Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Google The Internet Businesses The Almighty Buck IT

Yet More Google Gazing 253

Posted by michael
from the future-cloudy-ask-again dept.
povvell writes "Bob Cringely has joined the club and just set out his personal vision for the future of Google now that it's flush with cash, thereby joining a happy band of Google gazers. But is he right, and are they? My own guess is that the company intends to become the biggest advertising platform in the world. What's yours?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Yet More Google Gazing

Comments Filter:
  • So (Score:5, Funny)

    by Orgazmus (761208) on Friday August 20, 2004 @01:25PM (#10024945)
    you think google is heading for ad-world domination?
    Well, im buying that :)
  • Making Mistakes (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Klar (522420) * <curchin@gmai[ ]om ['l.c' in gap]> on Friday August 20, 2004 @01:26PM (#10024950) Homepage Journal
    I like this paragraph from TFA:
    There's an interesting effect here that I've noticed over the years -- smart people don't make the same mistake twice while REALLY SMART people don't make the same mistake three times. Since they tend to make fewer mistakes to start with, really smart people tend to repeat the mistakes they do make because they are initially convinced that the outcome was someone else's fault or perhaps because of cosmic rays.
    I think it really holds true. Maybe really smart high level execs need more really smart high level people to help look over their mistakes privately so this doesnt happen as much.
    • by iamdrscience (541136) <michaelmtripp@gmai[ ]om ['l.c' in gap]> on Friday August 20, 2004 @01:33PM (#10025049) Homepage
      Maybe really smart high level execs need more really smart high level people to help look over their mistakes privately so this doesnt happen as much.
      But if a really smart high level executive has a really smart high level person look over their mistakes, wouldn't that mean they would make the mistake nine times? I'd hate to see what happens when he shares it with larger group. 3^8 mistakes? That could get ridiculous.
    • Re:Making Mistakes (Score:3, Insightful)

      by NoMercy (105420)
      How do you know it's a mistake until youve tested it and proved it was a mistake :)

      Though I guess the really really really smart people make a 2nd mistake in a isolated model where they controll each of the parameters.
    • Maybe really smart high level execs need more really smart high level people to help look over their mistakes privately

      Except that those really smart people, if they're really really smart, will be falling over themselves making the case that the execs were right all along...

  • Maybe (Score:2, Funny)

    by aboxbayz (523965)
    Maybe they just needed the cash for hard drives for ppls gig o' spam accounts
  • by garcia (6573) * on Friday August 20, 2004 @01:27PM (#10024981) Homepage
    Heck, if I can't get an interview, hardly anyone can get an interview.

    I am sure Google really wants to have an interview with an asshole that complains of their micromanagement.

    I am no Googlelover (as far as their IPO/business practices go) but I don't think it's a bad idea to ignore Cringley.
    • Does Cringley think he's like journalisms top brass? Most people don't know who the hell he is.

      If it wasn't for slashdot posting about it every time he updates his column, I wouldn't know who he is.
    • I don't think it's a bad idea to ignore Cringley.

      Aye, I fully agree. If he knows so much about search engines, why isn't he running one himself?
      • Was that sarcasm, or were you serious? Lots of people choose not to work in the field or at the task they know most about. I know a lot of whizzes at car motors who absolutely hate working in a garage. Just because someone doesn't do something doesn't mean they're not qualified to sound off on it.

        Not that it applies to Cringely... I have no idea whether he's qualified or not. Just saying "in general".

  • All I know is... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by suso (153703) on Friday August 20, 2004 @01:28PM (#10024985) Homepage Journal
    that I never really thought of Google as a company. For the longest time I was wondering how they were even making enough money to pay their employees.

    I thought of them more like "A group of SMFs that wanted to make some neat shit". Which they accomplished.

    So with all this money now, its almost as if the impression that I have of Google has died and something else has taken over.
    • by dunsel (559042) on Friday August 20, 2004 @01:39PM (#10025131)
      The problem with online advertising in its current state is that we, the consumer, do not want or like it.

      We do like google. And when google started running little text link adds off to the right, I said "Way to go, google, now you can mage something for all your hard work." A lesser company might have sold "preferred listing" links *COUGH* YAHOO *COUGH* but Google remained honest and our friends.

      And now, I see that google's little text links are actually usefull to me. I'm searching for airfare, and google suggests that I try an online airfare that I hadn't tried before. I do and I get a good price! And that place gets my business, and Google gets a few millicents for my click.

      As long as google can remain my friend, I hope they do take over all of online advertising. Adds that arent' hideous in some way and actually advertise things I'm interested in will, in my eyes, revolutanize the online world.

      Way to go Google.
      • As long as google can remain my friend, I hope they do take over all of online advertising. Adds that arent' hideous in some way and actually advertise things I'm interested in will, in my eyes, revolutanize the online world.

        The key to that is "a long as Google can remain my friend".

        Little useful text links are great, and actually get seen by people like me who only load images for the originating web site. :p

        But watch out for how much trust you put in them, how do you know they won't start doing p
        • All I can say is... why would Google do pop ups?
          They know that the reason their text ads are so much more effective then reguler banner ads is because they are useful, low bandwith, and unobtrusive. Giving this up in favor of a more obnoxious, less effective, advertising scheme would be useless and would alienate all the customers they have garnished on good name alone. Constantly i hear "what if google turns around and becomse evil" with no reason why. "what if google suddenly realies that a gigabyte is t
      • Pity contextual advertising has been accepted to be Overtures's AKA YAHOO! realm, not googles.

        Link [theregister.co.uk]

        When google bowed down to Yahoo!/Overture, handing over a hefty portion of voting stock to Yahoo!, their IPO became a joke.

        Without advertising tech, they are a search engine that can be superceded at any time. That means their stock is worth nothing. Their only income is adverts, and their advertising business is owned by Yahoo!.
        • Without advertising tech, they are a search engine that can be superceded at any time.

          But they do have advertising technology. The advertising technology that Google uses was determined to be owned by Overture/Yahoo. In order to settle the legal issues surrounding Google's use of this tech Yahoo was given a chunk of class A voting shares - not a controlling number of shares but a decent chunk. So now Google is free to use the Yahoo advertising tech in conjunction with its various products including webm

      • Advertising, by definition, is something consumers do not want. Otherwise, consumers would PAY for advertising.

        Google now serves annoying banner ads, so their annoyance factor will increase..
    • Actually before the IPO googles earnings were very very good. They turned a profit of $64 million for the first 3 quarters of this year (no not $64 million for each quarter, I'm talking total here).
      Compared to profit of $26 million in 2003, they are doing very well, even without the IPO. Actually from what I understand it is those profit numbers that actually made the FCC se mi forcegoogle to IPO in the first place. Apparently there are regulations concerning how much a private company can earn.... shrugs.
      • Re:All I know is... (Score:3, Informative)

        by jhunsake (81920)
        Actually from what I understand it is those profit numbers that actually made the FCC se mi forcegoogle to IPO in the first place. Apparently there are regulations concerning how much a private company can earn.... shrugs.

        Then you understand nothing. There is no such regulations, there never have been, and there most likely never will be. Some of the largest companies in the world are privately owned.
    • by wdavies (163941) on Friday August 20, 2004 @02:28PM (#10025715) Homepage
      To paraphrase the Wall Street Journal last week, the settlement between Yahoo/Overture showed that for such a technologically advanced company, their revenue depended on an invention made by another company.

      Just so you dont forget it. They have now LICENCESED bidded text advertising concept from Yahoo/Overture (formerly GoTo.com).

      That admission cost em 300 million dollars. Remember it next time you praise Google for inventing it.

    • I thought of them more like "A group of SMFs that wanted to make some neat shit".

      I think boatloads of money is some pretty neat shit.

    • Google was a corporation and is now a publicly traded corporation. The different is quantitative, not qualitative. They are will be under a great deal more scrutiny now and will have more diverse ownership, but their primary goal is exactly the same as it was before: increase shareholder value. Making neat shit, as you say, is not their primary goal, but a means to accomplish that goal.
  • by Alain Williams (2972) <addw@phcomp.co.uk> on Friday August 20, 2004 @01:29PM (#10025002) Homepage
    I don't really care what extra things google will do as long as they continue to be a great Internet search engine
  • by artlu (265391) <<ten.ultra> <ta> <ultra>> on Friday August 20, 2004 @01:29PM (#10025004) Homepage Journal
    Google's adsense technology will ultimately grow outside of the Internet realm and include instant advertising during movies, tv shows, billboards, etc. Imagine that you are watching a movie on NBC without commercials, but whenever someone says the word "soda" an ad streams across for Coke/Pepsi. Maybe Google will grow into that realm of advertising.

    Second, as reported on my website [groupshares.com] Google's stock price is still fairly attractive from a P/E basis. If Google stays on track to grow for the rest of the year, Google should be valued more than Yahoo, which could mean the stock should still be attractive above $100.

    Just my thoughts,
    Aj
    • Imagine that you are watching a movie on NBC without commercials, but whenever someone says the word "soda" an ad streams across for Coke/Pepsi.

      That is the stupidest thing I have ever heard. That wouldn't even be inline with AdSense/AdWords. You clearly don't understand what the technology does.
    • Second, as reported on my website Google's stock price is still fairly attractive from a P/E basis. If Google stays on track to grow for the rest of the year, Google should be valued more than Yahoo, which could mean the stock should still be attractive above $100.

      Um, isn't Google's P/E around 120?

      Given that the historical average for P/E ratios is around, what, 17, how is Google possibly attractive on a P/E basis?

    • There isn't enough public history of this company to even merit speculation based on fundamentals. Its hype, then growth, then maybe numbers. In that order.
  • by ElForesto (763160) <{moc.liamg} {ta} {otserofle}> on Friday August 20, 2004 @01:31PM (#10025019) Homepage

    I see an excellent point made in the article, which is that the founders want to maintain control of the enterprise as much as they can. The problem is that as soon as you've taken a company public, it isn't your baby anymore. It sounds like decisions need to start being delegated before the founders wear themselves out from working too hard.

    I've worked at more than one company where the founder(s) micro-managed the entire enterprise. The did themselves a tremendous disservice in the long run by discouraging independent thought and actions.

    • The problem is that as soon as you've taken a company public, it isn't your baby anymore.

      Right, it belongs to the share holders. Or more specifically to the votes corresponding to those outstanding shares. The interesting thing here is that Google's founders and insiders gave themselves supershares with 10x voting rights. So while Google is a public company it is tightly controlled almost like a private company. In a sense this is a benefit because if you presume the current owners know best them the

  • by CdBee (742846) on Friday August 20, 2004 @01:31PM (#10025023)
    Google's biggest assets above its staff, are its name and reputation for solid, advanced technology effectively implemented. I figure they could move into any web-based application field but expect that it will begin with licensing out search technology for company intranets (already available from them actually) and instant messaging/conference software. (Jabber?)
  • by Phreakiture (547094) on Friday August 20, 2004 @01:31PM (#10025028) Homepage
    ...now that it's flush with cash...

    What?!? They flushed their cache?!? What are we going to do when someone gets Slashdotted?!?

  • But is he right? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by stratjakt (596332) on Friday August 20, 2004 @01:31PM (#10025029) Journal
    We're talking about Cringley. So, uh, no.

  • Attitude (Score:5, Insightful)

    by rleyton (14248) on Friday August 20, 2004 @01:33PM (#10025053) Homepage
    Whilst I do like Google, I think they need to be very careful about the next few years. There *will* be rivals (Microsoft foremost, of course) in the search-engine space. Ads are one thing, but if people aren't visiting google out of preference for their search engine needs, much of the rest of their business model falls apart.

    The hype - almost hysteria at first - surrounding the Google IPO has so much resonance with the dot gone fun of a few years ago, they would do well to look to the future without forgetting the pertinent and still relevant lessons of the past. Just because the stock market thinks you're worth $billions, doesn't mean it'll stay that way, or that you really are worth that much.

    Remember Netscape? The parallels are noticeable. Cornered market until MS got there with IE and ownership of the desktop. It's a different political world now though, but it's worth remembering.

    And for a company that's historically been very secretive, how will that play out in the publicly listed world?
    • Re:Attitude (Score:5, Insightful)

      by stratjakt (596332) on Friday August 20, 2004 @01:47PM (#10025260) Journal
      Let's go offtopic with Netscape.

      Netscape used to be the best browser, and that's why I used it. I remember IE 1.0, it was fucking aweful. Then IE 2.0, still aweful. Then IE 3.0, which IMO, was right about on parity with Netscape.

      Then IE 4.0 came out, and I switched, because it was better than what Netscape had. Netscape stopped developing, and channeled it's dollars into a legal fight with MSFT.

      So, blah blah, AOL comes along and dismantles Netscape. The OSS community takes over the day to day of mozilla.org, and the focus is once again on development.

      Now I use FireFox, and more and more switch daily. Hell, articles run in MS's own Slate magazine recommending FireFox.

      I use it because it's the best browser, IMO. Just about everyone I've showed it to has switched. Because they think it's better than IE. They like the speed, they like the tabs, they like the popup blocking, etc. I don't even have to sound like a tinfoil hat and rant about security. The fact that it's a better browser has been enough to convince people.

      Thats why I never bought into that "Microsoft killed netscape by bundling IE" bullshit. I never used IE because it was bundled, I used it because it was better and didn't bork my box like NS did.

      So how does that relate to Google? If Google focuses on legal fights with MSFT, or other silly nonsense a la "you set the default home page to msn.com and thats an abuse of yer monopoly", then Google is doomed. Who cares what my homepage is, I use google because it's the best search engine (right now). The day it's no longer the best search engine, IMO, I'll stop using it.

      Hopefully they spend the money on developers, not lawyers.
    • Re:Attitude (Score:2, Interesting)

      by adamh526 (725423)
      And for a company that's historically been very secretive, how will that play out in the publicly listed world?

      Google may be much different, but I'd say secrecy has worked out pretty well for Apple.
    • Netscape was dying for a replacement browser. Just because it was the best doesn't mean it was any good. That was an easy one for Microsoft.

      Netscape was the front-runner, but who did they really have to surpass when they started? They were esentially the first browser. Once MS came along, they were fair-game. The same as with IE now being fair game for Mozilla et al. So they have to play catch-up.

      Google on the other hand had plenty of competition in the search engine field. Still does, but they were so

  • by rokzy (687636) on Friday August 20, 2004 @01:33PM (#10025057)
    Google does become the biggest advertiser and continues a policy of clean, unobtrusive adverts. not only does this reduce the percentage of annoying adverts directly by market share, but it makes people more sensitive to annoying adverts and eventually the stupid dumbfuck marketers realise the error of their ways and also adopt unobtrusive adverts.

    Google uses its money to start buying up real life billboards and dismantling them, thus improving real life too. this turns out to be one of the greatest moves in marketing history and Google continues to prosper.
  • Biggest Ad-Platform (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 20, 2004 @01:34PM (#10025069)
    I think you're on to something. Google's googlesyndication.com has already found its way into my list of blocked domains, right next to doubleclick.net. I wish they kept their tracking to their own site. When Doubleclick set cookies through their banners on third party sites, people were up in arms. Google apparently gets away with collecting data from webhits on third party sites, personally identifying information from GMail and Google Groups, social networking information from Orkut and of course their search engine. Let's hope that people stop being blinded by cuteness now that Google is a multi-billion dollar corporation.
  • Distributed google (Score:4, Interesting)

    by taylor (11728) on Friday August 20, 2004 @01:34PM (#10025071) Journal
    As Cringley points out, the possibilities for google are extremely broad, but limited nonetheless by the necessity of playing to the "technology" strength of google management and employees. Presumably the 20% project time (i.e. where employees develop pet projects) will help in the short term and long term. The bazaar model may work, but in terms of making money off of technology, they need to expand their bazaar thinking beyond just new technology, into market creation and the like. Otherwise all that creative R&D time is lost in a sea, like many sourceforge projects. Presumably they allow _all_ their employees the 20% time, not just engineers, in which case this works.

    Only vaguely relatedly, it seems that utilization of their distributed computing expertise and power (as per previous slashdot discussions) is an immediate area they can capitalize on. I wonder what a google-backbone based MMORG (with _ultimate bandwidth power_) would be like?
    • >I wonder what a google-backbone based MMORG (with _ultimate bandwidth power_) would be like?

      kinda like real life.... on the internet!?

      perhaps they could rent out some bandwidth to Valve for a while to cover the launch of Half Life 2. Valve's Steam is supposed to be able to do this but is so amazingly shit it couldn't even handle the launch of a Counter-Strike: Source beta with a single map to a tiny fraction of players.
  • by otisg (92803) on Friday August 20, 2004 @01:37PM (#10025108) Homepage Journal
    How about something more meaningful than 'the biggest marketing company'? How about taking all that money and being the leader among big companies with loads of money by showing that being big and powerful does not need to turn you into a monster.
    How about that?
  • by GillBates0 (664202) on Friday August 20, 2004 @01:38PM (#10025122) Homepage Journal
    The future of Google" [google.com]

    Wired 12.03: The Complete Guide to Googlemania! [wired.com]
    ... The Complete Guide to Googlemania! (continued). 4 Scenarios for the Future of Google Sometimes a liquidity event changes everything. By Tom McNichol. ...

    GooOS, the Google Operating System (kottke.org) [kottke.org]
    GooOS, the Google Operating System. He argues that Google is building a huge computer with a custom operating system that everyone on earth can have an account on. His last few paragraphs are so much more perceptive than anything that's been written about Google

    Personalized Results: Exploring The Future Of Google ... Personalized Results: Exploring The Future Of Google. [webmasterworld.com]
    msgraph Moderator view user profile joined-Nov 29, 2000 posts:1330 msg #:1, 7:29 pm on Feb 12, 2002 (utc 0). ...

    MacMinute: The future of Google and Web searching? [macminute.com]
    * WWDC 2004: Discover how to put Mac OS X to work for you at WWDC! *. The future of Google and Web searching? March 31, 2004 - 07 ... www.macminute.com/2004/03/31/google - 29k -

  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 20, 2004 @01:39PM (#10025137)
    As with all young companies that go IPO Google's course will go as follows:

    1. All founders and current top executives will cash out and leave within the first year. Right now they are dizzy with possibilities and future ideas for the company but that will quickly fade to watching the stock ticker, taking long lunches, shopping for real estate, and counting the days to when they can legally cash out and leave.

    2. Within 8 months new executives will be hired to take over when the founders and top executives jump out.

    3. The new executives are have long resumes, short contracts, short attention spans, big dumb ideas, insane salaries, and lots of stock options. They will announce "a bold new vision" several times and sell out the company for all it's worth.

    4. After 3 years and various layoffs the second generation management cashes out and jumps ship.

    5. The third generation management comes onboard with a round of layoffs and useless new hires and looks at what else can be sold off. They change the name of the company and start shopping around for buyers to sell the whole company too.
  • by sphealey (2855) on Friday August 20, 2004 @01:44PM (#10025210)
    From the Cringley piece:

    Remember, Google's CEO is Eric Schmidt, who used to be Chief Scientist at Sun Microsystems, so technology doesn't scare these guys.

    I like the leaving out of the part where Schmidt was CEO of Novell, failed entirely to figure out a strategy to counter Microsoft, and ran one of the world's great technology companies into the groud. Nope, nothing important there.

    sPh

  • by yoshi_mon (172895) on Friday August 20, 2004 @01:47PM (#10025246)
    If the people at Google know what's good for them, and a suspect they might, they will keep their search engine clean and fast. Refineing it such that it stays on top. No more wading though countless newsgroup posts to find what your really looking for. Or a better way to refine searches that do hit things like newsgroups.

    After that they can branch out and play in the market. Gmail is one such venture and there are others that are worth a stab at such as the peoplefinder thing that I don't remember off the top of my head right now what it's called but it's been a pet project for a while now. Other things such as Froogle seem to be worthy of more development.

    However key to all the fishing they might want to do they have to keep that main engine humming. Do no evil! Keep the respect of the geeks and lusers alike. Computers move fast and the internet moves even faster and once you slip it's very hard to go back.
    • If the people at Google know what's good for them, and a suspect they might, they will keep their search engine clean and fast. Refineing it such that it stays on top. No more wading though countless newsgroup posts to find what your really looking for. Or a better way to refine searches that do hit things like newsgroups.

      The biggest thing they need to do is to take care of the false hits that you get that appear to be relevant. This would be difficult to do but i believe they can do it.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 20, 2004 @01:51PM (#10025301)
    I did a WebCrawler search and can't find anything about it. It is a NCSA Mosaic enhancement?
  • by mveloso (325617) on Friday August 20, 2004 @01:55PM (#10025340)
    Is google an advertising channel or a search engine? Right now the advertising channel only exists because of the search engine, and the channel is what's making them money.

    How does google make its advertising independent of its search?

    How do you broaden search to make it more useful?

    What kinds of things are people searching for?

    What's happening to their enterprise search business?

    When businesses want information, how do they get it?

    I'd expect them to buy doubleclick as their first acquisition.
  • Expansion (Score:2, Insightful)

    by bStrom (806850)
    It seems that, while ad revenue has made Google what it is, ad revenue can not be the company's only source of income forever. They have to expand into other areas. Everything they do seems to be based on the expansion of their ad revenue (i.e. - GMail, Froogle, etc.). They also bought they recently bought Picasa [picasa.com], so where else will they expand and how will they make money doing it?
  • Stem Cell? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by MindStalker (22827) <mindstalker&gmail,com> on Friday August 20, 2004 @02:01PM (#10025422) Journal
    "Google's strengths are its technology, its brand recognition, its current status as a stem cell of Internet business"

    Wow, first use of stem cell as a metaphor.
  • If the rumors of Google's 100,000 servers and proprietary grid/cluster OS are true, then what I think would make the most sense for Google is to offer free access worldwide to their supermachine from any standard computer or through special terminals. Google could essentially be the next OS: virtually unlimited storage, bandwidth, and information at your fingertips from anywhere in the world. People could log-in from anywhere in the world and have access to vast resources for running applications remotel
  • by bigberk (547360) <bigberk@users.pc9.org> on Friday August 20, 2004 @02:04PM (#10025440)

    Information about consumer habits and desires drives product development. Knowledge is power, and many companies are driven by marketing initiatives. In other words, marketers determine the need and direct product development.

    Credit cards provide a useful way to track consumers and build files on their habits. Other electronic cards (club card memberships, air miles, etc.) provide similar ways to gather consumer information. The companies that gather this information then sell it out to other marketing firms.

    It's safe to say that Google is an internet search used by everyone. This means they have some of the most valuable information for a consumer world. They could easily make billions packaging this data properly and selling it to marketing firms.

    • It's safe to say that Google is an internet search used by everyone. This means they have some of the most valuable information for a consumer world. They could easily make billions packaging this data properly and selling it to marketing firms.

      Following up to my own post... what's interesting about this business direction, should Google decide to go that route, is that they won't have to litter their search engine with ads. They could keep it running exactly as it currently is, with the efficiency and

  • by Ars-Fartsica (166957) on Friday August 20, 2004 @02:05PM (#10025452)
    How much of your time do you spend searching anyway?
  • by fname (199759) on Friday August 20, 2004 @02:16PM (#10025586) Journal
    Unfortunately I think Google has been getting worse at its primary function, finding relevant webpages based on simple queries, for years. I remember back in 1999 when i 1st discovered Google. The results at Altavista were littered with spurious results, and I usually had to use long boolean searches to get decent results-- usually on the 3rd try and the 4th page of results. Google came along and blew that all away, and there was 1 big reason-- no one was trying to SPAM Google's results, and I doubt anyone even knew how.

    Fast forward 5 years. So many SEO types are now infiltrating Google's results that they are not nearly as relevant as they once were-- remember when Google was sued for downgrading linkfarm results, and they backed down? Anyone use the "Feeling luck?" button anymore? It's nice you can see 100 results per page, but I usually end up doing 2 or 3 queries to get the proper result these days. I still use Google, but Teoma (Ask.com, I believe) seems to work equally as well, and if Google doesn't improve their search results, they will have a long, slow decline.

    Their other innovations are nice (Froogle, Google News, GMail), but they are really just sidelights to their core competency-- finding relevant webpages. I'm hoping they figure out how to do it.
  • My guess... (Score:5, Funny)

    by csoto (220540) on Friday August 20, 2004 @02:44PM (#10025901)
    They are just trying to solidify the BRAND, so they can start selling tasty, fruity, frozen GooglePops (with Vitamin C)!
  • Little noticed but quite significant is the fact that Adam Bosworth has left BEA for Google.

    The overarching answer to the question "what does Google want to be when it grows up" is a provider of information services through the web. That means at least two different things, stuff like the search engine and Gmail that will be aimed at individuals, delivered through a browser and funded through adverts but probably a bigger deal is the provision of Web Services through APIs to businesses funded by micropayme

  • "THAT's why Google is cut from whole cloth with every new hire chosen to be of the body."

    Is there anyone who can parse this?
    "chosen to be of the body"?
    Is that even English?
  • Two things, first thanks for the Wired link on Cringley. I own both of the 3 tape Oregon PBS sets of his, enjoy them. I do disagree with him from time to time, and when I've replied he snaps back. Supercomputers are still sexier than clusters of commodity crap. Sorry Bob.

    Anyways, I'm a heavy user of Google. But recently when unable to find a link or two I've reverted to the Yahoo search engine at search.yahoo.com. The interesting thing was I found what I was looking for without the same amount of false c
  • while they develop new inventory ala gmail to boost ad sense / ad words revenue. Their fault tolerant file system and proprietary storage will allow them to do these things better than anyone else.

    They will also expand into graphic ads as they are much more effective than text ads.

    online ads are the future.
  • Reintermediation (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Phaid (938) on Friday August 20, 2004 @03:21PM (#10026348) Homepage
    Isn't it funny how, in the dot-com boom of the roaring 90's, "disintermediation" was the buzzword for the phenomenon that was going to make everyone super rich? Cut out the middleman, allow shoppers to directly access your site, and watch the dough roll in.

    And isn't it great how the most successful web businesses, like Yahoo, Amazon, eBay, and Google, are all busy making money through "intermediation", acting as the middleman who points buyers to sellers, and making money by selling ad space and transaction fees?

    I love it when a plan comes together :)
  • Google is in an amazing position to take on eBay if you think about it. Aside from pre-existing brand recognition, imagine having the power of listing auctions knowing that they would be included in google searches? Instead of reaching the vast numbers of eBay browsers, you would be reaching the much, much greater number of Google users.


    Something to think about for them, I hope.

  • Some interesting comments can be found in this article on Yahoo! Finance [yahoo.com]

10 to the 12th power microphones = 1 Megaphone

Working...