:08 · Score: 2, Insightful

I had a yahoo webmail account, the new webmail beta needs new windows or mac, since i have neither webmail beta is a no go. Explain to me why webmail needs windows or mac binaries - spyware ?

Geocities trashed my webspace too after a couple of years no explaination about that either

What can we learn from yahoo ?

Im not going to spend much time here 'exploring'
I'm not going to use, or buy webmail plus
If yahoo think i visit yahoo just for there webadverts (screen coverage is increasing) then think again.
360 - blog platform is um full of privacy issues for me, and too late
? The 'portal' died ?

Re:Yahoo = adserver and other problems by pete6677 · 2006-07-21 02:26 · Score: 1

Yahoo is not a bad news and information site if you're surfing with an ad-blocker. Without one, its useless and horribly annoying. Their email is OK but certainly not better than gmail. Unless Yahoo really focuses on doing something well rather than trying to do everything poorly, I don't see what the future holds for them. Anyone can put up an ad-infested portal.
Re:Yahoo = adserver and other problems by sjwest · 2006-07-21 06:48 · Score: 1

> Anyone can put up an ad-infested portal.

Indeed

> Yahoo is not a bad news and information site if you're
> surfing with an ad-blocker. Without one, its useless and horribly
> annoying

I see why the chinese government likes Yahoo, my point was while i have some ad blockers I find yahoo a place where any investment in time on stuff is potentailly meaningless if some yahoo person is in bad mood one day.

I have backups, but yahoos customer experience leaves much to be desired.

My google adwords by Anonymous Coward · 2006-07-20 21:09 · Score: 5, Interesting

I pay google around 14000$ per month for adwords. I pay yahoo about $500. In both places, I try to buy as much advertising as I possibly can. Yahoo simply doesnt deliver the clicks, and in fact the clicks coming from Yahoo have been FALLING if anything. Pathetic.

Re:My google adwords by Anonymous Coward · 2006-07-21 06:54 · Score: 0

Clicks are meaningless. Are you getting more sales from Google because of the increase in clicks? Whats the click-to-sale ratio?

Wasnt there a posting awhile back about Google reporting false clicks or something?

721 Million dollars? by Chuck+Chunder · 2006-07-20 21:28 · Score: 3, Insightful

I wish I could come up with that kind of "bad business model"

Seriously though your "possible situation" is 100% laughable. If MS released such a browser it would take a long time to seriously penetrate the market and there would be strong resistance not just from Google. If the browser won't show ads then 99% of sites out there would refuse to serve it content.

Google will certainly face challenges but to suggest that adwords revenue will simply disappear is absurd.

--
Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park

Re:721 Million dollars? by Blink+Tag · 2006-07-21 10:31 · Score: 1

If the browser won't show ads then 99% of sites out there would refuse to serve it content.
So, Firefox +adblock is doomed, huh?

Pummeled into the ground by content providers. by Chuck+Chunder · 2006-07-20 21:33 · Score: 1

Remember when they tried to introduce smart tags? They only aimed to gain MS revenue, not directly stop content providers from getting it. Content providers simply wouldn't stand for it. If MS releases a browser like that then a lot of websites will choose not to serve it content.

--
Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park

Re:Pummeled into the ground by content providers. by Jason+Earl · 2006-07-21 06:57 · Score: 1

Exactly. Instead of a small "get firefox" button on a few websites there would be a "dump internet explorer" landing page on every major website.

Another thing by thealsir · 2006-07-20 21:37 · Score: 2, Insightful

Why is news about google stock on the site? Since search was down, I didn't get to see if slashdot posted news about Yahoo's stock dropping 22% in a day, the largest single drop ever, on Wed. Either make a customized finance.slashdot.org (which I'm sure a lot of slashdotters would be quite happy about, focusing on the financial aspects of certain tech companies and F/OSS finances) or don't report news at all.

But please, none of this "Logo Toilet Paper to replace Charmin at the Googleplex" news. I find slashdot diverging from its focus when it reports minutia about google. Either report all minutia, or report none, and especially don't bias toward certain companies (Yahoo, an equally important company, isn't nearly as well followed?)

--
Do not downmod posts "overrated" simply because you disagree with them.

Re:Another thing by Anonymous Coward · 2006-07-20 21:47 · Score: 0

I find your comment to be along the lines of a typical response from a GNAA member.

I am serving you your walking papers, good sir.
Re:Another thing by sirinek · 2006-07-21 01:16 · Score: 1

I'm a Yahoo! shareholder, you insensitive clod!
Re:Another thing by tehcyder · 2006-07-21 04:04 · Score: 1

"Logo Toilet Paper to replace Charmin at the Googleplex" news
Damn, I think I missed that story, do you have a link?

--
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it

Howabout a worldwide slashdot slashdot day? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-07-20 21:37 · Score: 0

Oooh look, recursion!

Google Operating System by ActiveMatx · 2006-07-20 21:37 · Score: 4, Interesting

Since we are talking about the future of Google... How about Google OS version 1.0. Now I am sure that would be something awesome. With the amount of revenue they have, it's not that far-fetched to think they aren't capable of creating their very own OS. Besides, with the amount of computers we have out here in the world, there really are only 3 operating systems to choose from. Doesn't really seem like that many, considering the amount of cars of types of televisions there is out there.

Re:Google Operating System by pedantic+bore · 2006-07-20 22:13 · Score: 5, Funny

With the amount of revenue they have, it's not that far-fetched to think they aren't capable of creating their very own OS.
People said the same thing about Microsoft.

--
Am I part of the core demographic for Swedish Fish?
Re:Google Operating System by EsbenMoseHansen · 2006-07-20 22:29 · Score: 1
3? Just of the top of myhead
- Linux
- BSD
- Solaris
- Z/OS
- Whatever mac runs
- Windows
- A ton of other UNIX clones
Outside this, there is a looong list of fringe OS, like HURD, plan9 and friends.

If by "really" you mean "has to run on a standard PC for less than 1000", at least Linux, BSD, the max thingy, Solaris 10 and windows qualify.
--
Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful.
Re:Google Operating System by SCPRedMage · 2006-07-20 23:01 · Score: 1

Great idea, except it'd never come out of beta...

--
My sig can beat up your sig.
Re:Google Operating System by SCPRedMage · 2006-07-20 23:08 · Score: 1

Yeah, and then they BOUGHT one.

--
My sig can beat up your sig.
Re:Google Operating System by kjart · 2006-07-20 23:28 · Score: 1

How about Google OS version 1.0.

Lets not forget that Google is essentially an advertising company. I, for one, would not use an Adsense laden OS even if it was free.
Re:Google Operating System by jotaeleemeese · 2006-07-21 00:42 · Score: 1

We are talking reality here, not wishful thinking.

The only players in the desktop market are Windows, Apple and Linux (in all its flavours, mostly Red Hat, SuSe and the latest fashion one,which last year was Gentoo, this year is Ubuntu). All the rest are fringe OSes on this area.

And of course an hypotetical GoogleOS makes sens only in a desktop, so don;t drag all the server share other OSes have.

--
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Re:Google Operating System by LaughingCoder · 2006-07-21 00:48 · Score: 1

Doesn't really seem like that many, considering the amount of cars of types of televisions there is out there.

Bad analogy ... near as I can tell there are not that many kinds of cars either -- gasoline, diesel, hybrid, all-electric, synth-fuel. Sure, there are many models (hatchback, sports car, SUV, etc), but then there are many models of computers too (big iron servers, laptops, ultralights, desktops, workstations ...). Please, please, let's not go back to the days when every hardware vendor had their own operating system; that made for really expensive hardware and really expensive software.

--
The more you regulate a company, the worse its products become.
Re:Google Operating System by miffo.swe · 2006-07-21 01:41 · Score: 1

But Microsoft arent capable of creating a good efficient OS and thats their problem.

--
HTTP/1.1 400
Re:Google Operating System by khallow · 2006-07-21 05:16 · Score: 1

I don't see the benefit to Google from making its own OS. Where's the money that they will make? And since the Google OS would just being a variant of Linux, we'd still end up with the three "operating systems to chose from".

it's all about infrastructure by adam · 2006-07-20 21:39 · Score: 4, Interesting

look at Amazon-- from what I understand (ianastockbroker) their actual inventory itself may not even turn a profit at all, but third party sales and their e-commerce licensing (to Toys-R-Us, Target, etc) makes them more than profitable. this is possible because they have the infrastructure built. when it comes down to it, people like to click on ads and buy stuff. not you, not me, but a percentage of people do. enough to make the ad game profitable, as seen by advertising in other fields (tv, billboards, hell even spam.. someone is clicking on all those links to buy v1agr4 or you and I wouldn't get so much spam).

google is in the process of widely diversifying, and even if microsoft DID roll out a universal adblocker that was installed by default, I can envision several scenarios that google adwords infrastructure would still be useful for. how about when google unveils their free natiowide wifi metropolitan internet access.. of course it's free in exchange for using Gbrowser with AdViewing enabled.

I use gmaps on my BlackBerry8700 all the time.. google's success is all about creating functional/useful utilities (email, mapping, search engine, blogger, gcheckout, whatever) and then stuffing ads in there. The fundamental question is not whether MS can block them, it's whether ads can be profitable, and I believe the answer is yes.

..as an aside, the interesting thing [for me] to ponder, is whether google will ever adapt their business model to gain profit directly from user subscriptions for various services, or whether it will always remain ad-revenue driven

--
I am Jack's complete lack of surprise.

Re:it's all about infrastructure by AngryDill · 2006-07-21 00:20 · Score: 1

True enough. However, AFAIK, all the "diverse" services Google is working on will be offered through the website google.com; providing a single point of failure if, say, the worlds biggest maker of TCP/IP stacks were to introduce code that cripples access to it.
-a.d.-

--

I'm Erwin Schrodinger and I approve of this message, and I do not approve of this message!
Re:it's all about infrastructure by creepynut · 2006-07-21 03:01 · Score: 1

Ever hear of this thing called "mirrors?"
Re:it's all about infrastructure by blugu64 · 2006-07-21 05:47 · Score: 1

Ha! ya we are going to mirror google! Thanks you made my day :)

--
"Personal ownership is a hallmark of conservative capitalism. And I don't believe I am entitled to anything that I did n

The extra money probably came from by SFSouthpaw · 2006-07-20 21:39 · Score: 4, Funny

Yahoo's employees googling for better jobs.

--
---southpaw

Re:The extra money probably came from by dr_clv · 2006-07-21 02:17 · Score: 1

Ironically, the general consensus in the valley is that Google does not value their engineers, but rather overworks them. Meanwhile, Yahoo has been named one of the best companies to work for in the US.
Re:The extra money probably came from by Anonymous Coward · 2006-07-21 04:55 · Score: 0

Yahoo! is the best company I've worked for as far as treating their employees well. Too bad our products suck.

Will Goolge eclipse Microsoft? by CurtMonash · 2006-07-20 21:59 · Score: 2, Interesting

Richard Brandt argues with passion that Google will eclipse Microsoft. The idea is that all the reasons why Microsoft beat everybody else don't apply to Google. I disagree, however, because I don't see Google's advantage as having much sustainability.

On the other hand, I was fairly late to realizing how sustainable Microsoft's advantage would prove, back in my stock analyst days, so do consider the source ...

--
To err is human. To forgive is good system design.

1 2 3 Profit! by Eudial · 2006-07-20 22:03 · Score: 0, Redundant

1. ???
2. ???
3. Profit!

--
GAAH! MY PRINTER IS ON FIRE!!! PUT IT OUT! PUT IT OUT!

Re:1 2 3 Profit! by Anonymous Coward · 2006-07-20 22:10 · Score: 1, Funny

1. Don't be evil
2. Be Evil
3. Profit!!!
Re:1 2 3 Profit! by $RANDOMLUSER · 2006-07-20 22:31 · Score: 1

1. Don't be evil
2. Be Evil
3. Profit!!!

I think we have a winner here in the "Secret to Life" category...

--
No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill

Clickity click, Google wins! by Antifuse · 2006-07-20 22:03 · Score: 2, Interesting

And how much of that profit is due to AdSense click fraud?

Google Accelerator by MarkByers · 2006-07-20 22:12 · Score: 1

I have to admit I never understood what the fuss over the Google Accelerator was. Wasn't it just a proxy server? There are loads of proxy servers already, and I don't see people complaining about those...

Even so Google managed to deflect the anger after a mistake. Sony, Microsoft, etc. seem to be less succesful at doing this.

--
I'll probably be modded down for this...

Re:Google Accelerator by magicchex · 2006-07-20 22:47 · Score: 1

I know part of what it did was pre-fetch likely "next links" before you clicked them and this of course ate up bandwith for servers. I wonder if that was what the fuss was about?

--
How many fulltime jobs can one man have?
Re:Google Accelerator by aftk2 · 2006-07-21 11:18 · Score: 1

There were also stories about how this pre-fetching behavior led to problems with certain web applications: for example, say a particular web-based email program displays email message controls as simple text links. Suppose one of these links is the "delete message" link. Login and view your email with the accelerator installed and *poof* there goes your email.

Now, the web accelerator didn't "click" on any buttons or anything, or do any posting to the server, and in a perfect world all web applications would perform these substantive actions with either POST requests or JavaScript, but that isn't the case.

--
concrete5: a cms made for marketing, but strong enough for geeks.

I'll bet its all those profits from China... by aapold · 2006-07-20 22:15 · Score: 0, Redundant

That's why they [censored] the chinese.

--
"Waste not one watt!" - CZ

Comment removed by account_deleted · 2006-07-20 22:42 · Score: 1

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Google ... and beta by corychristison · 2006-07-20 22:43 · Score: 2, Funny

As much as I love to use Google [the search engine mostly] I am sick of this 'Beta' thing.

Everything that comes out of any company is now branded as 'Beta' Software / websites. The new Microsoft Live crap, Yahoo is branding their crap as Beta... I'm sick of it.

Now, perhaps they could hire Tom Cruise to utilize his witchcraft to somehow get Beta as a trademark -- then they could lay on the royalty fee's on any company using it for commerical use -- I'm sure that would quadruple their profits! :-)

By the way -- did I mention how much I hate the word 'Beta'?

Re:Google ... and beta by stormi · 2006-07-20 23:32 · Score: 0

While I agree with you that the word Beta may be overused a bit lately, I don't think that having more "beta" products than before is necessarily a bad thing. How many times have companies put out products that *should* have been labeled Beta but weren't? (ex, Windows). At least by tacking Beta on the end the company is admitting that there may still be substantial amounts of bugs for them to fix.

Then again, "Beta" is an easy cop-out to cover up bugs they didn't realize were there - and if they leave "Beta" tacked onto the name long enough I start to wonder if the company ever meant to fix remaining bugs or not.

--
"if only i had known i would have been a locksmith." -albert einstein
Re:Google ... and beta by Jaysu · 2006-07-21 07:13 · Score: 1

I sea whaat u meean. THeir is no kneed for beta anything. Just releasE stuff as an final vershion, even if it isn'T fully ready yet.

PS - this is a *Beta* post. Spell checking to follow before final release...

Being in the beta stage is a path ALL software must follow.

--
It has been said that 63% of all statistics are made up
Re:Google ... and beta by corychristison · 2006-07-21 08:17 · Score: 1

Being a software/web developer, I know what the beta software cycle is and what it is intended for.

Using it as a selling point, however, is misuse.
Next time, read what I am saying before you reply. I was not saying Beta is bad... I was saying it's bad for software companies [Microsoft] to use it as a SELLING POINT. They are piggy-backing off what Google did just because they felt it was necessary to inform us that Gmail was likely to not be 100% reliable.
Re:Google ... and beta by jrentona · 2006-07-21 16:49 · Score: 1

ALPHA software is freshly implemented, in the process of being Unit and Integration tested in the lab by the developers and QA.

BETA simply means the software is pre-released to the general public. No test set can entirely simulate production in most cases; so every complex software system benefits from being exposed to courageous testers outside of the lab.

The problem is that the fast food management styles coming out of our business schools are incompatible with software QA. Testing gets a back seat to basically everything on the management agenda. Stuff gets designed without a test plans. A short half-hearted alpha testing phase is rushed over. It then goes immediatly to BETA and stays there for the life of the product. Hence your aversion to the term BETA, which I believe is quite justified.

James
Beverly, MA

Google... by unforkable · 2006-07-20 22:51 · Score: 1

Oh! Revenues dropped today! google has been slashdotted!

Holding breath., by rzekson · 2006-07-20 22:58 · Score: 2, Insightful

I'm holding my breath waiting until Google, the holy virgin and the axis of all goodness, donates a fraction of their profit comparable to that contributed by the much hated Microsoft.

Re:Holding breath., by Somegeek · 2006-07-21 01:15 · Score: 1

Microsoft isn't donating its corporate fortune, Bill Gates is donating his personal fortune. One does not reflect on the other.

--
And as you tread the halls of sanity, You feel so glad to be, Unable to go beyond. I have a message, From another time..
Re:Holding breath., by rzekson · 2006-07-21 01:23 · Score: 1

Wrong, MS matches 1:1 donations of its employees. What do Google or Google's founders do, beyond being in vogue?
Re:Holding breath., by Anonymous Coward · 2006-07-21 01:46 · Score: 0

So you like paying MS to pay to charities.

Have you thought about cutting out the middle-man and paying direct?
Re:Holding breath., by panaceaa · 2006-07-21 03:33 · Score: 1

Good news for you, they already are: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic le/2005/10/11/AR2005101101788.html.

I'm glad you didn't asphyxiate yourself today!

--
my blog
Re:Holding breath., by Anonymous Coward · 2006-07-21 04:09 · Score: 0

Google matches 1:1 donations of its employees, plus there are lots of additional donations by the company and by google.org.

It is just me or... by BugDoomBug · 2006-07-20 23:18 · Score: 1

has the quality of Google dropped this past year?

Seriously, how many of you still use the basic Google search function, and find results you want rather than Google Bombed sites and link farms set up by a hundred SEOs trying to make it to the top of the search results.

Yes, this has always been a problem looking for p0rn, since they were, and always will be, ahead of the game, so you always has bullshit results to begin with, but now it has moved on to even basic searches for information, all by this SEO war of promising their clients "top results" even for bullshit not related to them.

--
YouStockIt - Education through Unorthodox Methods

Re:It is just me or... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-07-21 00:04 · Score: 0

Google have to play the SEO game, if they refused to play the search spammers would target other search engines. By playing along, Google creates a feedback loop and that is the key to their success. Big oil and the federal reserve are good examples of how these loops inflate capital (as opposed to generating wealth). Oil is traded in dollars which are then re-invested in the US, to help fund "wars against terror".

As long as the search spammers are hitting Google, it's driving up the value of the adwords system. Sitemaps is a interesting as a precursor to full partnership programs for the SEO business, where strict rules will ensure that only accurate metadata is submitted. Finally, when google already hold the winning hand, they will declare a war against terror^w search spammers.

paul graham quote by rucs_hack · 2006-07-20 23:35 · Score: 1

'We can't have another Microsoft unless someone else is prepared to bend over and be the next IBM'

Microsoft is scared of Google because unlike them, google built up it's current powerbase through being better then everyone else, not through rushing to, and maintaining, a manopoly.

Of the two, Google's business model is the most stable.

Microsoft missed out on search completelly. They dislike google for having the market share they should 'rightly' have. However, if Microsofts vision was so good, why did MSN fail on it's first outing. No-one was interested in it, or at least not enough people. I tried it, I hated it.

It's a matter of corporate outlook. Googles vision simply suits the market better. They have a superior market share because of this, but not a monopoly. Microsoft are almost certainly going to try for a monopoly position in search, it's the only way they work. Have Google tried to shut down competition? Nope, they just beat them by simply being better.

Whether conciously or not, people like google because they are good at what they do, people like microsoft because they don't see any alternative. Many still don't realise there is an alternative in fact. I meet computer users who don't even know linux exists for example.

Microsoft aren't going anywhere soon, and they will remain powerful, albeit possibly changed. Alas for them they sat back and basked in manopoly while other, smaller companies and groups started out, exploiting the area's that microsoft were ingnoring, being Unix clones in X86 (linux/BSD), and Search.
Too late microsoft have woken up, and it is too late. All they can hope for now is to gain leverage in the corporate world through their installed base to bring in products that compete with google and Linux.

Their browser will remain default on most computers for the time being, but I can see other browsers being bundled as default soon. The old microsoft cudgle to prevent this isn't as powerful as it once was.

Re:paul graham quote by Anonymous Coward · 2006-07-21 00:03 · Score: 0

a manopoly sounds pretty sexy to me
Re:paul graham quote by ArchangelTyrael · 2006-07-21 00:39 · Score: 1

"I meet computer users who don't even know linux exists for example." Just the other day I found out my aunt doesn't know what a Macintosh Computer is. Not a single clue (I was dumbfounded).
Re:paul graham quote by I'm+Don+Giovanni · 2006-07-21 10:54 · Score: 1

First of all, Microsoft is "scared" of everyone.

Second, you hold Google in too high a regard; you've actually drank the "do no evil" Kool-Aid, as evidenced by your syconphantic rhetoric: "Have Google tried to shut down competition? Nope, they just beat them by simply being better."

How about Google's exclusive deal with Apple to block other search engines from appearing in the search field of OSX's default browser?

And it's debatable whether Google is "simply being better"; their search results have really began to suck over the last year or so; unless you enjoy the search results directing you to pages that are nothing but other search indexes, which refer to more search indexes, and on and on, each page filled with Google adsense ads.

--
-- "I never gave these stories much credence." - HAL 9000

Crystal Balls by Anonymous Coward · 2006-07-20 23:38 · Score: 0

Their forward-looking P/E is 30.

That number is just an educated guess at best. Taking that number seriously, as it was in the late 90's, is fool hardy. It's best to completely ignore that number. See this: A Random Walk Down Wall Street in case you haven't. Enjoy!

Happy for Google by brennz · 2006-07-20 23:47 · Score: 1

I'm happy to hear that Google is making a large amount of profit. In fact, I hope they make even more profit.

I can think of many things that Google has done:

a search engine that outperforms all others.
financial support for firefox
google earth
gmail (webmail that doesn't suck)
picassa
google maps
google summer of code supporting my favorite OSS projects
google calendar
kicking Microsoft's .ss

I am hoping google in the next year will come out with more products, support more OSS, and do even greater things. Oh and fix google browser sync too!

Re:Happy for Google by si618 · 2006-07-21 01:37 · Score: 1

> Oh and fix google browser sync too!

Yeah it's not perfect but it's still very cool! I was lamenting the fading of bookmark synchronizer when google browser sync appeared on the scene...

If I had mod points I'd give them to you, gmail (bye bye thunderbird), google calendar (with the firefox notifier extension) are great and I use them every day.

--
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to Sparkle Motion

And in related news... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-07-21 00:16 · Score: 0

Google can finally afford that new vending machine in the lobby.

Re:And in related news... by MedBob · 2006-07-21 00:32 · Score: 0

That's an indirect reason for their profitability.
I don't think that they have vending machines.
Want a coke? Just grab it from the fridge in the break room.
No charge.....
Re:And in related news... by robertjw · 2006-07-21 03:40 · Score: 1

They don't have 'Coke', just Diet Green Tea Organic Environmentally Friendly beverages.

--
Find coupons in Greeley
Re:And in related news... by MedBob · 2006-07-21 04:22 · Score: 0

I realize that it's the left coast,
But if it's coders.... It's soda... (From the right coast) .... And HotPockets http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0298814/

'Slashdot' is already a verb. by brunes69 · 2006-07-21 00:21 · Score: 1

It's just rarely used in the present tense.

'Slashdotted' is a very common term and is used frequently. Same with 'dug', although 'dug of course was always a verb :P

Negative tint by UnknowingFool · 2006-07-21 00:34 · Score: 1

Sometimes everybody wants to see the glass as half empty. Yahoo had a second quarter profit of $163 million. It was lowered than expected and lower than last year's $755 million for the same time period.

--
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.

Yahoo! needs serious work... by mi · 2006-07-21 00:52 · Score: 1

I've been a long-time fan (and a stock-holder) of the company. Their software-quality has slipped noticably during the years. Their web-pages contain horribly broken HTML at times, with the bug existing for many months until it finaly goes away and the same browser no longer has a problem.

Their "message boards" (attached to each article) are some times either completely inaccessible, or have features missing — the "recommendations", for example, were broken for a couple of weeks recently. Someone must've been on vacation...

The stock dropped over 20% two days ago, because their software-writing was not fast enough for the new advertising model(s). They must do something, or Google will eat them alive...

--
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.

I, for one,... by Baldrson · 2006-07-21 00:54 · Score: 1

... ah the hell with it.

--
Seastead this.

You have strange demands. by NDPTAL85 · 2006-07-21 00:58 · Score: 1

Who do you think runs Slashdot, robots? No, its run by humans. All humans have favorites and biases and beloved underdogs. So I really don't think your request is going to go very far. Its focus is "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters". Google is nerdy and matters. Anything they do is nerdy and matters.

Understand?

--
Mac OS X and Windows XP working side by side to fight back the night.

Its the results with ADS by dindi · 2006-07-21 01:15 · Score: 1

I am not surprised. Every second page I access after a google search, is just a scraped result, full of google ads placed in a tricky confusing way.

Stuffed so bad, you really have to figure it out if you are clicking on an ad or an other link.

Actually most of the pages that come up are teh definition of "excessive advertising", and supposedly google policy forbids that for adsense and adwords clients.... but they do not seem to enforce it too much ...

oh well, i am using a lot of yahoo, and sometimes even msn, or getting more and more into mixed results such as dogpile, or alternatives, such as ASK ..

Amnesty International's View of Google by WED+Fan · 2006-07-21 01:20 · Score: 1

Meanwhile, Amnesty International has placed Google and other biggies on their list of Internet companies who are helping the oppressors and not the opressed. (http://news.amnesty.org/index/ENGACT300162006)

Of course the story was spiked by the editors of a particular nerd news site.

--
Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong fix.

Why Google OS 1.0? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-07-21 01:25 · Score: 0

Heck, I'm waiting for Google OS/2!

Little one-time gains, from a biased non-observer by mflaster · 2006-07-21 02:06 · Score: 1

(Note: I work for Google, so I'm hopelessly biased.)

From the NY Times:

Google earned $721.1 million, or $2.33 a share in the quarter, compared with $342.8 million, or $1.19 a share, in the period a year ago. Excluding charges related to stock-based compensation and a gain from the sale of its shares in Baidu, the Chinese Internet company, Google earned $2.49 a share. Analysts had expected the company to earn $2.22 on that basis.

I believe the Baidu sale yielded like $60 million.

Personally, I don't care what Wall Street expects. If growth goes from 80% to 70% to 60% to 50%, our P/E will be like 10 (at $400/share), and we'll still be growing at a really high rate.

Do the math, and forget about projections. If you take the $2.33 GAAP number, and look at the run rate (this would be a middle ground between ttm and projected), $2.33 * 4 = 9.32, which gives GOOG a 43 P/E ratio.

How does that make GOOG way overvalued?

Sadly... by imsabbel · 2006-07-21 02:11 · Score: 0, Troll

Microsoft makes money by selling software, which might actually be of use for people.

Google makes money by data-mining, information hogging and add selling, which by itself is the incarnation of all that is evil about the web going commercial.

But somehow,google is the one thats "not evil". I guess marketing works.

--
HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?

Re:Sadly... by Alexandra+Erenhart · 2006-07-21 02:34 · Score: 1, Troll

Microsoft makes money by selling software, which might actually be of use for people.

Keyword: "Might"

Google could be all the things you said, but at least it gets the job done. Their search engine works. Their tools work. And I definitely can choose to use Google or not. Not many people can say the same about Microsoft products.
Re:Sadly... by rainman_bc · 2006-07-21 03:48 · Score: 1

. Their search engine works.

What? Have you used it lately?

Link farms, usenet dumps, and useless google spam. It works okay, but there's gotta be some innovation soon...

--
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
Re:Sadly... by Alexandra+Erenhart · 2006-07-21 03:55 · Score: 1

Because of my thesis work, I've been using scholar.google.com lately a lot, for researching purposes. So far I've found everthing I've needed. Is a great tool.

I do agree that there should be some innovation thought.
Re:Sadly... by teetam · 2006-07-21 04:37 · Score: 1

If you hate google, you could easily avoid using it. That is harder to do with Microsoft. Therefore, google has a much heavier penalty if it turns evil (like yahoo did, to some extent). You could choose not to use MS products as well, but it is harder for regular people to do so.

--
All your favorite sites in one place!

No content for blocked ads? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-07-21 02:12 · Score: 0

I have virtually every adserver blocked from my browser and sites mysteriously still send me content.

Why didn't I invest in this thing by cdjfelton · 2006-07-21 03:45 · Score: 1

I saw it coming a miles away. I guess I should have had money. That would have helped.

One word to describe those who love fuck-le'Google by Anonymous Coward · 2006-07-21 05:14 · Score: 0

Baaaa

if they start that I'm selling my stock. by /dev/trash · 2006-07-21 05:14 · Score: 1

I want profit to be used for R&D not some tax evading scheme. Which is exactly why MS does it.

Slashdot... A nice forum... by ebtebee · 2006-07-21 05:14 · Score: 2

to read and archive anything and everything about Google. It has all the news and more and a huge GOOGLE fan base. Wonder if they are related?

203 comments