The Economist reports that Google is planning to go public next spring. “All told, 75% of referrals to websites now originate from Google’s algorithms. That,” the story says, “is power.” But how to make money from it? Meanwhile, The New York Times says that Microsoft might like to buy Google, or alternatively bump it out of the way. As the story in the Economist notes, “Microsoft smells blood. It is currently working on its own search algorithm, which it hopes to make public early next year, around the probable time of Google’s share listing.”
Google is interesting because it functions more like a giant public utility than a company with a particular product. People trust it to deliver results that are honest as well as accurate; it’s the site that makes the Web’s vast interconnectedness real for users; and its stripped-down interface reinforces the idea that it’s providing a basic service. So how is Google going to make money for its shareholders? It can hardly become much more dominant in the search business. Bolting things on to the basic service (Google Ads, selling the algorithm to third parties) doesn’t seem like a route to long-term growth. Maybe they have some new ideas we don’t know about.
Then there’s Microsoft. The contrast between attitudes towards the two companies is instructive. They both dominate their respective markets, but while people fear and doubt Microsoft, they love and trust Google. The possibility that the former might buy the latter would horrify many Internet users. The more likely prospect that Microsoft might try to leverage its dominance on the desktop to muscle Google out of the way. Microsoft-haters might hope that its inability to write good software would pre-empt this, but the odds are that you’re not reading this using Netscape.
Actually, I love Microsoft. I’ve used a Microsoft operating system since about 1993. Internet Explorer was my browser of choice since approximately 1999 until early this year when I switched to opera. I do not fear Microsoft.
Google is vulnerable, but the fact that MS hasn’t already beaten them into submission is telling. After all, MS already has a search engine and portal, and they’ve built automatic searching via their portal into IE.
On the other hand, Google’s contextual text ads are a brilliant move, but it’s not clear to me how closely dependent it is upon their core competency. And, as has been mentioned elsewhere, “Page Rank” is starting to break and greatly decrease Google’s utility.
Google has succeeded because of two fundamental strengths: their superior technology and because they give the customer what he wants without getting in his way. The former is a strength that is notoriously transient; the latter is half good business sense and half an accident of history. It’s an accident of history because, being a private company in control of its finances and with strong backing, it wasn’t under the same pressure to, er, “over-leverage” its prominance to produce profits by putting advertisers ahead of users. Its peers have not had that option. My point is that these two strengths are much less solid than they appear.
However, like Amazon, Google seems to put a very high premium on R&D and doing everything it can to protect its technological advantage. I wouldn’t be surprised at some huge innovation from them, for example effective and integrated geolocating, that completely changes the search engine market.
All in all, given their current revenues and dominance, I’d be inclined to accept that about a US$1-3B valuation would be appropriate. The Economist is talking much higher numbers, and I wouldn’t be surprised to see it IPO into the $US8+B range. But it would be overvalued and very likely would fall from that level over the ensuing year (all else being equal). You heard it here first. :)
“Google has succeeded because of two fundamental strengths: their superior technology and because they give the customer what he wants without getting in his way.”
Keith, nice comment - that second part sums it up so well.
One of Google’s biggest strength’s is their research culture. Maintaining their search system only takes so much manpower, so a signifigant portion of their workforce is doing some form of research or product development. People interested in seeing the kind of things they’re coming up should look at labs.google.com for a variety of things they’ve developed but don’t know what to do with, and www.froogle.com for the beta test of google’s product search engine.
Most of Google’s innovations however are harder to specifically identify, like their state of the art phonetic spell checker.
And of course Google also has the advantage of having built a fairly impressive infrastructure to deal with what is arguably the most difficult distributed computational problem in the world.
Is Google going to be massively overvalued when they go public? Yes. Are they going to stop being profitable anytime soon? Not a chance.
One would assume that the most obvious “growth area” for Google would be to become the next, better “Lexis Nexis”.
If their search features could improve upon Lexis’s, they could either compete with or merge with that company (or a similar co. like Westlaw). If I had a choice between a Lexis search and a Google search of the same documents, I’d pick Google in a heartbeat. And if they could undercut on cost (by being profitable in another area already) . . .
Not saying I’d invest in the IPO, just saying there is room from growth with sufficient capital.
no, I’m reading this on Safari. Your point was …? ;)
I haven’t read the economist yet, so apologies if this point is already covered in it.
As far as I understand, Google makes most of its hard cash by selling its search technology to other companies, either to use on their own websites, or for internal applications.
But another great thing about google is that they mark paid placements as advertisements, so you know what you’re getting.
http://froogle.google.com/froogle?q=car&btnG=Froogle+Search
I think Froogle needs some work.
That said, I think MS is bad news users. They love to add “features” above all else…
I think going public is bad news for users, too. Much harder for a pure user experience to shine through if they constantly need to increase shareholder value.
So as we speak, MS’s crack team of experts is writing bugs and security holes for Google. I can hardly wait.
I have Windows and WIndows Explorer too, but I have my home page set on Google, and Windows causes me multiple problems. I’d change over except that I’m lazy and not too savvy.
An important clarification here is the following: stating that “75% of referrals to websites now originate from Google’s algorithms” is not equivalent to saying that all those referrals come from google.com (or even its other-country variations). This is a common misconception and tends to make people think google.com is much more popular than it is in reality.
There are all sorts of Web sites that offer search using Google’s search algorithms. Yahoo contracts with Google, for example (it used to anyway and I’m pretty sure it still does) as do others (e.g. MyWay).
On these other search engines the layout is no longer that cleancut and it’s not always as obvious to know what is sponsored and what isn’t.
All of this is not to say that it is not impressive or significant that one search engine powers so many of the searches, but it is an important distinction to keep in mind.
Another point to consider is that proportion of searches does not say anything about proportion of users. It is possible that a fairly small number of power users account for a large number of searches. These may be the people using Google (or google.com) as opposed to other engines. My point here is just to emphasize that the figures quoted here do not mean that the majority of people ever even go to google.com.
I’ve written a small piece on this (currently under review, not that it has any obvious publication outlet). If anyone’s interested, feel free to send me a note and I’ll send you a copy. papers~at~eszter-dot-com
Not all folks are happy googling. For instance, there’s this guy.
Perhaps also of interest here is some findings I have showing that using Google is not so much what’s important in performing successful searches, rather, knowing how to use a search engine is what makes a difference. Of course, there are all sorts of factors to consider (e.g. goal of a search), but it’s an interesting finding, nonetheless. (Of course, I’m pretty biased about considering my findings interesting.:)
All I can say is, Fuci (plural of fucus)! MS - the company that bowdlerises its dictionaries.
I’m using Safari too.
I’m reading this on Netscape 7.0, which is a great web browser.
Much of this is probably just negotiation. If Microsoft is looking to buy Google, it would make sense for Google to be exploring an IPO and for exaggerated leaks of what an IPO might fetch to be made to reach Microsofts’s ears as a way of leveraging the price up. Contrariwise, Microsoft would want exaggerated rumours of how far their own search technology has advanced to reach Google’s ears as a way of pushing the price down.
Don’t believe a word of any of it. It’s all theater.
À Gauche
Jeremy Alder
Amaravati
Anggarrgoon
Audhumlan Conspiracy
H.E. Baber
Philip Blosser
Paul Broderick
Matt Brown
Diana Buccafurni
Brandon Butler
Keith Burgess-Jackson
Certain Doubts
David Chalmers
Noam Chomsky
The Conservative Philosopher
Desert Landscapes
Denis Dutton
David Efird
Karl Elliott
David Estlund
Experimental Philosophy
Fake Barn County
Kai von Fintel
Russell Arben Fox
Garden of Forking Paths
Roger Gathman
Michael Green
Scott Hagaman
Helen Habermann
David Hildebrand
John Holbo
Christopher Grau
Jonathan Ichikawa
Tom Irish
Michelle Jenkins
Adam Kotsko
Barry Lam
Language Hat
Language Log
Christian Lee
Brian Leiter
Stephen Lenhart
Clayton Littlejohn
Roderick T. Long
Joshua Macy
Mad Grad
Jonathan Martin
Matthew McGrattan
Marc Moffett
Geoffrey Nunberg
Orange Philosophy
Philosophy Carnival
Philosophy, et cetera
Philosophy of Art
Douglas Portmore
Philosophy from the 617 (moribund)
Jeremy Pierce
Punishment Theory
Geoff Pynn
Timothy Quigley (moribund?)
Conor Roddy
Sappho's Breathing
Anders Schoubye
Wolfgang Schwartz
Scribo
Michael Sevel
Tom Stoneham (moribund)
Adam Swenson
Peter Suber
Eddie Thomas
Joe Ulatowski
Bruce Umbaugh
What is the name ...
Matt Weiner
Will Wilkinson
Jessica Wilson
Young Hegelian
Richard Zach
Psychology
Donyell Coleman
Deborah Frisch
Milt Rosenberg
Tom Stafford
Law
Ann Althouse
Stephen Bainbridge
Jack Balkin
Douglass A. Berman
Francesca Bignami
BlunkettWatch
Jack Bogdanski
Paul L. Caron
Conglomerate
Jeff Cooper
Disability Law
Displacement of Concepts
Wayne Eastman
Eric Fink
Victor Fleischer (on hiatus)
Peter Friedman
Michael Froomkin
Bernard Hibbitts
Walter Hutchens
InstaPundit
Andis Kaulins
Lawmeme
Edward Lee
Karl-Friedrich Lenz
Larry Lessig
Mirror of Justice
Eric Muller
Nathan Oman
Opinio Juris
John Palfrey
Ken Parish
Punishment Theory
Larry Ribstein
The Right Coast
D. Gordon Smith
Lawrence Solum
Peter Tillers
Transatlantic Assembly
Lawrence Velvel
David Wagner
Kim Weatherall
Yale Constitution Society
Tun Yin
History
Blogenspiel
Timothy Burke
Rebunk
Naomi Chana
Chapati Mystery
Cliopatria
Juan Cole
Cranky Professor
Greg Daly
James Davila
Sherman Dorn
Michael Drout
Frog in a Well
Frogs and Ravens
Early Modern Notes
Evan Garcia
George Mason History bloggers
Ghost in the Machine
Rebecca Goetz
Invisible Adjunct (inactive)
Jason Kuznicki
Konrad Mitchell Lawson
Danny Loss
Liberty and Power
Danny Loss
Ether MacAllum Stewart
Pam Mack
Heather Mathews
James Meadway
Medieval Studies
H.D. Miller
Caleb McDaniel
Marc Mulholland
Received Ideas
Renaissance Weblog
Nathaniel Robinson
Jacob Remes (moribund?)
Christopher Sheil
Red Ted
Time Travelling Is Easy
Brian Ulrich
Shana Worthen
Computers/media/communication
Lauren Andreacchi (moribund)
Eric Behrens
Joseph Bosco
Danah Boyd
David Brake
Collin Brooke
Maximilian Dornseif (moribund)
Jeff Erickson
Ed Felten
Lance Fortnow
Louise Ferguson
Anne Galloway
Jason Gallo
Josh Greenberg
Alex Halavais
Sariel Har-Peled
Tracy Kennedy
Tim Lambert
Liz Lawley
Michael O'Foghlu
Jose Luis Orihuela (moribund)
Alex Pang
Sebastian Paquet
Fernando Pereira
Pink Bunny of Battle
Ranting Professors
Jay Rosen
Ken Rufo
Douglas Rushkoff
Vika Safrin
Rob Schaap (Blogorrhoea)
Frank Schaap
Robert A. Stewart
Suresh Venkatasubramanian
Ray Trygstad
Jill Walker
Phil Windley
Siva Vaidahyanathan
Anthropology
Kerim Friedman
Alex Golub
Martijn de Koning
Nicholas Packwood
Geography
Stentor Danielson
Benjamin Heumann
Scott Whitlock
Education
Edward Bilodeau
Jenny D.
Richard Kahn
Progressive Teachers
Kelvin Thompson (defunct?)
Mark Byron
Business administration
Michael Watkins (moribund)
Literature, language, culture
Mike Arnzen
Brandon Barr
Michael Berube
The Blogora
Colin Brayton
John Bruce
Miriam Burstein
Chris Cagle
Jean Chu
Hans Coppens
Tyler Curtain
Cultural Revolution
Terry Dean
Joseph Duemer
Flaschenpost
Kathleen Fitzpatrick
Jonathan Goodwin
Rachael Groner
Alison Hale
Household Opera
Dennis Jerz
Jason Jones
Miriam Jones
Matthew Kirschenbaum
Steven Krause
Lilliputian Lilith
Catherine Liu
John Lovas
Gerald Lucas
Making Contact
Barry Mauer
Erin O'Connor
Print Culture
Clancy Ratcliff
Matthias Rip
A.G. Rud
Amardeep Singh
Steve Shaviro
Thanks ... Zombie
Vera Tobin
Chuck Tryon
University Diaries
Classics
Michael Hendry
David Meadows
Religion
AKM Adam
Ryan Overbey
Telford Work (moribund)
Library Science
Norma Bruce
Music
Kyle Gann
ionarts
Tim Rutherford-Johnson
Greg Sandow
Scott Spiegelberg
Biology/Medicine
Pradeep Atluri
Bloviator
Anthony Cox
Susan Ferrari (moribund)
Amy Greenwood
La Di Da
John M. Lynch
Charles Murtaugh (moribund)
Paul Z. Myers
Respectful of Otters
Josh Rosenau
Universal Acid
Amity Wilczek (moribund)
Theodore Wong (moribund)
Physics/Applied Physics
Trish Amuntrud
Sean Carroll
Jacques Distler
Stephen Hsu
Irascible Professor
Andrew Jaffe
Michael Nielsen
Chad Orzel
String Coffee Table
Math/Statistics
Dead Parrots
Andrew Gelman
Christopher Genovese
Moment, Linger on
Jason Rosenhouse
Vlorbik
Peter Woit
Complex Systems
Petter Holme
Luis Rocha
Cosma Shalizi
Bill Tozier
Chemistry
"Keneth Miles"
Engineering
Zack Amjal
Chris Hall
University Administration
Frank Admissions (moribund?)
Architecture/Urban development
City Comforts (urban planning)
Unfolio
Panchromatica
Earth Sciences
Our Take
Who Knows?
Bitch Ph.D.
Just Tenured
Playing School
Professor Goose
This Academic Life
Other sources of information
Arts and Letters Daily
Boston Review
Imprints
Political Theory Daily Review
Science and Technology Daily Review