My prediction for Google

[imported_silentlamb]

Google will never charge a subscription for its search service. The reason they will not is because they are 'greedy' and they are here to make money as are all publicly traded companies. The 'greedy' shareholders all want to make more money. Charging subscription does not make you more money, it makes you lose money. You lose customers to other search engines, which means your main source of revenue(ads) drops because companies become less interested in advertising with you because of your loss of customer base. Greedy and evil shareholders are the ones that will stop this idea from becoming a reality. The shareholders would have to be shortsighted and dumb, not greedy, to implement this policy.

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: Bumrush99
91TTZ, you are on the right track but are focused on the wrong methods that google will use. Microsoft is TERRIFIED of what google has up its sleeve, they have been hiring software engineers and coders by the bucketload and the fear at Microsoft is that google is looking to create their own O/S or expand their business line to include more software that can be charged as a service yearly or sold out of the box.

You could be right about that, it was just a thought. And you're right about MS being afraid. They should be. Just going by the quality of their other programs compared to the quality of equivalent Microsoft programs, Google releases higher quality stuff.

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: silentlamb
Charging subscription does not make you more money, it makes you lose money. You lose customers to other search engines, which means your main source of revenue(ads) drops because companies become less interested in advertising with you because of your loss of customer base. Greedy and evil shareholders are the ones that will stop this idea from becoming a reality. The shareholders would have to be shortsighted and dumb, not greedy, to implement this policy.

I agree that they'd be shooting themselves in the foot, but I don't have any faith in the decisions made by shareholders. I think shareholders really are shortsighted an dumb, since they're just common people and not people involved in the business they're investing in.

Read this article for a good example of the greed that I'm talking about:

article

Note: This isn't really the fault of the stockholders, but instead of the executives. But it shows the greed that I'm talking about.

 

[imported_silentlamb]

That is very true. We can never underestimate the bad decisions shareholders can make. In their attempt to make a little profit where they can, they could bring about the demise of the entire company. Hopefully the smart leadership that has got Google to where it stands today has also ensured the management that will be left when they are gone is similarly qualified.

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

I agree that they'd be shooting themselves in the foot, but I don't have any faith in the decisions made by shareholders. I think shareholders really are shortsighted an dumb, since they're just common people and not people involved in the business they're investing in.

Read this article for a good example of the greed that I'm talking about:

article

Note: This isn't really the fault of the stockholders, but instead of the executives. But it shows the greed that I'm talking about.

You just keep going...there are a lot of companies that actually buy themselves back. I know a lot of boardmembers (stockholders??? WTF is that, in your argument I'd say you were definitely correct that shareholders can be idiots..but they can't make or break a smart company) that are retired, but still very active in their ventures.

Greed has a lot to do with what your link said, but in that market it isn't always shareholders that contribute (power company = outside forces too).

I don't think you understand the whole picture of things you post.

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: scorpmatt
google, like microsoft, stole alot of its software

fixed

 

[Bumrush99]

Read this article for some good insight..

Fortune Link

 

[Parrotheader]

In the forseeable future, I personally think Google is going to become basically the latest Yahoo (and that's not necessarily a bad thing as Yahoo's a great site IMO and has a great business model that's currently much more well-rounded than Google's.) Heck, Google is already starting down the portal path with it's latest personalization features, email, news, customizeable home pages, etc. It still has a long way to go in terms of developing custom content that site's like Yahoo and MSN have, but it's definitely headed that way (because it's a proven path - diversity of services spreads the risk.)

I doubt they'll be charging for their primary search services anytime soon though. The ad revenue they're gaining right now is mind bongling and the costs they'd have to charge to offset that would be ridiculously high. Just from my own experience, I'm managing close to a million dollars in advertising for our various clients on Google and Yahoo this year (should be well over a million dollars next year.) And that's just from a couple handfuls of mid-sized companies. The PPC search market (and rapidly growing content-targeted ad market) that Google is the largest distributor of is only beginning to mature. Advertisers are rapidly beginning to pull funds out of their HUGE offline ad budgets (typical ad budgets for most companies goes something like 95+% offline vs less than 5% online) and beginning to pour them into online advertising. And PPC search and content ads are getting most of this windfall because the format is usually one of the most effective forms of online advertising.

That being said, at some point in the near future I do think Google is going to have to offer other advertising opportunities in addition to just text-based keyword and content ads. Advertisers and larger content sites are looking for more than just keyword ads. They want graphical ads, sponsorship opportunities and other forms of brand interaction. Google offers virtually nothing in this area currently. And if Google's not careful they're going to lose some of that advertising marketshare a few years down the road. If they're smart, they'll open their own online graphical advertising network along the lines of a Doubleclick. Yahoo's already working in that direction and actually has a major jump on them in that regard.

There's also the factor of how well Google is able to do internationally. Google is obviously wildly popular here in North America and in other parts of the globe as well. But they're nowhere near as dominant internationally as many people might assume. Regional portal sites (and again competitors like Yahoo and Microsoft) are in a much better position to challenge them in certain areas. I know Yahoo just recently bought China's equivalent to Ebay and has designs on other sites of that ilk.

Over the long haul as they evolve into other areas, it's tougher to figure out what their plans are. Their ultimate goal is all about opening and providing access to information in all its formats (not just text, but audio, video, etc.) How that integrates with with their current services and what platforms they might use (or sell) to provide that information is where the big wildcard is. In these 'new' areas, I could see them possibly considering charging for their niche search services (especially if a well-established competitor is already doing it.) But I don't think they'll be attempting to charge for their mainstream search services anytime soon.

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: alkemyst


You just keep going...there are a lot of companies that actually buy themselves back. I know a lot of boardmembers (stockholders??? WTF is that....
I don't think you understand the whole picture of things you post.

Is it your intention to come off as sounding rude, or do you just come off that way unintentionally? Your replies just sound angry and demeaning when you reply to me.

Your post would have stood solidly without those comments, which seem to serve no other purpose than to demean.

If it's unintentional, then I apologize for the question.

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: alkemyst
You just keep going...there are a lot of companies that actually buy themselves back. I know a lot of boardmembers (stockholders??? WTF is that....
I don't think you understand the whole picture of things you post.

Is it your intention to come off as sounding rude, or do you just come off that way unintentionally? Your replies just sound angry and demeaning when you reply to me.

Your post would have stood solidly without those comments, which seem to serve no other purpose than to demean.

If it's unintentional, then I apologize for the question.

I am not trying to sound rude, but when someone is totally missing all the basic details of a situation yet commenting on it, it's just hard not to. You not realizing Google does generate income was odd to me.

You just seem to reply to any topic though so it's inevitable that my reply will be in it.