Comments on: Google growing http://crookedtimber.org/2005/08/20/google-growing/ Out of the crooked timber of humanity, no straight thing was ever made Mon, 13 Feb 2012 03:14:53 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Crooked Timber » » Google World http://crookedtimber.org/2005/08/20/google-growing/comment-page-1/#comment-92692 Crooked Timber » » Google World Wed, 24 Aug 2005 14:33:56 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2005/08/20/google-growing/#comment-92692 [...] I am back from a five-stop two-week trip and am finally catching up on CT and various things Web. I missed the discussion John started a few days ago about Google. Instead of adding to that thread, I’ll add a whole post. To think of Google as just a company focusing on search is outdated, in my opinion. Google is becoming much more than that. Since the beginning they have been an expert at using network analysis to their advantage. With the various services they are rolling out, they can use that ability not only to in the realm of search, but in the realm of building profiles of their users. [...] [...] I am back from a five-stop two-week trip and am finally catching up on CT and various things Web. I missed the discussion John started a few days ago about Google. Instead of adding to that thread, I’ll add a whole post. To think of Google as just a company focusing on search is outdated, in my opinion. Google is becoming much more than that. Since the beginning they have been an expert at using network analysis to their advantage. With the various services they are rolling out, they can use that ability not only to in the realm of search, but in the realm of building profiles of their users. [...]

]]> By: liberal http://crookedtimber.org/2005/08/20/google-growing/comment-page-1/#comment-92550 liberal Tue, 23 Aug 2005 23:12:06 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2005/08/20/google-growing/#comment-92550 I like the idea of the semantic web, but I think building such a thing is very very difficult from the point of view of information science (i.e., library science). I like the idea of the semantic web, but I think building such a thing is very very difficult from the point of view of information science (i.e., library science).

]]> By: Athos Blog » Google vs. the Semantic Web http://crookedtimber.org/2005/08/20/google-growing/comment-page-1/#comment-92447 Athos Blog » Google vs. the Semantic Web Tue, 23 Aug 2005 14:31:35 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2005/08/20/google-growing/#comment-92447 [...] Found in this post by John Quiggin that now that Google is aiming at raising $4 billion at around $250 a share, it might be conceded that Google business horizon at a long term is quite dubious. The article points out the difficulties of Google in finding images and in finding blogs, from which alternatives could be the Yahoo Search of images and Technorati or BlogPulse, respectively. Nothing new so far. IMO, the interesting part comes when he points out that, since the Web began, there has been always two alternative ways of finding things. 1. The concious design model, which relies on known structures and metadata explicitly included in the web pages. 2. The search engine model of indexing everything and making inferences about structures of links. The concious design model was dominant early on, since people could find things by following the links. Also Yahoo and some other portals made efforts to taxonomize the entire Web, but as the Internet grew so much, those efforts broke down. At the same time, technical innvoations yielded improvements in web crawaling and Google taught us how to use the Web. This plus an image of cool company made Google the ruling champion. But now the wheel is turning again. Tags and RSS feeds are bringing us back to the concious design model and here comes the Semantic Web. Having a known structure to get information rather than seeking random matches, blogs and Wikipedia. As far as revenue goes, the corrportate sector has always been a follower rather than a leader, so if bloggers and wikipedians have blazed the trail, how long will merchants take to follow? [...] [...] Found in this post by John Quiggin that now that Google is aiming at raising $4 billion at around $250 a share, it might be conceded that Google business horizon at a long term is quite dubious. The article points out the difficulties of Google in finding images and in finding blogs, from which alternatives could be the Yahoo Search of images and Technorati or BlogPulse, respectively. Nothing new so far. IMO, the interesting part comes when he points out that, since the Web began, there has been always two alternative ways of finding things. 1. The concious design model, which relies on known structures and metadata explicitly included in the web pages. 2. The search engine model of indexing everything and making inferences about structures of links. The concious design model was dominant early on, since people could find things by following the links. Also Yahoo and some other portals made efforts to taxonomize the entire Web, but as the Internet grew so much, those efforts broke down. At the same time, technical innvoations yielded improvements in web crawaling and Google taught us how to use the Web. This plus an image of cool company made Google the ruling champion. But now the wheel is turning again. Tags and RSS feeds are bringing us back to the concious design model and here comes the Semantic Web. Having a known structure to get information rather than seeking random matches, blogs and Wikipedia. As far as revenue goes, the corrportate sector has always been a follower rather than a leader, so if bloggers and wikipedians have blazed the trail, how long will merchants take to follow? [...]

]]> By: uptown http://crookedtimber.org/2005/08/20/google-growing/comment-page-1/#comment-92387 uptown Tue, 23 Aug 2005 00:52:14 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2005/08/20/google-growing/#comment-92387 Google link ads are a pain, and Barry's comment "number of ads for ‘X’, from places which didn’t carry X; they merely put it in their add." should tell you why. Gmaps -- has got me using yahoo! maps again. Gmail -- My ISP does a better job. As for stock price - I think 'joe o' nails it. Google link ads are a pain, and Barry’s comment “number of ads for ‘X’, from places which didn’t carry X; they merely put it in their add.” should tell you why.

Gmaps—has got me using yahoo! maps again.

Gmail—My ISP does a better job.

As for stock price – I think ‘joe o’ nails it.

]]> By: joe o http://crookedtimber.org/2005/08/20/google-growing/comment-page-1/#comment-92310 joe o Mon, 22 Aug 2005 21:05:11 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2005/08/20/google-growing/#comment-92310 I think Google is overvalued. I think they know that and they want to capture some of that money now to give them the ability to do things even if the stock flatlines or goes down. I think Google is overvalued. I think they know that and they want to capture some of that money now to give them the ability to do things even if the stock flatlines or goes down.

]]> By: Tom Lynch http://crookedtimber.org/2005/08/20/google-growing/comment-page-1/#comment-92057 Tom Lynch Mon, 22 Aug 2005 02:44:41 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2005/08/20/google-growing/#comment-92057 Actually, it is pi - or the fractional part of pi at least. The value of the square root of 2 is approximately 1.41421356... The value of the fractional part of pi is .14159265... the same digits as appear in the Google share offering. Actually, it is pi – or the fractional part of pi at least. The value of the square root of 2 is approximately 1.41421356…

The value of the fractional part of pi is .14159265… the same digits as appear in the Google share offering.

]]> By: Jeremy Fischer http://crookedtimber.org/2005/08/20/google-growing/comment-page-1/#comment-92055 Jeremy Fischer Mon, 22 Aug 2005 02:07:39 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2005/08/20/google-growing/#comment-92055 May I point out that the number of shares reported has nothing to do with the transcendental constant Pi, but rather with the irrational value for the square root of two. That is to say, the number which--multiplied by itself--equals two. It begins 1.414592...etc. May I point out that the number of shares reported has nothing to do with the transcendental constant Pi, but rather with the irrational value for the square root of two. That is to say, the number which—multiplied by itself—equals two. It begins 1.414592…etc.

]]> By: Bill Gardner http://crookedtimber.org/2005/08/20/google-growing/comment-page-1/#comment-92052 Bill Gardner Mon, 22 Aug 2005 01:05:25 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2005/08/20/google-growing/#comment-92052 Let's assume that John is right and we are beginning to see the 'semantic web' come into being. There will still be an important role for search engines, albeit more advanced ones than current engines. Those engines will presumably combine word-indexes, data on links, and meta-information (like tags). I'm guessing that these engines will require substantially more computing power than current models. If so, as Seth Gordon points out, Google's research on building very, very large computing platforms may provide it with a continuing advantage. Let’s assume that John is right and we are beginning to see the ‘semantic web’ come into being. There will still be an important role for search engines, albeit more advanced ones than current engines. Those engines will presumably combine word-indexes, data on links, and meta-information (like tags). I’m guessing that these engines will require substantially more computing power than current models. If so, as Seth Gordon points out, Google’s research on building very, very large computing platforms may provide it with a continuing advantage.

]]> By: Tom Lynch http://crookedtimber.org/2005/08/20/google-growing/comment-page-1/#comment-92050 Tom Lynch Mon, 22 Aug 2005 00:21:01 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2005/08/20/google-growing/#comment-92050 lth has it right from my point of view. Google's search technology will come back to the field in the next few years, and MSN/Yahoo will provide results of similar quality (if they don't already). But Google's momentum as market leader in search, and their already proven ability to deliver amazingly good browser-based applications should keep them turning the taps of the Internet for a long time into the future. For as long as they are the main port of call for people searching the net they will have a strong revenue stream from internet advertising. Great leaps forward like Gmail (which totally redefined the webmail experience) are why Microsoft fear Google - because they might turn around and release a Microsoft Word clone that runs embedded in a web page and stores your key documents online, allowing you to compose, edit and view them from any PC with a standards-compliant web browser at any time. Or store MP3s and listen to music, or ... If this happened, it would in one fell swoop remove one of the few remaining strong reasons for personal users to stick with Windows - that it runs the applications they need and are used to. Google's brand is strong enough to pull a large chunk of users with it. lth has it right from my point of view. Google’s search technology will come back to the field in the next few years, and MSN/Yahoo will provide results of similar quality (if they don’t already). But Google’s momentum as market leader in search, and their already proven ability to deliver amazingly good browser-based applications should keep them turning the taps of the Internet for a long time into the future.

For as long as they are the main port of call for people searching the net they will have a strong revenue stream from internet advertising.

Great leaps forward like Gmail (which totally redefined the webmail experience) are why Microsoft fear Google – because they might turn around and release a Microsoft Word clone that runs embedded in a web page and stores your key documents online, allowing you to compose, edit and view them from any PC with a standards-compliant web browser at any time. Or store MP3s and listen to music, or …

If this happened, it would in one fell swoop remove one of the few remaining strong reasons for personal users to stick with Windows – that it runs the applications they need and are used to. Google’s brand is strong enough to pull a large chunk of users with it.

]]> By: smuttynose http://crookedtimber.org/2005/08/20/google-growing/comment-page-1/#comment-92043 smuttynose Sun, 21 Aug 2005 20:47:46 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2005/08/20/google-growing/#comment-92043 "For current information, the main Google search engine is pretty much useless" You lost me there..........heck, Google has become a verb meaning "to search the inernet". What am I missing? “For current information, the main Google search engine is pretty much useless”

You lost me there……….heck, Google has become a verb meaning “to search the inernet”. What am I missing?

]]> By: lth http://crookedtimber.org/2005/08/20/google-growing/comment-page-1/#comment-92042 lth Sun, 21 Aug 2005 20:42:24 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2005/08/20/google-growing/#comment-92042 No-one has mentioned GMail yet. Yes, it's a free service, but my gosh it's a good one, and that features more Google ads. Also - if you have a Gmail account, probably like me you use it to send files and links and so forth to yourself. How long until Gmail becomes the "Google grid" that will store *all* of your important information? They already give away more than 2gb of disk space just for email - imagine if everyone were to keep their documents and mp3s online, especially if Google get to show you text ads every time you load a page. Alternatively, they could even charge for the service - I'd buy it. Further - GMaps. Again, an absolutely cracking bit of software that links in with advertising. There's no point using any other mapping software, and it also supercedes things like Yell.com. It seems to me that Google is very well-placed to become the next Microsoft within 20 years; that is, totally ubiquitous. No-one has mentioned GMail yet. Yes, it’s a free service, but my gosh it’s a good one, and that features more Google ads.

Also – if you have a Gmail account, probably like me you use it to send files and links and so forth to yourself. How long until Gmail becomes the “Google grid” that will store all of your important information? They already give away more than 2gb of disk space just for email – imagine if everyone were to keep their documents and mp3s online, especially if Google get to show you text ads every time you load a page. Alternatively, they could even charge for the service – I’d buy it.

Further – GMaps. Again, an absolutely cracking bit of software that links in with advertising. There’s no point using any other mapping software, and it also supercedes things like Yell.com.

It seems to me that Google is very well-placed to become the next Microsoft within 20 years; that is, totally ubiquitous.

]]> By: Seth Gordon http://crookedtimber.org/2005/08/20/google-growing/comment-page-1/#comment-92041 Seth Gordon Sun, 21 Aug 2005 20:26:10 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2005/08/20/google-growing/#comment-92041 Google's most important asset is that it is sitting on <a href="http://blog.topix.net/archives/000016.html" rel="nofollow">the world's largest operating system</a>. If placing ads on search engines stops being such a lucrative business, but there's some other way to make money doing some computer-intensive task for large numbers of people, then Google's low cost-per-CPU gives it a leg up on just about everyone else. I have no idea if this technical advantage justifies Google's $250-a-share price, but it's an advantage that many analysts seem to overlook. Google’s most important asset is that it is sitting on the world’s largest operating system. If placing ads on search engines stops being such a lucrative business, but there’s some other way to make money doing some computer-intensive task for large numbers of people, then Google’s low cost-per-CPU gives it a leg up on just about everyone else.

I have no idea if this technical advantage justifies Google’s $250-a-share price, but it’s an advantage that many analysts seem to overlook.

]]> By: abb1 http://crookedtimber.org/2005/08/20/google-growing/comment-page-1/#comment-92031 abb1 Sun, 21 Aug 2005 18:11:42 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2005/08/20/google-growing/#comment-92031 I think there might be an element of self-fulfilling prophecy at work here. With billions of dollars in the bank Google can buy a helluva lot of related businesses/technologies and build its own empire that's pretty much shielded from competition and creates the reality and future as it wants, something like Microsoft. If this is what's hapenning, then Google may not be overvalued at all. But it's a gamble, of course. I think there might be an element of self-fulfilling prophecy at work here. With billions of dollars in the bank Google can buy a helluva lot of related businesses/technologies and build its own empire that’s pretty much shielded from competition and creates the reality and future as it wants, something like Microsoft. If this is what’s hapenning, then Google may not be overvalued at all. But it’s a gamble, of course.

]]> By: Kerim Friedman http://crookedtimber.org/2005/08/20/google-growing/comment-page-1/#comment-92023 Kerim Friedman Sun, 21 Aug 2005 14:25:24 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2005/08/20/google-growing/#comment-92023 I have no opinion as to what the actual market value of Google might be, but I find you discussion of the "semantic web" vs. the "conscious design model" interesting. My feeling is that it is unlikely that the vast majority of users will ever fully embrace the semantic web, and so sites like Google will remain an important entry point. <a href="http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2005/08/66_of_blog_read.html" rel="nofollow">The vast majority of web users have never heard of RSS</a> and only a tiny minority actually use RSS feeds. But more to the point, I think you overstate the importance of being a "search portal" to Google's business model. The main innovation at Google was not search, but advertising. There are very few services that deliver contextual ads, and people pay a lot of money for Google ads that show up not only in search results, but also in blogs, and other contexts. They have even been successful at getting their ads into RSS feeds. Now they have also opened up their Map API and I'm sure they intend to use Google Maps to deliver localized ads as well. There are even rumors that they are working on entering the Wireless internet access market in order to make use of localized ads. But, back to the search portal issue. I read something on CT a year or two ago about how poor most internet user's searching skills are. Most people just use whatever is the default search engine in their browser. That's why so many people continue to use MSN. If Firefox continues to gain market share, so will Google. I have no opinion as to what the actual market value of Google might be, but I find you discussion of the “semantic web” vs. the “conscious design model” interesting. My feeling is that it is unlikely that the vast majority of users will ever fully embrace the semantic web, and so sites like Google will remain an important entry point. The vast majority of web users have never heard of RSS and only a tiny minority actually use RSS feeds. But more to the point, I think you overstate the importance of being a “search portal” to Google’s business model.

The main innovation at Google was not search, but advertising. There are very few services that deliver contextual ads, and people pay a lot of money for Google ads that show up not only in search results, but also in blogs, and other contexts. They have even been successful at getting their ads into RSS feeds. Now they have also opened up their Map API and I’m sure they intend to use Google Maps to deliver localized ads as well. There are even rumors that they are working on entering the Wireless internet access market in order to make use of localized ads.

But, back to the search portal issue. I read something on CT a year or two ago about how poor most internet user’s searching skills are. Most people just use whatever is the default search engine in their browser. That’s why so many people continue to use MSN. If Firefox continues to gain market share, so will Google.

]]> By: Dirk http://crookedtimber.org/2005/08/20/google-growing/comment-page-1/#comment-92021 Dirk Sun, 21 Aug 2005 13:25:00 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2005/08/20/google-growing/#comment-92021 "get people to create more content so they have more places to sell ads. The search result ads are probably a small part of their total revenue," No, as far as the split between search ads and content ads, most of the revenue comes from search ads. Their SEC filing, http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1288776/000119312505170553/ds3.htm , says that 46% of their first-half 2005 revenue came from their affiliates network. This includes both content ads and search engines like AOL and AskJeeves, where the ads show in response to searches. I'd guess about 30% of the revenue is from content ads. They also state that 11% of their revenue comes from AOL. If Time Warner develops its own ad program or switches to Yahoo's (both real possibilities), this will seriously affect Google. “get people to create more content so they have more places to sell ads. The search result ads are probably a small part of their total revenue,”

No, as far as the split between search ads and content ads, most of the revenue comes from search ads. Their SEC filing, http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1288776/000119312505170553/ds3.htm , says that 46% of their first-half 2005 revenue came from their affiliates network. This includes both content ads and search engines like AOL and AskJeeves, where the ads show in response to searches. I’d guess about 30% of the revenue is from content ads.

They also state that 11% of their revenue comes from AOL. If Time Warner develops its own ad program or switches to Yahoo’s (both real possibilities), this will seriously affect Google.

]]>