over 6 million student accounts, with around 20k new per day
of the colleges supported, 85% of students have profiles
of this 85%, 60% log in daily, 93% log in at least once a month
So let's say... 6 million users, $750 mil price - that's paying $125 per user. If you needed a 10% return and assuming it's a stable user base that won't disappear, you'd want to make a profit of $12.50 per user per year. Is that reasonable? I don't think it's unattainable given it's regularly used and the site's demographic.
If they get $2 bil and you need a 15% return, you'd want to make $50 per user per year, or you'd need additional user growth beyond the 6 mil.
Google's key strength is server-centric services, and I think it will continue to lead in this area.
The key question is -- do you think we are moving to a server-centric world? For 20 years the home PC has been the key focus, but as broadband (always on) connections become ubiquitous and speeds increase, the disadvantages of doing things server-side declines.
My view is that we are moving towards a world where more things reside server-side, and Google will lead in this area.
For businesses, I think they'd embrace a server-driven application that was hosted in-house. Given Google provides enterprise search in this form, I don't think it's a stretch to imagine them offering a application suite that's hosted within the business down the track, while also providing online versions for individuals (or businesses that want to use them.)
I've used Writely for about 5 months now. Obviously I like it, but what I see as the pros + cons are:
Pros * Good, clean user interface * Access documents from anywhere (main reason I use it) * Don't lose your documents if your PC dies * Sharing documents is good when planning things in groups
Cons * Privacy issues * Not as feature rich as Word
Privacy wasn't really a concern of mine, mainly because the documents I work on aren't highly confidential -- I'm not writing down my PIN numbers and not plotting evil plans.;) If you're not doing those, then it just becomes a trade-off between privacy and convenience.
Features I'd like them to add include: user-defined styles, ability to copy/paste graphics, and improved table layouts. So far though, it's pretty good.
In other words, check it out once it's open again.;)
A bunch of people write an ad, and bid on a keyword, stating how much they're willing to pay for a click. When someone searches for that term, Google shows ads based on (1) how much people are bidding at that time, and (2) how many clicks those ads have gotten in the past (so dud ads don't get shown after a while).
If Google gives up to $90 mil of advertising credits to advertisers, what will happen is:
1) For recipients who already advertise, they'll probably advertise the same as they would already, but rather than paying cash to Google they'll use up their credits.
2) For recipients who used to advertise on Google but no longer do, they'll probably put some ads on there to use their credits. They'll bid some amount, which may raise bid values slightly (since these are determined by what everyone else is willing to pay as advertisers compete with each other).
Practically speaking, though, it's unlikely to have much material impact, given they sold $6139 million of advertising in the last year and it's growing at a fairly healthy rate.
Wall Street analysts like guidance because it gives them something to base their own estimates on, which hopefully means estimates overall are closer to the mark.
Google, following true Warren Buffett style, have so far refused to give guidance and I think this will continue.
The problem with giving guidance is it can distract management by putting the focus on meeting short-term estimates, which can be at odds with creating long-term guidance.
For example, let's say you run a company and you've put a number out there for earnings this quarter. You notice your sales are coming in strong, so you'll miss. What do you do? The temptation is to cut back on discretionary spending like, say, advertising, even though doing so might not be in the best interests of long-term shareholders.
Better to just not provide guidance, and let the numbers speak for themselves over time.
A lot of their free products do help the company directly or indirectly.
Gmail shows ads. Google Video has for-pay content. Google Maps (now Google Local) shows ads.
Google News (and other ad-free services) don't make money directly, but arguably these extra services increase their brand and the likelihood people use Google for other services they do make money from.
Given they don't break out the profit on a per-product basis, and we don't know the extent that other products (like News) really do help, it's hard to judge them on much else other than the numbers they do provide -- and they've been excellent.
"Unless you configure Google Desktop very carefully, and few people will, Google will have copies of your tax returns, love letters,..."
The option to access other PCs, which sends index information to Google, is turned off by default.
Plenty of people will leave it off as they'll have no use for the feature, and this particular feature is also not the only new thing in Google Desktop. The widget-like panels you can drag around your screen are neat too.:)
Wow, that's a shockingly bad story. I've had bad experiences with some web retailers before, but it didn't compare to that!
With shopping search engines placing the focus directly on price, and the ease at which you can set up an online store, it probably invites people like this to set up low quality operations where they cut costs by doing things like not having stock.
I agree you should target the people behind such sites rather than the sites themselves, as it's too easy for them to just set up a new site and do it all over again.
This would be great for multiplayer console games like Halo. You could sit on different sides of the room and each have a full screen to look at, rather than having half the screen.
It's practically difficult to do this without severely limiting in-game trade. This is especially true if you still want to allow any of the following scenarios:
- You give some gold to your friend - You give some gold to an alt - You lend some gold to a player to get them started and they repay you back later - You pay someone for services (like helping you kill some monster)
>The only reason I can figure for paying someone else >to play a game for you is some inferority complex >...
Let me enlighten you.:)
These aren't short-term games. They are played over long times, and when you first start out you can't access all the content in the game. Some content is more fun than other content.
Exploring dungeon XYZ at a high level is probably more fun than doing the newbie zone.
So one possible reason for "paying someone to play the game" is so that you can access more of the game's content earlier.
This probably makes more sense for you if you're either time-poor or easily distracted (and want to quickly explore various areas before moving on to the next MMORPG, without the hassle of spending countless hours killing Mob A, etc).
You mention that you pay the monthly fee because you're paying for entertainment... Well, that's exactly why some people pay for in-game items / characters / advancement -- it lets them access things they find enjoyable that they wouldn't be able to (at that particular time) otherwise.
I haven't bought anything in WOW specifically, but have (gold) in other MMORPGs.
The reason for me isn't so I feel elite or anything like that. It's simply a matter of saving time + accessing more interesting content earlier.
A lot of these games involve long, tedious activities to advance. It's understandable -- without it many players would finish all the content way too quickly.
The result is that you need to spend a lot of time doing tedious things before you get to the "interesting" content.
If you're someone with limited time and want to experience this, your options are to just do a little bit of tedious activity continously or advance faster.
If they are violating the game's rules, then you could say that is wrong.
In the greater sense, I don't think they are doing anything wrong. They are providing a valuable service for those who want to enjoy the content but don't have the time to do so.
Some people suggest that buying in-game items or advantage is somehow unfair or inequitable. I would argue that these games take a long time to play, so the fact that I work full time and have little time to play whereas some players can spend a lot more time in-game is also unfair.
So some have more time, and some have more money. I don't see a problem with people trading one for another, especially when it has next to no impact on other players in-game.
Some may complain about how farming converts games into a "queue" system where you wait your turn. WOW have solved some of this with bind-on-pickup items and instances, as has been previously mentioned.
I'd say the blame for any problem beyond this must be placed on the game designers. I mean, it's pretty obvious by now that people will try to sell in-game currency and items, isn't it? It isn't exactly a new service that should take designers completely by surprise.
>I honestly think it's sickening to imagine people >willing to spend this much money on something that >isn't real.
You mean like Pay TV?
Arguably that's a service that isn't "real".
Many of these games are designed to require a time investment before you access later-stage game content. Some people don't have the time or inclination to do this, but want to experience this.
The obvious solution is to buy it from a willing seller, effectively converting your money to something you find enjoyable.
I don't see how this is much different from paying a regular fee to watch Pay TV or other entertainment experiences that you don't keep once it's over.
>GOOG does have positive cashflow (~$238m last >quarter), but that pales to, say, Microsoft ($4b).
Certainly does.:)
Wasn't trying to make a statement about valuation or whether it's cheap or expensive... Just that they didn't raise capital to fund their expenditure, as opposed to many dot coms that were in the red...
>A company normally goes public because it needs >the extra bit of investment, right?
Yes, but Google isn't an ordinary company. Google is highly cashflow positive and didn't need to raise capital. I think the main reason it went public was so that there was a market for existing shareholders (like employees with options) to sell shares, and because they reached a size where they needed to disclose a lot of information anyway.
>Do shares continue to affect how much money it >has once it's gone public?
Typically not -- unless they want to raise more money, or want to issue shares to take over another company.
>If investors don't care about ethics and google >ignores this, their stock will go down and they >won't be an attractive investment.
Yes, but since the Google founders have effective control, they might not care.:)
>Shareholders usually prefer profits over ethics.
True, but that's probably why there's a dual class share structure where the founders effectively retain control, allowing them to ignore the desires of other shareholders if they so choose.
>I can't see how a phone based system can rely on
>that business model.
Here's how.
You don't interrupt phone calls when people are on the phone - people wouldn't stand for that.
What it lets you do, however, is allow advertisers to buy "pay per call" advertising in search results.
Here's how I picture it working -- you decide to go out to an Italian restaurant and want to go to somewhere near Marina Del Rey, California.
You pop open the Google site (or Google Local), put in "italian restaurants" in "Marina Del Rey", and it gives you a list of restaurants in the area with their location on the map.
It shows some "sponsored links" too that have a phone number you can click, and by doing so it seamlessly places your call through using their VOIP network.
You as a consumer pay nothing for this, but the business doing the advertising does. Google Local would also show you the driving directions to your location, traffic conditions, and any other information you might need.
Perhaps this is where their recent acquisition of Keyhole fits in too.
If this is their plan, then I think it makes sense. It fits their existing advertising model while recognising that many businesses right now are better equipped to handle phone calls than emails. I've found this especially true for most restaurants and the like, anyway.:)
I've always found part of the attraction of cable is the ability to channel flick and come across random things I might find interesting that I wasn't necessarily searching for.
I think that's the main thing that will keep a "on-demand pay-per-use" model from gaining widespread appeal... or at least will keep the appeal of the bundled services.
I played the Beta a bit and thought WOW was great fun... so looking forward to getting back into it.:)
Does anyone know if you can buy a key online and download the client?
I haven't been able to find anywhere, suggesting I need to go to a store and buy a box... seems so inefficient in the day and age of broadband!
Slashdot Mirror
What do you think it would cost Amazon if something unexpected were to happen to Bezos?
:)
Given their recent stock performance, it would probably be good for the company.
Here's how I would think about the value.
According to Wikipedia the site has
So let's say... 6 million users, $750 mil price - that's paying $125 per user. If you needed a 10% return and assuming it's a stable user base that won't disappear, you'd want to make a profit of $12.50 per user per year. Is that reasonable? I don't think it's unattainable given it's regularly used and the site's demographic.
If they get $2 bil and you need a 15% return, you'd want to make $50 per user per year, or you'd need additional user growth beyond the 6 mil.
Google's key strength is server-centric services, and I think it will continue to lead in this area.
The key question is -- do you think we are moving to a server-centric world? For 20 years the home PC has been the key focus, but as broadband (always on) connections become ubiquitous and speeds increase, the disadvantages of doing things server-side declines.
My view is that we are moving towards a world where more things reside server-side, and Google will lead in this area.
For businesses, I think they'd embrace a server-driven application that was hosted in-house. Given Google provides enterprise search in this form, I don't think it's a stretch to imagine them offering a application suite that's hosted within the business down the track, while also providing online versions for individuals (or businesses that want to use them.)
I've used Writely for about 5 months now. Obviously I like it, but what I see as the pros + cons are:
;) If you're not doing those, then it just becomes a trade-off between privacy and convenience.
;)
Pros
* Good, clean user interface
* Access documents from anywhere (main reason I use it)
* Don't lose your documents if your PC dies
* Sharing documents is good when planning things in groups
Cons
* Privacy issues
* Not as feature rich as Word
Privacy wasn't really a concern of mine, mainly because the documents I work on aren't highly confidential -- I'm not writing down my PIN numbers and not plotting evil plans.
Features I'd like them to add include: user-defined styles, ability to copy/paste graphics, and improved table layouts. So far though, it's pretty good.
In other words, check it out once it's open again.
My understanding of the ad auction system is...
A bunch of people write an ad, and bid on a keyword, stating how much they're willing to pay for a click. When someone searches for that term, Google shows ads based on (1) how much people are bidding at that time, and (2) how many clicks those ads have gotten in the past (so dud ads don't get shown after a while).
If Google gives up to $90 mil of advertising credits to advertisers, what will happen is:
1) For recipients who already advertise, they'll probably advertise the same as they would already, but rather than paying cash to Google they'll use up their credits.
2) For recipients who used to advertise on Google but no longer do, they'll probably put some ads on there to use their credits. They'll bid some amount, which may raise bid values slightly (since these are determined by what everyone else is willing to pay as advertisers compete with each other).
Practically speaking, though, it's unlikely to have much material impact, given they sold $6139 million of advertising in the last year and it's growing at a fairly healthy rate.
Wall Street analysts like guidance because it gives them something to base their own estimates on, which hopefully means estimates overall are closer to the mark.
Google, following true Warren Buffett style, have so far refused to give guidance and I think this will continue.
The problem with giving guidance is it can distract management by putting the focus on meeting short-term estimates, which can be at odds with creating long-term guidance.
For example, let's say you run a company and you've put a number out there for earnings this quarter. You notice your sales are coming in strong, so you'll miss. What do you do? The temptation is to cut back on discretionary spending like, say, advertising, even though doing so might not be in the best interests of long-term shareholders.
Better to just not provide guidance, and let the numbers speak for themselves over time.
A lot of their free products do help the company directly or indirectly.
Gmail shows ads.
Google Video has for-pay content.
Google Maps (now Google Local) shows ads.
Google News (and other ad-free services) don't make money directly, but arguably these extra services increase their brand and the likelihood people use Google for other services they do make money from.
Given they don't break out the profit on a per-product basis, and we don't know the extent that other products (like News) really do help, it's hard to judge them on much else other than the numbers they do provide -- and they've been excellent.
What a sensationalist release...
..."
:)
"Unless you configure Google Desktop very carefully, and few people will, Google will have copies of your tax returns, love letters,
The option to access other PCs, which sends index information to Google, is turned off by default.
Plenty of people will leave it off as they'll have no use for the feature, and this particular feature is also not the only new thing in Google Desktop. The widget-like panels you can drag around your screen are neat too.
"Digital artists have to have a demo reel in order to score an interview. Why would writing be any different?"
I agree - writers should submit samples of their work in the way digital artists would.
What sets this apart is BioWare staging it as a content ("The Contest That Might Become Your Career") rather than a job ad.
Maybe so! I couldn't really see anything saying otherwise in their contest description, anyhow.
So do you think BioWare is motivated by trying to recruit someone, or is this mainly an exercise in promoting their games?
Given the popularity of working in the games industry and the coverage this would get, I'd imagine it's more the latter rather than the former.
Wow, that's a shockingly bad story. I've had bad experiences with some web retailers before, but it didn't compare to that!
With shopping search engines placing the focus directly on price, and the ease at which you can set up an online store, it probably invites people like this to set up low quality operations where they cut costs by doing things like not having stock.
I agree you should target the people behind such sites rather than the sites themselves, as it's too easy for them to just set up a new site and do it all over again.
This would be great for multiplayer console games like Halo. You could sit on different sides of the room and each have a full screen to look at, rather than having half the screen.
It's practically difficult to do this without severely limiting in-game trade. This is especially true if you still want to allow any of the following scenarios:
- You give some gold to your friend
- You give some gold to an alt
- You lend some gold to a player to get them started and they repay you back later
- You pay someone for services (like helping you kill some monster)
>The only reason I can figure for paying someone else
:)
>to play a game for you is some inferority complex
>...
Let me enlighten you.
These aren't short-term games. They are played over long times, and when you first start out you can't access all the content in the game. Some content is more fun than other content.
Exploring dungeon XYZ at a high level is probably more fun than doing the newbie zone.
So one possible reason for "paying someone to play the game" is so that you can access more of the game's content earlier.
This probably makes more sense for you if you're either time-poor or easily distracted (and want to quickly explore various areas before moving on to the next MMORPG, without the hassle of spending countless hours killing Mob A, etc).
You mention that you pay the monthly fee because you're paying for entertainment... Well, that's exactly why some people pay for in-game items / characters / advancement -- it lets them access things they find enjoyable that they wouldn't be able to (at that particular time) otherwise.
I haven't bought anything in WOW specifically, but have (gold) in other MMORPGs.
The reason for me isn't so I feel elite or anything like that. It's simply a matter of saving time + accessing more interesting content earlier.
A lot of these games involve long, tedious activities to advance. It's understandable -- without it many players would finish all the content way too quickly.
The result is that you need to spend a lot of time doing tedious things before you get to the "interesting" content.
If you're someone with limited time and want to experience this, your options are to just do a little bit of tedious activity continously or advance faster.
>What are these people doing wrong?
If they are violating the game's rules, then you could say that is wrong.
In the greater sense, I don't think they are doing anything wrong. They are providing a valuable service for those who want to enjoy the content but don't have the time to do so.
Some people suggest that buying in-game items or advantage is somehow unfair or inequitable. I would argue that these games take a long time to play, so the fact that I work full time and have little time to play whereas some players can spend a lot more time in-game is also unfair.
So some have more time, and some have more money. I don't see a problem with people trading one for another, especially when it has next to no impact on other players in-game.
Some may complain about how farming converts games into a "queue" system where you wait your turn. WOW have solved some of this with bind-on-pickup items and instances, as has been previously mentioned.
I'd say the blame for any problem beyond this must be placed on the game designers. I mean, it's pretty obvious by now that people will try to sell in-game currency and items, isn't it? It isn't exactly a new service that should take designers completely by surprise.
- Thomas.
>I honestly think it's sickening to imagine people
>willing to spend this much money on something that
>isn't real.
You mean like Pay TV?
Arguably that's a service that isn't "real".
Many of these games are designed to require a time investment before you access later-stage game content. Some people don't have the time or inclination to do this, but want to experience this.
The obvious solution is to buy it from a willing seller, effectively converting your money to something you find enjoyable.
I don't see how this is much different from paying a regular fee to watch Pay TV or other entertainment experiences that you don't keep once it's over.
Fox [lvl 18 brigand] : But why do you need to wreck this economy?? Gekko [lvl 46 predator] : Because it's wreckable, all right?
>GOOG does have positive cashflow (~$238m last
:)
>quarter), but that pales to, say, Microsoft ($4b).
Certainly does.
Wasn't trying to make a statement about valuation or whether it's cheap or expensive... Just that they didn't raise capital to fund their expenditure, as opposed to many dot coms that were in the red...
>A company normally goes public because it needs
:)
>the extra bit of investment, right?
Yes, but Google isn't an ordinary company. Google is highly cashflow positive and didn't need to raise capital. I think the main reason it went public was so that there was a market for existing shareholders (like employees with options) to sell shares, and because they reached a size where they needed to disclose a lot of information anyway.
>Do shares continue to affect how much money it
>has once it's gone public?
Typically not -- unless they want to raise more money, or want to issue shares to take over another company.
>If investors don't care about ethics and google
>ignores this, their stock will go down and they
>won't be an attractive investment.
Yes, but since the Google founders have effective control, they might not care.
>Shareholders usually prefer profits over ethics. True, but that's probably why there's a dual class share structure where the founders effectively retain control, allowing them to ignore the desires of other shareholders if they so choose.
>I can't see how a phone based system can rely on >that business model. Here's how. You don't interrupt phone calls when people are on the phone - people wouldn't stand for that. What it lets you do, however, is allow advertisers to buy "pay per call" advertising in search results. Here's how I picture it working -- you decide to go out to an Italian restaurant and want to go to somewhere near Marina Del Rey, California. You pop open the Google site (or Google Local), put in "italian restaurants" in "Marina Del Rey", and it gives you a list of restaurants in the area with their location on the map. It shows some "sponsored links" too that have a phone number you can click, and by doing so it seamlessly places your call through using their VOIP network. You as a consumer pay nothing for this, but the business doing the advertising does. Google Local would also show you the driving directions to your location, traffic conditions, and any other information you might need. Perhaps this is where their recent acquisition of Keyhole fits in too. If this is their plan, then I think it makes sense. It fits their existing advertising model while recognising that many businesses right now are better equipped to handle phone calls than emails. I've found this especially true for most restaurants and the like, anyway. :)
I've always found part of the attraction of cable is the ability to channel flick and come across random things I might find interesting that I wasn't necessarily searching for. I think that's the main thing that will keep a "on-demand pay-per-use" model from gaining widespread appeal... or at least will keep the appeal of the bundled services.
I played the Beta a bit and thought WOW was great fun... so looking forward to getting back into it. :)
Does anyone know if you can buy a key online and download the client?
I haven't been able to find anywhere, suggesting I need to go to a store and buy a box... seems so inefficient in the day and age of broadband!