Google Passes Microsoft’s Market Value as PC Loses to Web(businessweek.com)
businessweek.com
Google Passes Microsoft’s Market Value as PC Loses to Web
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-10-01/google-passes-microsoft-s-market-value-as-pc-loses-to-web
69 comments
Don't forget the work on self-driving cars. Once that becomes more commonplace technology, I think you'll see the stock increase dramatically. Every industry with the logistics of moving stuff from point A to point B not on rail could eventually be affected by the work they are doing. Once you can automate that you've effectively reduced tons of problems to automated packet-switching.
And Glass, and Fiber, and Android, and whatever else GoogleX might be working on......Google is quite diversified in its strategies.
Oh yeah, forgot those too. I'm especially bullish on Fiber. I made this comment about Fiber a few weeks ago:
This isn't about bandwidth. It's about content. The only thing standing
between YouTube and the CableTV providers is bandwidth.
If Google cracks the bandwidth nut, they can essentially replace TimeWarner,
Comcast, etc. in one fell swoop because they can easily replace 100% of the
services those companies offer at a fraction of the cost.
...
I think that you're ignoring the reality of getting into the telco business. Google is hardly the first company to jump into the bandwidth market, but without the corporate welfare they got in KC, they wouldn't have been able to build their network.
The reality is that as long as we have privately owned and operated metro networks, google's bandwidth access will be limited to the few metro areas that consent to their access requirements (and that's assuming the big telcos aren't able to successfully lobby against this incentive, as they've been successful in doing in the past).
The answer is publically owned, and privately operated metro networks. This is a dream that will never come to pass in America, and Google's ambition will remain just that: an unrealized dream.
Sorry for being such a Debbie downer, but bandwidth in the US is a really massive problem that won't be solved by one search engine or one company. We really need a national reform effort.
The reality is that as long as we have privately owned and operated metro networks, google's bandwidth access will be limited to the few metro areas that consent to their access requirements (and that's assuming the big telcos aren't able to successfully lobby against this incentive, as they've been successful in doing in the past).
The answer is publically owned, and privately operated metro networks. This is a dream that will never come to pass in America, and Google's ambition will remain just that: an unrealized dream.
Sorry for being such a Debbie downer, but bandwidth in the US is a really massive problem that won't be solved by one search engine or one company. We really need a national reform effort.
There's an "out there" way to skirt all of that.
Google (or whoever else) could simply create their own suburbs/towns/cities from scratch, streamlined construction and all, on cheap land bought in bulk in the desert out west. Not everyone would move, but many people would, especially if it was all managed by what they perceive as a trustable tech-savvy company like google. The might even cost them nothing if they would simply ask for pre-sale deposits.
It's a crazy idea but there's nothing difficult technically or financially to make it happen. There's probably at least 1 million customers who would sign up day 1.
Google (or whoever else) could simply create their own suburbs/towns/cities from scratch, streamlined construction and all, on cheap land bought in bulk in the desert out west. Not everyone would move, but many people would, especially if it was all managed by what they perceive as a trustable tech-savvy company like google. The might even cost them nothing if they would simply ask for pre-sale deposits.
It's a crazy idea but there's nothing difficult technically or financially to make it happen. There's probably at least 1 million customers who would sign up day 1.
Yeah, because ditching the urban infrastructure we'd developed from the 1600s to 1940 worked out so well for us in the last half of the 20th Century.
Better to create urban islands to both increase the re-urbanization trend and make the US overall more efficient, and extend those out.
Transportation, distribution and logistics, communications, and other infrastructure would be radically simplified.
Better to create urban islands to both increase the re-urbanization trend and make the US overall more efficient, and extend those out.
Transportation, distribution and logistics, communications, and other infrastructure would be radically simplified.
My impression is that Fiber is a project for the same reason that Chrome was developed. Not for profit per se.
Google depends on people having a good browser and a good connection to the net. Competition and progress had stagnated in the existing markets. By bringing out Chrome, they got Microsoft and Mozilla interested in security and excited about implementing new stuff again.
Hopefully they can do it for broadband too.
Google depends on people having a good browser and a good connection to the net. Competition and progress had stagnated in the existing markets. By bringing out Chrome, they got Microsoft and Mozilla interested in security and excited about implementing new stuff again.
Hopefully they can do it for broadband too.
There is a lot I don't like about Google, but Google Maps, Project Glass, and the automated cars are nothing but inspiring.
Just the fact that they transported us to other countries so everyone with an internet connection could go to Paris is laudable. And now they're going to explore the final frontier of Earth underwater.
After iPhone and iPad, like them or not, Google is the one of the "big" companies the most involved in inventing the future.
Just the fact that they transported us to other countries so everyone with an internet connection could go to Paris is laudable. And now they're going to explore the final frontier of Earth underwater.
After iPhone and iPad, like them or not, Google is the one of the "big" companies the most involved in inventing the future.
Though Glass is amazing, it will give a whole new meaning to tracking user information.
As you get information regarding what you're seeing, Google is logging everything you see.
A map with with a line detailing everywhere you've been over the course of years. A video displaying everything you saw on your real trip to Paris or wherever else-- not based on what you saw that day, but based on the information Google has about that area, those landmarks, etc.
Privacy could cease to exist while you're wearing Google Glass.
As you get information regarding what you're seeing, Google is logging everything you see.
A map with with a line detailing everywhere you've been over the course of years. A video displaying everything you saw on your real trip to Paris or wherever else-- not based on what you saw that day, but based on the information Google has about that area, those landmarks, etc.
Privacy could cease to exist while you're wearing Google Glass.
Recording alone is doesn't equate to a loss of privacy. If you kept detailed written notes on everywhere you go, as long as those notes don't get disclosed to anyone else, you haven't lost any privacy.
Taking a paranoid and oversimplified approach to privacy makes it's more difficult to have the complex, nuanced discussions necessary to actually protect privacy in meaningful ways.
Taking a paranoid and oversimplified approach to privacy makes it's more difficult to have the complex, nuanced discussions necessary to actually protect privacy in meaningful ways.
I don't agree with your accusation of paranoia.
Keeping detailed notes on everywhere you go isn't something that would be done as lightly as putting on a pair of glasses. You would consider the implications of the existence of that data before keeping it. With something like Glass, that part of the process gets skipped.
The argument for trusting Google with your data is that their privacy policy keeps your data safe. I don't doubt that Google has the best of intentions, but that doesn't mean my data is safe. A snooping employee, a change in policy that isn't necessarily over the line but isn't comforting either, security breaches, subpoenas (in the spirit of http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/may/8/twitter-fight...). There are a lot of ways that having that data in someone else's pocket can backfire.
Yes, it would be fine if there were some guarantee that no one could ever see my data. There isn't. It was not my intention to oversimplify anything. The last thing I want is to cause damage to the cause.
Edit: grammar
Keeping detailed notes on everywhere you go isn't something that would be done as lightly as putting on a pair of glasses. You would consider the implications of the existence of that data before keeping it. With something like Glass, that part of the process gets skipped.
The argument for trusting Google with your data is that their privacy policy keeps your data safe. I don't doubt that Google has the best of intentions, but that doesn't mean my data is safe. A snooping employee, a change in policy that isn't necessarily over the line but isn't comforting either, security breaches, subpoenas (in the spirit of http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/may/8/twitter-fight...). There are a lot of ways that having that data in someone else's pocket can backfire.
Yes, it would be fine if there were some guarantee that no one could ever see my data. There isn't. It was not my intention to oversimplify anything. The last thing I want is to cause damage to the cause.
Edit: grammar
It's not paranoid when you include the caveats, as you do here. But to simply say that "Privacy could cease to exist while you're wearing Google Glass" is fear mongering, or paranoia. That statement is both staggerly broad in nature and at the same time, unqualified.
At least Google Glass is an _opt-in_ form of monitoring and observation. If you don't want to wear it, you don't have to. If you want to take it off, you can. Those aspects alone mean it's a lot less worrisome than existing, and much more involuntary, invasions of our privacy.
At least Google Glass is an _opt-in_ form of monitoring and observation. If you don't want to wear it, you don't have to. If you want to take it off, you can. Those aspects alone mean it's a lot less worrisome than existing, and much more involuntary, invasions of our privacy.
Opt-in for the user, but not opt-in for the people around them. I don't get to choose to not be recorded. Compounded with modern law stating if you're in public, you can be legally recorded, and that it's already difficult enough as is to explain to people you'd rather they not tag you as being at a location or to take photos and instantly upload them... It's really worrisome. The only reason it isn't is because it's not popular.
If you "have nothing to hide", it's not a big deal. If you're fighting for custody of your child, transgender, gay, a targeted minority, visit a psychologist regularly, or even just happen to do a few things one day that could be misconstrued, all of a sudden, the potential of it taking off becomes a very big deal - sometimes much more so than current privacy issues.
If you "have nothing to hide", it's not a big deal. If you're fighting for custody of your child, transgender, gay, a targeted minority, visit a psychologist regularly, or even just happen to do a few things one day that could be misconstrued, all of a sudden, the potential of it taking off becomes a very big deal - sometimes much more so than current privacy issues.
In that respect it's no different from the hundreds of security cameras most of us pass by each day. If you're doing something in the presence of someone else's view, and you know they're pointing a camera of any type at you, it's hard to argue you have an expectation of privacy.
It's really hard to point at Glass and say it's materially different from the broad array of recording devices already out there. If you're someone trying to avoid being recorded, those are a much bigger problem - they're pervasive, generally have better viewpoints (can see more total area) and often have built-in illumination as well.
It's really hard to point at Glass and say it's materially different from the broad array of recording devices already out there. If you're someone trying to avoid being recorded, those are a much bigger problem - they're pervasive, generally have better viewpoints (can see more total area) and often have built-in illumination as well.
Privacy could cease to exist while you're wearing Google Glass
Sounds about right to me and I'd be extremely skeptical of any claims to the contrary. The default result of any data entering a computer system owned by someone else is that it is no longer private. Specifically the US, the government considers any data held by a commercial entity to be fair game.
Compare to:
Privacy could cease to exist while you're chatting on Facebook
Sounds about right to me and I'd be extremely skeptical of any claims to the contrary. The default result of any data entering a computer system owned by someone else is that it is no longer private. Specifically the US, the government considers any data held by a commercial entity to be fair game.
Compare to:
Privacy could cease to exist while you're chatting on Facebook
My assumption was that it wouldn't necessary to outline the caveats. As I said in my response to your criticism, it wasn't my intention to be detrimental to my own cause. I'll keep in mind that I need to provide such details when voicing concerns in the future.
As for your second paragraph, I already voiced my concerns on that. The implications of opting-in are not well-considered by the average consumer. It's taken for granted that personal data is protected.
Posting this for nsmartt because maxvisit.
As for your second paragraph, I already voiced my concerns on that. The implications of opting-in are not well-considered by the average consumer. It's taken for granted that personal data is protected.
Posting this for nsmartt because maxvisit.
> A map with with a line detailing everywhere you've been over the course of years...
Sort of like.. hmm.. cell phones?
You lost this privacy years ago, at least to governments.
Sort of like.. hmm.. cell phones?
You lost this privacy years ago, at least to governments.
Yes, like cell phones, but no.
Privacy hasn't died yet. The problem isn't that Google Glass exists or that cell phones exist. The problem is awareness. The problem is the same for cell phones.
Privacy hasn't died yet. The problem isn't that Google Glass exists or that cell phones exist. The problem is awareness. The problem is the same for cell phones.
It's not laudable it's laughable, you want to go to Paris? Go to Paris.
Not everyone has that privilege.
[deleted]
Alternative headline: Google passes Microsoft's market value as Microsoft gives gobs of cash to shareholders rather than hold onto it to inflate market value.
Still, it's a significant thing I suppose. But we tend to ignore the cash position of companies in stories like this. If Google suddenly paid out 100 billion to shareholders tomorrow then it's market value would rightly drop by about 100 billion, but that wouldn't mean Microsoft was suddenly winning again.
Still, it's a significant thing I suppose. But we tend to ignore the cash position of companies in stories like this. If Google suddenly paid out 100 billion to shareholders tomorrow then it's market value would rightly drop by about 100 billion, but that wouldn't mean Microsoft was suddenly winning again.
Funny APPL has a market cap (624B) that is bigger than Google (248) and "wintel" (248 + 115 = 363) combined.
Seriously, that Google has lapped the larger part of what was the Microsoft / Intel juggernaut of the last century is notable of course, but I wonder if its the wrong question.
Seriously, that Google has lapped the larger part of what was the Microsoft / Intel juggernaut of the last century is notable of course, but I wonder if its the wrong question.
Headline: Walled garden wins over PC plus Web.
They haven't quite done it on a dividend-adjusted basis yet though.
Weak signal given the size of the companies and their volatilities.
Let's observe the quoted, albeit stale, Google market capitalisation of $249.2 billion with a current vega-weighted mean implied volatility (market's opinion of what Google's volatility will be) of 31.12% and the quoted Microsoft market cap of $248.7 billion with an IV index of 22.51%. The question is, assuming these two Gaussian random variables vary independently [1], what is the probability that GOOG is still bigger than MSFT in one year? The answer is a hair above 50%. Plugging in $249.65 billion for Google and $248.02 billion for Microsoft (closer to present values) this probability rises closer to 51%.
Conclusion: insufficient evidence that this is more than random market jittering just yet.
[1] If this were more than a quick, stylised analysis I'd construct a covariance matrix or copula to describe the dependency structure. Given the razor thin odds, however, it is unlikely that correlation will help the OP's case too much.
Let's observe the quoted, albeit stale, Google market capitalisation of $249.2 billion with a current vega-weighted mean implied volatility (market's opinion of what Google's volatility will be) of 31.12% and the quoted Microsoft market cap of $248.7 billion with an IV index of 22.51%. The question is, assuming these two Gaussian random variables vary independently [1], what is the probability that GOOG is still bigger than MSFT in one year? The answer is a hair above 50%. Plugging in $249.65 billion for Google and $248.02 billion for Microsoft (closer to present values) this probability rises closer to 51%.
Conclusion: insufficient evidence that this is more than random market jittering just yet.
[1] If this were more than a quick, stylised analysis I'd construct a covariance matrix or copula to describe the dependency structure. Given the razor thin odds, however, it is unlikely that correlation will help the OP's case too much.
It's still a rather remarkable milestone. In a relatively short amount of time, the #1 "unstoppable" company in tech was passed by both it's smaller competitor (Apple) and an entirely new company (Google).
It makes me wonder if both Apple and Google will, in a relatively short amount of time, be surpassed by a company that doesn't exist yet.
yes indeed, i agree that many times, what people referred as Small Bubbles, create a Huge dynamic impact on the world. The same is the case with Google. And for Apple, only Hats Off :)
They are not Gaussian random vars - a very dominant growth factor ("mu" as you would call it in a stochastic process) applies to both - which is higher in Google's case - without a doubt.
"without a doubt"
I have, unfortunately, seen a great many things beyond the shade of doubt come back and bite people.
Note, too, that GOOG has a 9% higher beta than MSFT and that we are in a rising market. We cannot let our ex ante biases colour our attributions.
I have, unfortunately, seen a great many things beyond the shade of doubt come back and bite people.
Note, too, that GOOG has a 9% higher beta than MSFT and that we are in a rising market. We cannot let our ex ante biases colour our attributions.
Yet another "market value defines losing/winning" article between 2 products that don't even compete.
It's funny to call it "PC loses to Web" when MS doesn't actually make the PC but the software that runs on the PC. Whether you use Google or Microsoft, you are using a "PC" in the terms of the article. One might say that it is more about a three way contest where MS is losing mainly to Apple, depressing their price down lower than Google, and Google is going up for other reasons.
To the extent it is about Google, this is really about commoditization of software : Google is commodotizing the whole OS into the (free) browser. They are commodotizing office software into free Google Apps. They are showing that if you do it at scale and over the web you can operate at such efficiency that you basically give people all this stuff Microsoft charges for and still make huge amounts of money from the advertising revenue, or you can have pay model where the costs are an order of magnitude less than what MS needs to survive in its current form.
To the extent it is about Google, this is really about commoditization of software : Google is commodotizing the whole OS into the (free) browser. They are commodotizing office software into free Google Apps. They are showing that if you do it at scale and over the web you can operate at such efficiency that you basically give people all this stuff Microsoft charges for and still make huge amounts of money from the advertising revenue, or you can have pay model where the costs are an order of magnitude less than what MS needs to survive in its current form.
1) PC stands for Personal Computer. It is not synonymous with Microsoft or Windows. Personal Computer.
2) The web is useless with out Personal Computers or personal computing devices such as smart phones so the web hasn't lost to the PC and the PC hasn't lost to the web, they need each other.
2) The web is useless with out Personal Computers or personal computing devices such as smart phones so the web hasn't lost to the PC and the PC hasn't lost to the web, they need each other.
[deleted]
That's something of a non sequitur, I would think.
[deleted]
I guess search is a business after all :)
PC loses to Web ads is more likely.
I think Google's got better at getting people to click on ads. For example, one of the following is a search result and the other is an ad. How many people can differentiate between them on various monitors?
http://i.imgur.com/Wmdd0.png
I remember the time when Google differentiated itself by clearly marking ads, now it's no longer true for high value keywords.
I think Google's got better at getting people to click on ads. For example, one of the following is a search result and the other is an ad. How many people can differentiate between them on various monitors?
http://i.imgur.com/Wmdd0.png
I remember the time when Google differentiated itself by clearly marking ads, now it's no longer true for high value keywords.
It might be easier to tell the ad from the search result if you hadn't cut out the part that reads, and I quote:
"Ads related to mesothelioma:"
Stop this trolling. You're quite simply lying to people with that kind of nonsense. It doesn't belong anywhere, much less here.
"Ads related to mesothelioma:"
Stop this trolling. You're quite simply lying to people with that kind of nonsense. It doesn't belong anywhere, much less here.
I looked at the original search and while this text is there, and there's a colored highlight over the ads, I could imagine myself clicking the ad accidentally in a hurry, or someone less knowledgeable about the way Google runs Adwords to confuse the two.
What part of your point (which I don't disagree with at all, btw) makes it OK to post a deliberately edited screenshot like recoiledsnake did?
I guess I don't really understand the problem here. If the ad is just as relevant (and if you're going to click it, thinking its part of the results, then I assume it is), what's the problem? If you don't like ads, use an ad blocker.
The title of a link isn't what makes it just as relevant -- if that was the case, what's all of Google's magic sauce for? Google does a pretty good job of ranking relevance, then sells the first spot to the highest bidder. It's a competely normal and ethical business model, but I can easily imagine people being ignorant of this.
Bid is only one factor. See http://support.google.com/adwords/bin/answer.py?hl=en&an...
Relax, why not post a full screenshot yourself? Sorry I am on a mobile device right now or I would, but the point is that the text you quoted is two ad results above. So while scanning results, it's easy to not notice the subtle background change between those two results. It's hard to see where the ads end and the results begin, that's why I highlighted the part between the ad and the search result.
If someone can post the full screenshot, please do.
If someone can post the full screenshot, please do.
I can't remember exactly when, but they clearly changed the colour difference to be much more subtle at some point. At home I see the difference, but on the work dell monitors you can only tell where the ads stop if you view the screen from a very low angle...
It's worth mentioning that Bing ads are even less apparently demarcated. At least with Adwords there's a significant contrast created by the use of the yellow which human eyes are particularly sensitive to. I am looking at a Bing ad right now and I am really struggling to see where the ad ends and the white of the search results begins. Not to mention that Adwords has a "Ads related to {}" text along with an information icon next to that. Bing ads just have a small "Ads" in the top right corner of the ad (away from where the eyeballs are likely to be).
It's quite clear to me which is which just from the color differences. You also cut the "ads related mesothelioma (?)" at the top of the section, which should make it even more clear. And there's the fact that people who understand the difference have already learned where Google ads are on the page.
Every HN reader knows that. But "normal" web users do not know it (anymore?). Every so often I see some anecdotal evidence of that when I watch people doing searches.
There are limits to the amount of due diligence companies should have to do to ensure that people know they are clicking on ads. Anyone who is interested in avoiding clicking on ads will easily identify Google's, or not see them at all via a software solution. For the rest, there's not much short of an acknowledgement overlay that will get the message across reliably (for text ads -- image ads are easier, but google doesn't have them).
>There are limits to the amount of due diligence companies should have to do to ensure that people know they are clicking on ads.
There are also limits on disguising search results as ads.
>For the rest, there's not much short of an acknowledgement overlay that will get the message across reliably (for text ads -- image ads are easier, but google doesn't have them)
Really? Just increasing the contrast or adding a border around the border or using extra spacing as a separator or another separator can help a lot. But it's hard to make changes that hurt the bottom line. Changing it the opposite way is much easier. Google has a lot of UI and UX experts and I don't think the changes are accidental at all. In fact, they must be very carefully planned.
Edit: Found an old screenshot where the difference is much more apparent.
http://www.jensense.com/archives/adsensehijack.gif
There are also limits on disguising search results as ads.
>For the rest, there's not much short of an acknowledgement overlay that will get the message across reliably (for text ads -- image ads are easier, but google doesn't have them)
Really? Just increasing the contrast or adding a border around the border or using extra spacing as a separator or another separator can help a lot. But it's hard to make changes that hurt the bottom line. Changing it the opposite way is much easier. Google has a lot of UI and UX experts and I don't think the changes are accidental at all. In fact, they must be very carefully planned.
Edit: Found an old screenshot where the difference is much more apparent.
http://www.jensense.com/archives/adsensehijack.gif
Basically, clutter up the page more? Facebook has no background, nor do Yahoo! (front page) or Reddit (sidebar). Bing's and Yahoo!'s SERPs and Reddit's sponsored link are near Google's in terms of contrast and signage. Although Reddit opts for a border but conflates ad space with space that is used to promote results algorithmically, because it's not sufficiently confusing I guess. In terms of HN darlings, DuckDuckGo is actually worse (approximately the same contrast, "Sponsored result" doublespeak rather than just calling a spade a spade). You're asking Google to follow a standard of behavior that none of the other major sites I visit reach.
In terms of industry norms, Google is about as good as it gets. Maybe you feel that's not enough, and I guess that's a qualitative judgment that you're free to make. People will differ on things like this occasionally :P. I'd ask for some kind of harm analysis at the very least before I accept that there's anything untoward going on.
In terms of industry norms, Google is about as good as it gets. Maybe you feel that's not enough, and I guess that's a qualitative judgment that you're free to make. People will differ on things like this occasionally :P. I'd ask for some kind of harm analysis at the very least before I accept that there's anything untoward going on.
Which search engine does it better?
I've noticed that when I'm on a laptop with a glossy screen, the difference in background colors are a lot harder to distinguish.
The color contrast from the white background is extremely low #FFF8E7 vs. #FFFFFF and there's deliberately a lack of border. The color difference is almost invisible based on monitor settings and the age of the user.
I believe these are relatively recent changes, earlier the background was blue or purple. I guess Google "optimized" the color and appearance to gain more clicks.
I believe these are relatively recent changes, earlier the background was blue or purple. I guess Google "optimized" the color and appearance to gain more clicks.
Saying that the PC loses to the web is like saying that cars lose to the new highway.
Sure, maybe everyone is replacing their car with a motorcycle, but then the car is losing to the motorcycle, not the highway.
Sure, maybe everyone is replacing their car with a motorcycle, but then the car is losing to the motorcycle, not the highway.
It actually makes sense.
The PC as a platform for running your applications and holding your data is on its way out, being replaced by the web. The PC, the box you run your browser on, will remain, but the applications you run will only see the browser on one side and their Unix-like OS on the other.
The PC as a platform for running your applications and holding your data is on its way out, being replaced by the web. The PC, the box you run your browser on, will remain, but the applications you run will only see the browser on one side and their Unix-like OS on the other.
They want to "organize the world's information", but that's less than half the story - an even bigger challenge is making all this information not only understandable and usable to humans but making it all work seamlessly together - a monumental task they are barely getting started at.
Unrelated (but necessary) they also seem to be doing very well at the organizational aspect of absorbing new ideas and companies and integrating them into themselves.