This is interesting only for the fact that it would allow IBM to further distance itself from Microsoft and Intel. There is no doubt in my mind the big-wigs at IBM are really annoyed their predecessors got punked by Redmond. If they're successful in selling the unit, it would be interesting to see if they would begin migrating their server product lines away from Microsoft as well. There is already much publicized talk about IBM corporate going from Microsoft OS's to linux, perhaps this is just a step away from license dependent products. It isn't as though IBM needs the revenue from the PC business.
First of all, google will NEVER EVER charge the public for their email or their desktop application. They will shut these projects down if they can't make money from advertising. Secondly, did you examine their income statement? The 52mln is a low ball estimate when you consider they had a 201mln 1 time charge for their yahoo lawsuit (check it out). Lawsuits are bound to occur and there will always be legal expenses but I'd be willing to wager against another 201mln dollar charge in the near future. So if you take away the charge and recalculate the income, you're looking at a company that absolutely obliterated their year-ago quarter. What made the internet bubble so crazy was that companies like priceline, VA Linux Systems, Amazon, and even yahoo were being given ridiculous valuations with very little earnings and huge losses. Google, on the otherhand, is clearly growing at a tremendous rate, they're enormously profitable, hugely popular, and in the possession of proven technology that few large scale players have been able to top. I agree their valuation is very high, but there is at least a token of logic behind it.
30 - 35 Billion for Google. In my opinion that's insane, but I still think it will pop even after the auction has ended. Consider it this way, it seems pretty clear that google has technology superior to Yahoo. Yahoo gets credit for being the first hugely successful portal (i know there have been others, but yahoo's pretty much the last one at the party). Google, while a little late to the game, has definitely proved to be the master of search thus far (again, other search technologies are in production, but nothing can currently match googles breadth of coverage). Yahoo is currently trading as something ridiculous like 105 p/e. That's a crazy price and it won't last forever, but that doesn't mean that google's market pricing won't be equally or more irrational than yahoo's. Google is the 'it' company right now and no one is going to argue that they don't have a boat-load of talent and brains in their company. Their approach is much more scientific and well thought out than any of the other internet players and that superiority will be rewarded by the market giving the company an even loftier p/e than yahoo currently enjoys. Despite their recent troubles with this over publicized IPO, their technology has still been successful enough to reach the masses.
In addition, the market needs a wakeup call. It needs something to bring some positive sentiment back to the public's eye. I think google will do this.
Oh, and they're profitable, something that all of the big internet companies were not when they first when public. AMZN, YHOO, EBAY, how much money did they chew through before they were in the black. This isn't 1999 anymore, but that doesn't mean we've all learned our lessons.
Anyone else consider sending one of these beasts to an ex-girlfriend or two with a simple note expressing your regret not getting them flowers more often.
Whether you're shopping at Walmart, EBX, Best Buy, Amazon, etc... We should all be happy that the prices of games haven't risen proportional to inflation. In the mid-80's a single Nintendo game would often cost $40 - $50. The 16-bit SNES and Genesis offered games in the $50 - $70 range. Of course the media used to create games has plummetted in price (cd/dvd as opposed to cartridge), but the production cost and complexity of the software have both increased dramatically. There is no reason to complain about the cost of a game, regardless of where you buy it.
Nintendo needs a presence on the Internet if they are going to survive. A good starting point for Nintendo would be to leverage their existing catalog to create a more enjoyable online experience. How?? Update some of their classics to include online play and include them on a chip on their next gen machine. Perhaps I'm an old-timer, but I'd love to fight someone in Punchout or go head to head with someone in the original F-Zero. The graphics are worn out and the music stinks, but the games are flat out fun and addictive. It seems like a simple way to ease their way into the online gaming arena and it would give them a unique product that no other console could compete with.
Obviously this post points out a very big flaw in the way MS approaches its business practices, but honestly who in the/. audience doesn't already know that. I'm so sick of these 'MS-Sucks' flame bait posts. There are so many other things happening in the world of techdom, why do we have to dedicate 4-5 posts a day to proclaiming our dislike for the way MS behaves. To those who make these posts, please move onto a different topic. The community as a whole will be more informative and more respected if the topics were not constantly recycled. Let me guess, in the next 3 hours we'll see some post about how SCO is a terrible company too!!! Ooh, lots to learn there too.
Rumor has it that in order to spread the word for this movement the minnesota politician is going to be using a 'Large Mail Merge' to inform the public of the idea.... uh wait um..
Slashdot Mirror
This is interesting only for the fact that it would allow IBM to further distance itself from Microsoft and Intel. There is no doubt in my mind the big-wigs at IBM are really annoyed their predecessors got punked by Redmond. If they're successful in selling the unit, it would be interesting to see if they would begin migrating their server product lines away from Microsoft as well. There is already much publicized talk about IBM corporate going from Microsoft OS's to linux, perhaps this is just a step away from license dependent products. It isn't as though IBM needs the revenue from the PC business.
First of all, google will NEVER EVER charge the public for their email or their desktop application. They will shut these projects down if they can't make money from advertising. Secondly, did you examine their income statement? The 52mln is a low ball estimate when you consider they had a 201mln 1 time charge for their yahoo lawsuit (check it out). Lawsuits are bound to occur and there will always be legal expenses but I'd be willing to wager against another 201mln dollar charge in the near future. So if you take away the charge and recalculate the income, you're looking at a company that absolutely obliterated their year-ago quarter. What made the internet bubble so crazy was that companies like priceline, VA Linux Systems, Amazon, and even yahoo were being given ridiculous valuations with very little earnings and huge losses. Google, on the otherhand, is clearly growing at a tremendous rate, they're enormously profitable, hugely popular, and in the possession of proven technology that few large scale players have been able to top. I agree their valuation is very high, but there is at least a token of logic behind it.
30 - 35 Billion for Google. In my opinion that's insane, but I still think it will pop even after the auction has ended. Consider it this way, it seems pretty clear that google has technology superior to Yahoo. Yahoo gets credit for being the first hugely successful portal (i know there have been others, but yahoo's pretty much the last one at the party). Google, while a little late to the game, has definitely proved to be the master of search thus far (again, other search technologies are in production, but nothing can currently match googles breadth of coverage). Yahoo is currently trading as something ridiculous like 105 p/e. That's a crazy price and it won't last forever, but that doesn't mean that google's market pricing won't be equally or more irrational than yahoo's. Google is the 'it' company right now and no one is going to argue that they don't have a boat-load of talent and brains in their company. Their approach is much more scientific and well thought out than any of the other internet players and that superiority will be rewarded by the market giving the company an even loftier p/e than yahoo currently enjoys. Despite their recent troubles with this over publicized IPO, their technology has still been successful enough to reach the masses. In addition, the market needs a wakeup call. It needs something to bring some positive sentiment back to the public's eye. I think google will do this. Oh, and they're profitable, something that all of the big internet companies were not when they first when public. AMZN, YHOO, EBAY, how much money did they chew through before they were in the black. This isn't 1999 anymore, but that doesn't mean we've all learned our lessons.
Anyone else consider sending one of these beasts to an ex-girlfriend or two with a simple note expressing your regret not getting them flowers more often.
Whether you're shopping at Walmart, EBX, Best Buy, Amazon, etc... We should all be happy that the prices of games haven't risen proportional to inflation. In the mid-80's a single Nintendo game would often cost $40 - $50. The 16-bit SNES and Genesis offered games in the $50 - $70 range. Of course the media used to create games has plummetted in price (cd/dvd as opposed to cartridge), but the production cost and complexity of the software have both increased dramatically. There is no reason to complain about the cost of a game, regardless of where you buy it.
Nintendo needs a presence on the Internet if they are going to survive. A good starting point for Nintendo would be to leverage their existing catalog to create a more enjoyable online experience. How?? Update some of their classics to include online play and include them on a chip on their next gen machine. Perhaps I'm an old-timer, but I'd love to fight someone in Punchout or go head to head with someone in the original F-Zero. The graphics are worn out and the music stinks, but the games are flat out fun and addictive. It seems like a simple way to ease their way into the online gaming arena and it would give them a unique product that no other console could compete with.
Obviously this post points out a very big flaw in the way MS approaches its business practices, but honestly who in the /. audience doesn't already know that. I'm so sick of these 'MS-Sucks' flame bait posts. There are so many other things happening in the world of techdom, why do we have to dedicate 4-5 posts a day to proclaiming our dislike for the way MS behaves. To those who make these posts, please move onto a different topic. The community as a whole will be more informative and more respected if the topics were not constantly recycled. Let me guess, in the next 3 hours we'll see some post about how SCO is a terrible company too!!! Ooh, lots to learn there too.
Rumor has it that in order to spread the word for this movement the minnesota politician is going to be using a 'Large Mail Merge' to inform the public of the idea.... uh wait um..