Guest valueInv Posted January 28, 2013 Share Posted January 28, 2013 Pinterest is not what is going to be big in 5 years, it's big now. It is already valued at well over $1B. As far as capturing intent, how does facebook do that? I don't see it. They have location info and personal details but really not intent. Obviously the competitive space is broader than websites with intent. Really any website once it gets to a massive scale is a potential competitor. That is why google bought youtube for instance. They simply can't buy them all. One technology which does capture intent are services like Apple's Siri. In fact you couldn't have clearer intent or a more comparable technology to search. It is search. It is this type of technology that google is guarding against. If they had just let Apple own the market then they could potentially lose control of the future of search. You have just too narrow a definition of search, you are thinking exclusively of the way it is implemented now with a website/browser widget. You still haven't responded to how google is ignoring facebook. Pintrest is not big now, they're just hyped. They haven't even started monetization. FB can capture implicit intent using their current product. For example, FB knows I like Pink Floyd. They showed me an ad when the Roger Waters tour came to town. I clicked, FB got paid. I never search for Pink Floyd on Google. I have no reason to. Also, FB will start capturing explicit intent when their search engine starts monetizing. BTW, Google has made offers to pretty much every social startup that gains traction including Pintrest. Most are not willing to sell to Google. Google is not ignoring FB. Instead of focusing on their biggest, direct threats, they spend their money and best talent on science projects like driverless cars and mapping coral reefs. They lack a coherent strategy. They're trying to be all things to all people and enter every market they can. And people on investor boards bend over backwards into trying to rationalize their various efforts into something coherent. As you pointed, G+ is a failure. But guess which is their biggest acquisition? A social company? It is obvious that the "build it and they will come" strategy is not working for social. But all you see is more features being announced and redesigned UIs. Where do you see most of the new product announcements from Google coming? Social? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmitz Posted January 28, 2013 Share Posted January 28, 2013 As you pointed, G+ is a failure. But guess which is their biggest acquisition? A social company? It is obvious that the "build it and they will come" strategy is not working for social. But all you see is more features being announced and redesigned UIs. Where do you see most of the new product announcements from Google coming? Social? http://www.zdnet.com/google-moves-up-to-second-place-in-social-networks-7000010372/ Obviously not all of these may be active users, but I think to call it a failure may be premature. IE didn't start out with 100% marketshare. Also, you reference the various research projects google does--basic research keeps many brilliant people engaged and happy, and not working for their competitors. In addition to just being a very good thing for society. I wish more companies were managed with an eye to long term sustainability and as participating members of society, not little piggy banks only for investors, where every dime must be squeezed. I have many problems with google's size and privacy implications, but you're attacking some of their best attributes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VAL9000 Posted January 28, 2013 Share Posted January 28, 2013 1, The patent "story" has come to an end. First, Google settled their antitrust suit and agreed not to sue anyone using their FRAND patents. Second, Google has withdrawn most of its lawsuits against Apple and other as part of this agreement. Check the news. Further, many of Motorola's handsets remain banned both in the US and in Germany because of patent lawsuits it lost. 2, Motorla continues to lose money. Take a look at Google's quarterly numbers. They could reduce prices but that will only increase Google's own losses. Smasung has massive economies of scale (it is the worlds top chip buyer) and manufactures its own chips. Further, Samsung continues to make massive strides against other Android vendors and sends an order of magnitude more on marketing. In other words, they have far more pricing power than Motorola. Finally, Androids problem is not high prices. There are many Chinese vendors pushing prices down very quickly. Take a look at Huawei, Lenovo and Xaomi. These guys are driving Motorola out of the market. I'm simply explaining, within the framework, why Google did what they did. If you think they're not trying to drive down the cost of these devices, then please offer an alternate theory that you believe is more plausible. I think they bought Motorola for the patent protection primarily, and I think that it is generally working. The judge bounced Apple's lawsuit against Motorola, which Google was pleased with. Motorola gives Google significant leverage in protecting Android from Apple, Microsoft, and others - is this something that you disagree with? The hardware piece is going to be a turnaround project and will take time to execute. They bought a poor business with an 18 month product pipeline and it's going to take some time to work through it. The real test of Google as a hardware company will start at the end of '13, or early '14. Based on the Nexus-class devices we've seen, I think that Google will produce some impressive hardware through that unit. Of course Samsung is a better business than Motorola. The point that I made above was that Samsung is good enough that they could conceivably become the only Android handset manufacturer, which would give them significant leverage over Google in future negotiations. Does it not make sense that owning a hardware company would give you a better position in negotiating with a hardware company? This is like the argument that Bing is good for Microsoft because it's bad for Google. Android's problem is high prices if you take the view that Google wants everyone in the world using their core products. Really poor people can't benefit from Google today, because of both the cost of the device and the cost of the service. Google can more easily impact the cost of the device, and this is what they are doing. Plus it puts significant competitive pressure on the likes of AAPL and MSFT, which is good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest valueInv Posted January 28, 2013 Share Posted January 28, 2013 1, The patent "story" has come to an end. First, Google settled their antitrust suit and agreed not to sue anyone using their FRAND patents. Second, Google has withdrawn most of its lawsuits against Apple and other as part of this agreement. Check the news. Further, many of Motorola's handsets remain banned both in the US and in Germany because of patent lawsuits it lost. 2, Motorla continues to lose money. Take a look at Google's quarterly numbers. They could reduce prices but that will only increase Google's own losses. Smasung has massive economies of scale (it is the worlds top chip buyer) and manufactures its own chips. Further, Samsung continues to make massive strides against other Android vendors and sends an order of magnitude more on marketing. In other words, they have far more pricing power than Motorola. Finally, Androids problem is not high prices. There are many Chinese vendors pushing prices down very quickly. Take a look at Huawei, Lenovo and Xaomi. These guys are driving Motorola out of the market. I'm simply explaining, within the framework, why Google did what they did. If you think they're not trying to drive down the cost of these devices, then please offer an alternate theory that you believe is more plausible. I think they bought Motorola for the patent protection primarily, and I think that it is generally working. The judge bounced Apple's lawsuit against Motorola, which Google was pleased with. Motorola gives Google significant leverage in protecting Android from Apple, Microsoft, and others - is this something that you disagree with? The hardware piece is going to be a turnaround project and will take time to execute. They bought a poor business with an 18 month product pipeline and it's going to take some time to work through it. The real test of Google as a hardware company will start at the end of '13, or early '14. Based on the Nexus-class devices we've seen, I think that Google will produce some impressive hardware through that unit. Of course Samsung is a better business than Motorola. The point that I made above was that Samsung is good enough that they could conceivably become the only Android handset manufacturer, which would give them significant leverage over Google in future negotiations. Does it not make sense that owning a hardware company would give you a better position in negotiating with a hardware company? This is like the argument that Bing is good for Microsoft because it's bad for Google. Android's problem is high prices if you take the view that Google wants everyone in the world using their core products. Really poor people can't benefit from Google today, because of both the cost of the device and the cost of the service. Google can more easily impact the cost of the device, and this is what they are doing. Plus it puts significant competitive pressure on the likes of AAPL and MSFT, which is good. I have posted in detail about all the lawsuits Motorla lost, all the devices banned and the antitrust issue already. All the information you need is already there in this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parsad Posted January 28, 2013 Share Posted January 28, 2013 One of Google's advertising competitors, AdBrite, is going out of business February 1st. Small fry, but still shows how difficult it is to make a dent in AdSense. Facebook may have a shot. Cheers! http://allthingsd.com/20130128/sales-talks-fell-through-so-ad-exchange-adbrite-shuts-down/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PlanMaestro Posted January 29, 2013 Share Posted January 29, 2013 Amazon opens new advertising front. http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/8e0b46ac-6642-11e2-919b-00144feab49a.html#axzz2J8s0hfT4 Marketers note that Amazon is now charging prices that rival its competitors and that its ad business stands out from the pack because of its massive reach, rich data-set based on actual customer data and personalisation techniques. The more that consumers and advertisers go directly to Amazon to search for products, the bigger the threat the company poses to others – especially Google – experts and analysts said. Colin Gillis, technology analyst at BGC Partners, said: “What’s the difference between a user and a customer? The difference is a customer has given you their credit card data. Google has millions of users, but far fewer customers.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest valueInv Posted January 29, 2013 Share Posted January 29, 2013 Amazon opens new advertising front. http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/8e0b46ac-6642-11e2-919b-00144feab49a.html#axzz2J8s0hfT4 Marketers note that Amazon is now charging prices that rival its competitors and that its ad business stands out from the pack because of its massive reach, rich data-set based on actual customer data and personalisation techniques. The more that consumers and advertisers go directly to Amazon to search for products, the bigger the threat the company poses to others – especially Google – experts and analysts said. Colin Gillis, technology analyst at BGC Partners, said: “What’s the difference between a user and a customer? The difference is a customer has given you their credit card data. Google has millions of users, but far fewer customers.” There'll be more and more in the future. If you have a better search experience for products on Amazon, you won't use Google to search for products. But you'll search for everything else on Google -news, history, Justin Beiber, etc. But when you want to buy, you'll use Amazon because they can actually fulfill the transaction. Guess what happens to Google's economics when Amazon skims the cream off the top? So yeah, Amazon is the number 2 threat after Facebook. Apple is a distant number 3. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCG Posted January 29, 2013 Share Posted January 29, 2013 As you pointed, G+ is a failure. But guess which is their biggest acquisition? A social company? It is obvious that the "build it and they will come" strategy is not working for social. But all you see is more features being announced and redesigned UIs. Where do you see most of the new product announcements from Google coming? Social? http://www.zdnet.com/google-moves-up-to-second-place-in-social-networks-7000010372/ Obviously not all of these may be active users, but I think to call it a failure may be premature. IE didn't start out with 100% marketshare. Also, you reference the various research projects google does--basic research keeps many brilliant people engaged and happy, and not working for their competitors. In addition to just being a very good thing for society. I wish more companies were managed with an eye to long term sustainability and as participating members of society, not little piggy banks only for investors, where every dime must be squeezed. I have many problems with google's size and privacy implications, but you're attacking some of their best attributes. The amount of 'Users' of Google + means very little. Google automatically gives everyone who has any type of Google account a Google + account. Google + is basically a social network for Google employees at this point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest valueInv Posted February 1, 2013 Share Posted February 1, 2013 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-21302168 I'm guessing more like this on the way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VAL9000 Posted February 1, 2013 Share Posted February 1, 2013 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-21302168 I'm guessing more like this on the way. I'm guessing more like this: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest valueInv Posted February 1, 2013 Share Posted February 1, 2013 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-21302168 I'm guessing more like this on the way. I'm guessing more like this: We were having the same conversation about RIMM a few weeks ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
siddharth18 Posted February 1, 2013 Share Posted February 1, 2013 One of Google's advertising competitors, AdBrite, is going out of business February 1st. Small fry, but still shows how difficult it is to make a dent in AdSense. Facebook may have a shot. Cheers! http://allthingsd.com/20130128/sales-talks-fell-through-so-ad-exchange-adbrite-shuts-down/ This comes as no surprise. I have done business with AdBrite before and I'm intimately aware of their operations and their position in the display ad business. AdBrite was and always has been the broker of crappy, 3rd tier ad display inventory (think torrent sites, warez forums and porn sites). Due to the nature of their inventory, no big box/big brand advertisers are interested in advertising with them and the best they can hope for is low paying (and sometimes shady) direct response advertising. Substandard companies like AdBrite, RightMedia, etc were allowed to exist because Google has always shunned crappy inventory. It doens't help that AdBrite's ad platform and technology is light years behind Google's - there's just no comparison. And yes, Google has an incredibly deep and wide moat in the display ad business. Note: I'm not talking about their search ad business. Even if no one searched on Google.com tomorrow, there will be millions of long tail (meaning niche specific) sites that will be relying on Google to monetize their inventory. Google has the largest advertiser base and can monetize its inventory at a higher rate. Due to this fact, site owners will always go to Google to get the highest monetization rates (CPM). And advertisers have no where else to go because no other online ad network has reach of millions of sites in its network - think network effects at an astronomical scale. Anyone who has used AdWords or AdSense knows this - especially their draconian terms of service and their arrogant way of doing business. They have no tolerance for any violations of ToS and police their network very vigilantly, which should tell you that they are at the top of their game. I would even go as far as to say that they have monopolized the online ad business due to the sheer percentage of online ad inventory they control. All e-commerce businesses know that they cannot exist without staying in the good graces of Google, Inc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ItsAValueTrap Posted February 2, 2013 Share Posted February 2, 2013 Siddharth, thanks for the comments. The thing is... I am always a little paranoid about Google (even though I think that it has a great business and am long it). The problem with Google is that it is prone to disruptive changes and inflection points. If somebody else comes up with an alternative approach to advertising, it can do damage to Google's Adsense business. If I have a website, Adsense seems to be one of the worst ways of monetizing it. A lot of affiliate marketing blogs out there list how much they make from each source. -Affiliate links typically make the most -In general, I would expect that selling something or asking for donations would make a lot. -Then comes paid links / links sold for SEO purposes -At the bottom comes Google Adsense One of the principles behind affiliate marketing is the power of "independent" reviews. By giving "useful" information and vouching for an "unrelated" third party, advertising is much more effective. Affiliate links will likely always monetize far better than Google Adsense. On the value scale, Google Adsense is typically only good for large volumes of webpages with a low number of views (innovations like retargeting might change the landscape a little). So I think that there is a small chance that Adsense can be replaced by something else very quickly. I do agree with you that Adsense has a big advantage over other ad networks... being #1 is a huge 'unfair' advantage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Palantir Posted February 2, 2013 Share Posted February 2, 2013 Anybody have an intrinsic value estimate for Google? I think any price below 800 will give you a 10+% return... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest valueInv Posted February 3, 2013 Share Posted February 3, 2013 Looks like they've written the Chinese market off: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-21307212 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
no_free_lunch Posted February 3, 2013 Share Posted February 3, 2013 I would just second the concept that AdBrite is a poor alternative to Google. There rates are much cheaper but the quality of the traffic is very bad. For instance, one metric I used was the frequency that the advertisers incoming traffic would click somewhere else on my site. With google it was around 7-10%. With ad-brite less than 1%. Adbrite IS cheaper but not enough to justify what I was getting out of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCG Posted February 4, 2013 Share Posted February 4, 2013 This is probably due to Android's 'open' environment being so awesome... Android Malware Hacks Your PC and then Eavesdrops On You With Its Microphone http://gizmodo.com/5981248/terrifying-android-malware-hacks-your-pc-and-then-eavesdrops-on-you-with-its-microphone Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest valueInv Posted February 8, 2013 Share Posted February 8, 2013 More on that pound of flesh: http://techcrunch.com/2013/02/08/after-googles-80m-french-publishers-fund-press-lobby-group-calls-for-search-giant-to-pay-media-in-every-european-country/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest wellmont Posted February 8, 2013 Share Posted February 8, 2013 This is probably due to Android's 'open' environment being so awesome... Android Malware Hacks Your PC and then Eavesdrops On You With Its Microphone http://gizmodo.com/5981248/terrifying-android-malware-hacks-your-pc-and-then-eavesdrops-on-you-with-its-microphone A most relevant question: http://dashes.com/anil/2012/09/who-benefits-from-ios6s-crappy-maps.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest wellmont Posted February 8, 2013 Share Posted February 8, 2013 Looks like they've written the Chinese market off: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-21307212 at #6 and falliing Apple perhaps should think about it? :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest valueInv Posted February 8, 2013 Share Posted February 8, 2013 Looks like they've written the Chinese market off: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-21307212 at #6 and falliing Apple perhaps should think about it? :) Stay tuned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Palantir Posted February 8, 2013 Share Posted February 8, 2013 I always felt Schmidt would have a future in politics. I hope he pursues that, we need more talented and successful people like him to enter the arena. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest valueInv Posted February 8, 2013 Share Posted February 8, 2013 I always felt Schmidt would have a future in politics. I hope he pursues that, we need more talented and successful people like him to enter the arena. He certainly fits right in: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/04/eric-schmidt-google-creepy_n_748915.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Palantir Posted February 8, 2013 Share Posted February 8, 2013 GOOG's at an all time high. Sadly that means Mr Market is probably going to bring this down. O well. This thing is definitely headed to 800 and hopefully 900. At 900, I'd like to sell. At low 600s this becomes a buy again. Sorry for the stream of consciousness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest valueInv Posted February 8, 2013 Share Posted February 8, 2013 Hmmmmm...........: http://techcrunch.com/2013/02/08/google-chairman-eric-schmidt-plans-to-sell-3-2m-google-shares-42-of-his-stake-in-the-company/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now