Even after losing 1/3 of its market cap? What the what?
Sometimes I wish companies just stayed private and focused on doing one thing well. The Linkedin product is fine. Good. Market leading. Just leave that well enough alone.
Even after losing 1/3 of its market cap? What the what?
Sometimes I wish companies just stayed private and focused on doing one thing well. The Linkedin product is fine. Good. Market leading. Just leave that well enough alone.
I'm guessing the people who got in before the IPO, in particular the founders, would disagree with that sentiment.
in hindsihgt i probably should have went with them but just hated the recruitment world so much that i didn't.
That said I always thought their evaluation was ludicrous. I'm not impressed at all by their offering and now that I'm in ad sales I see how impossible they are to work with.
yeah its awful. I just updated my profile for the first time in almost 3 years earlier this week. Since then its been non stop e-mail pings (which is why I didn't in the first place).
I'm curious to see the reason for not hitting their numbers. I have a feeling that its because of the high minimums they impose on advertisers. The minimums are crazy and that has to be due to being short staffed on their ops side of things which makes no sense to me at all.
really not much growth out there for LinkedIn at this point and facebook is supposedly creating a business/networking sub-site that will already have a gigantic established user-base.
offer us and actual value they've received from this site in return for the incredible value you give to them by offering up your entire work history and professional network? I guess I'm old but I'll never understand why people give away so much information for free, kinda like buying bottled water at a 10,000% markup instead of filtering it yourself.
offer us and actual value they've received from this site in return for the incredible value you give to them by offering up your entire work history and professional network? I guess I'm old but I'll never understand why people give away so much information for free, kinda like buying bottled water at a 10,000% markup instead of filtering it yourself.
The information you're giving away in this instance you normally would anyway. It's the same stuff you'd have on a resume, which you normally wouldn't have any reservations giving out to people.
There's definitely value in it - but like Deej says, how it ever got to the point where it was valued so highly as a company, when their revenue streams are fairly limited (let's face it - how much growth opportunity do they really have?), is puzzling.
offer us and actual value they've received from this site in return for the incredible value you give to them by offering up your entire work history and professional network? I guess I'm old but I'll never understand why people give away so much information for free, kinda like buying bottled water at a 10,000% markup instead of filtering it yourself.
I used a few recruiters job opportunities as part of negotiating salary with a prospective employer. The end result was I received an increase in salary of 40% over my previous position. My previous salary was fair and inline with market average (maybe slightly below market).
I also use it now to gauge my market value (recruiters seem to email me at least once a week). Typically I tell them it would take another 20-30% increase for me to consider another company change. No harm in seeing if there is a fit out there that will pay me that kind of money.
I have more than doubled my salary since graduating from college 8 years ago.
probably overpaying in the process. The one-click endorsement process has taken a lot of the meat out of those endorsements, which used to require actual effort to hand out.
I don't know if that value should be full credited to LinkedIn. If you really wanted to you can reach out to a whole slew of recruiters and actively interview whenever you want. There will always be a company out there willing to may more for good talent.
I'm not trying to discredit LinkedIn, they take the cake for recruitment. But their net worth is ridiculous. They purchased Bizo last year in order to get into audience and B2B targeting. Paid $1 billion I believe. However, they way they run things over there leads me to believe that purchase has been a disaster. They are going to get away from what made them great and muddy the waters with their business plan.
If/when Facebook finds a way to completely separate your FB profile from your professional profile, Linked In will almost be an afterthought.
Even after losing 1/3 of its market cap? What the what?
Sometimes I wish companies just stayed private and focused on doing one thing well. The Linkedin product is fine. Good. Market leading. Just leave that well enough alone.
I'm guessing the people who got in before the IPO, in particular the founders, would disagree with that sentiment.
Im not saying that it's not good for those investors. Im just saying I feel like we'd be better off as a society if some of these companies focused more on staying within a core competency and managing a product well, rather than going public and then doing the things that a public tech company needs to do to meet "market expectations". Essentially, we should allow a path to declare some tech companies mature earlier, and just count on good profits from them (or leave them private).
offer us and actual value they've received from this site in return for the incredible value you give to them by offering up your entire work history and professional network? I guess I'm old but I'll never understand why people give away so much information for free, kinda like buying bottled water at a 10,000% markup instead of filtering it yourself.
I've received my last 2 jobs from LinkedIn, gotten contract work from LinkedIn, and have generally had great experiences. I'm also a 26 year old so social media networking is kind of baked into my realm (along with those recruiting me).
offer us and actual value they've received from this site in return for the incredible value you give to them by offering up your entire work history and professional network? I guess I'm old but I'll never understand why people give away so much information for free, kinda like buying bottled water at a 10,000% markup instead of filtering it yourself.
I've received my last 2 jobs from LinkedIn, gotten contract work from LinkedIn, and have generally had great experiences. I'm also a 26 year old so social media networking is kind of baked into my realm (along with those recruiting me).
I've also gotten my last two positions with recruiters that contacted me through LinkedIn. 20%+ raises for each move.
Even after losing 1/3 of its market cap? What the what?
Sometimes I wish companies just stayed private and focused on doing one thing well. The Linkedin product is fine. Good. Market leading. Just leave that well enough alone.
I'm guessing the people who got in before the IPO, in particular the founders, would disagree with that sentiment.
Im not saying that it's not good for those investors. Im just saying I feel like we'd be better off as a society if some of these companies focused more on staying within a core competency and managing a product well, rather than going public and then doing the things that a public tech company needs to do to meet "market expectations". Essentially, we should allow a path to declare some tech companies mature earlier, and just count on good profits from them (or leave them private).
It's not a fully cooked idea on my part.
I don't disagree - but you have to remember the whole lifecycle.
A lot of these tech startups exist because of the promise of IPO riches. Very bright people work extremely long hours with the hopes that what they're building takes off and that their equity skyrockets in value.
Take away that promise - compensate them fairly, straight up, and I'm not sure you get the same result.
The whole process is ultimately destructive, though. Many of these people tend to be the first ones out the door once they can cash out (take off the "golden handcuffs"), and the company tends to suffer as the result of their loss. It's even worse in instances where a company is bought out, aside from only those considered essential the rest tend to not get paid, so they're usually out the door pretty quickly.
Im not saying that it's not good for those investors. Im just saying I feel like we'd be better off as a society if some of these companies focused more on staying within a core competency and managing a product well, rather than going public and then doing the things that a public tech company needs to do to meet "market expectations". Essentially, we should allow a path to declare some tech companies mature earlier, and just count on good profits from them (or leave them private).
It's not a fully cooked idea on my part.
Sounds like you're probably is with the short term thinking that being public often encourages and you're not alone in that regard. I think the CEO of Blackrock just put out a "proposal" for companies to not give quarterly earnings reports while also focusing on more long term strategies.
I doubt many (any?) will adopt that approach, but there's a lot of merit to it.
give up too much equity to the VCs and other investors along the way and thus end up with a minority share when the firms eventually go public. The ideal way would seem to be to do what Google and/or Amazon did where you go public, but the founder(s) still control enough voting shares that the company can focus on what they want without too much shareholder interference.
Granted it helps when you're search business basically prints money.
I don't know if that value should be full credited to LinkedIn. If you really wanted to you can reach out to a whole slew of recruiters and actively interview whenever you want. There will always be a company out there willing to may more for good talent.
I'm not trying to discredit LinkedIn, they take the cake for recruitment. But their net worth is ridiculous. They purchased Bizo last year in order to get into audience and B2B targeting. Paid $1 billion I believe. However, they way they run things over there leads me to believe that purchase has been a disaster. They are going to get away from what made them great and muddy the waters with their business plan.
If/when Facebook finds a way to completely separate your FB profile from your professional profile, Linked In will almost be an afterthought.
I agree with everything you are saying - especially in regards to the valuation!
Biggest benefit is Linkedin is approved for employee use by most employers (in my industry at least) and allows me to explore job opportunities passively and with proper decorum.
RE: RE: RE: RE: Linkedin is a $16 billion company?
Im not saying that it's not good for those investors. Im just saying I feel like we'd be better off as a society if some of these companies focused more on staying within a core competency and managing a product well, rather than going public and then doing the things that a public tech company needs to do to meet "market expectations". Essentially, we should allow a path to declare some tech companies mature earlier, and just count on good profits from them (or leave them private).
It's not a fully cooked idea on my part.
Sounds like you're probably is with the short term thinking that being public often encourages and you're not alone in that regard. I think the CEO of Blackrock just put out a "proposal" for companies to not give quarterly earnings reports while also focusing on more long term strategies.
I doubt many (any?) will adopt that approach, but there's a lot of merit to it.
I do have a problem with the short termerism driving the market. I've been following the Blackrock chief's crusade. I dont necessarily agree that his most recent proposal, once you get into the details, is all that great. The problem IMO is the investors (activists and passivists) and compensation structures (not levels per se). But on the general theme he's 100% right and I appreciate his leadership. My thoughts on this really gelled after I had a chance to talk to a VC titan who made a really compelling case about the lack of investment by corporate America.
Interestingly, some think the real short termerism push comes overwhelmingly from activists (I dont completely agree) and that activists are going to get less active going forward. The rise of activists since the recession has coincided with a persistent bull market. Theory is that activists could easily afford to buy into almost anyone and fuck around, because all boats were being lifted. In a middling or bear market they maybe cant afford to buy into a vulnerable company and try their tricks. (I dont want to be too negative on activists -- they come in differenct colors. Some are great, some are rent seekers and short termers).
give up too much equity to the VCs and other investors along the way and thus end up with a minority share when the firms eventually go public. The ideal way would seem to be to do what Google and/or Amazon did where you go public, but the founder(s) still control enough voting shares that the company can focus on what they want without too much shareholder interference.
Granted it helps when you're search business basically prints money.
In general I think the dual class structures are bad. Amazon is not controlled. Bezos has less than 20% of the vote, and there isnt a group backing him. As for Google, there isnt a shred of evidence that the company has done better because of Page and Brin's control. They had a brilliant math idea for the search engine. The VC funded it. The VCs forced them to hire Eric Schmidt, because Larry was out of his league. Schmidt did a very good job running the company, including making the key acquisition in Google's history -- Doubleclick. Google's search algoriths + Doubleclick = revenue bonanza. Most of the other high profile acquisitions/projects have been money losers (Youtube notwithstanding). Frankly, a lot of what they do it treat the company as a toy. The Google X lab IMO is a slushfund toy for Brin, who I think would otherwise quit and cause the company to lose its controlled status. Page recently got the board to fire Schmidt because he wanted his toy back. So the board did it, and after I think a few puttering years restructured as Alaphabet, a not too thinly veiled "I told you so move" to get Larry away from day to day ops.
As an aside, IMO Page sniffed out Brin wanting to quit and tried to cook up a way for him to get all of Brin's votes without paying Brin any money. The board sniffed it out and prevented it.
Most of the other high profile acquisitions/projects have been money losers (Youtube notwithstanding).
That's kind of the point, though my horizon might be longer than yours. Most of the "moonshots" are going to be money losers. But if you hit on a few of the "right" ones, it'll pay off over the long term. Though long term here is probably measured in 10+ years and that's really only possible because of the cash flow generated by search/advertising.
Though it's not really a "moonshot" from a *new* technology perspective, Google Fiber will likely cost $10s of billions to roll-out and reach enough households/businesses to turn a profit.
Self driving cars can certainly pay for themselves and more, but with seemingly everyone focused on that now, that's going to come down to which aspects Google develops IP in and any licensing deals that come out of it.
Most of the other high profile acquisitions/projects have been money losers (Youtube notwithstanding).
That's kind of the point, though my horizon might be longer than yours. Most of the "moonshots" are going to be money losers. But if you hit on a few of the "right" ones, it'll pay off over the long term. Though long term here is probably measured in 10+ years and that's really only possible because of the cash flow generated by search/advertising.
Though it's not really a "moonshot" from a *new* technology perspective, Google Fiber will likely cost $10s of billions to roll-out and reach enough households/businesses to turn a profit.
Self driving cars can certainly pay for themselves and more, but with seemingly everyone focused on that now, that's going to come down to which aspects Google develops IP in and any licensing deals that come out of it.
I dont have a problem with lots of moonshots, even acknowledging that they are likely money losers individually. I was just refuting the notion that somehow the dual class structure is some great thing.
I would say there is space between blindly defending moonshots and not managing quarter to quarter. These moonshots arent paying off after a decade. The problem (if you want to call it a problem) with Google's moonshots isnt that they dont turn a profit quickly... its that even 10 years out their hit rate is piss poor. Other than the algorithm, what has Google really produced? DoubleClick, Youtube, Android -- acuqisitions. Chrome, Gmail, Maps, Docs -- refinements of products already out there. IMO Google has always been better at execution than innovation. The most interesting moonshot is self-driving cars; they were very early to that in the grand scheme of things (obviously no on market yet, but I think it will be society-changing within 10-20 years).
Google to me is somewhat of a special case. Their managers have been crystal clear that they're going to treat the company kind of like an experiment. They said it pre-IPO, so you cant complain. They're not in the business of maximizing profits long term. I do have some concerns about vanity projects there though.
with respect to self-driving cars. They've definitely done more to push things in recent years and have been better at generating good publicity than others though. DARPA has been pushing self-driving cars for 10+ years now (see DARPA grand challenge) and most of the big automakers were sponsoring the student teams involved in those early contests (presumably they were getting something out of some of the partnerships).
Carnegie Mellon in particular was the "early" leader here as I believe their student teams won both DARPA challenges (desert + urban). Presumably they've licensed a significant amount of the IP they developed. That's why its hard to know if Google will even come out ahead in this realm which is one of the more developed "moon shots" they have.
I don't know how Google Labs is run specifically, but often even when a moonshot itself fails, other viable technologies are spawned along the way. Bell Labs was similar in this regard, though a lot of their "moonshots" were fundamental research and not as product specific.
I mean that on most of their other big name products, they either bought the product via M&A or they waited until someone was already at market, and then decided they could do it better. E.g. Gmail. With driverless cars they at least got in well before someone was selling the product.
agree about Google .. they have one product which is their adwords
adwords (which they didn't even invent ) is like the perfect money machine
it is a product that is just 8k of text -unlimited inventory and no sales people needed and with a 89% profit margin ..
Last year there was suddenly this acronym called FANG
which stands for Facebook Amazon/Apple Netflix Google
but also encompassed other high beta tech stocks like Linkedin Tesla GoPro
basically these stocks have been leading the charge in the market the past few years.. and thought to be a flight to quality .. tech market leaders.
this reminds me of the late 60's and early 70s "Nifty Fifty" which were NYSE big cap stocks that were thought to be high quality and solid buy and hold types. that propelled the market until the bear market of mid 70s when the NIFTY FIFTY all deflated and actually under performed the market .
The Nifty Fifty were a cautionary tale of unrealistic investor expectations for growth stock EXACTLY like FANG stocks are today.
Last year there was suddenly this acronym called FANG
which stands for Facebook Amazon/Apple Netflix Google
but also encompassed other high beta tech stocks like Linkedin Tesla GoPro
basically these stocks have been leading the charge in the market the past few years.. and thought to be a flight to quality .. tech market leaders.
this reminds me of the late 60's and early 70s "Nifty Fifty" which were NYSE big cap stocks that were thought to be high quality and solid buy and hold types. that propelled the market until the bear market of mid 70s when the NIFTY FIFTY all deflated and actually under performed the market .
The Nifty Fifty were a cautionary tale of unrealistic investor expectations for growth stock EXACTLY like FANG stocks are today.
I had a summer job working back office for small brokerage house (a type of entity that no longer exists) back then and trust me, the air started coming out of the Nifty Fifty as early as '71. There was a brief rally in '73 before the Energy Crisis took the whole market down.
Sometimes I wish companies just stayed private and focused on doing one thing well. The Linkedin product is fine. Good. Market leading. Just leave that well enough alone.
Constantly posting pictures of all the events LinkedIn runs and they are quite extravagant. Imagine those are likely to be toned down
Sometimes I wish companies just stayed private and focused on doing one thing well. The Linkedin product is fine. Good. Market leading. Just leave that well enough alone.
I'm guessing the people who got in before the IPO, in particular the founders, would disagree with that sentiment.
That said I always thought their evaluation was ludicrous. I'm not impressed at all by their offering and now that I'm in ad sales I see how impossible they are to work with.
In short, can't say I'm surprised.
I'm curious to see the reason for not hitting their numbers. I have a feeling that its because of the high minimums they impose on advertisers. The minimums are crazy and that has to be due to being short staffed on their ops side of things which makes no sense to me at all.
Agreed. I accidentally signed up once. Can't get out of it. Tried many times. They don't help. It's like joining a gang.
you could have put LNKD 130 puts yesterday at 1 penny...now over $19!!!!
Agreed. I accidentally signed up once. Can't get out of it. Tried many times. They don't help. It's like joining a gang.
I know the HR person who supports our group checks both LinkedIn and Facebook for any applicant we're interviewing.
The information you're giving away in this instance you normally would anyway. It's the same stuff you'd have on a resume, which you normally wouldn't have any reservations giving out to people.
There's definitely value in it - but like Deej says, how it ever got to the point where it was valued so highly as a company, when their revenue streams are fairly limited (let's face it - how much growth opportunity do they really have?), is puzzling.
I used a few recruiters job opportunities as part of negotiating salary with a prospective employer. The end result was I received an increase in salary of 40% over my previous position. My previous salary was fair and inline with market average (maybe slightly below market).
I also use it now to gauge my market value (recruiters seem to email me at least once a week). Typically I tell them it would take another 20-30% increase for me to consider another company change. No harm in seeing if there is a fit out there that will pay me that kind of money.
I have more than doubled my salary since graduating from college 8 years ago.
As such, I have no complaints.
I think its the best job posting site, but havent really been in the market in quite some time
I'm not trying to discredit LinkedIn, they take the cake for recruitment. But their net worth is ridiculous. They purchased Bizo last year in order to get into audience and B2B targeting. Paid $1 billion I believe. However, they way they run things over there leads me to believe that purchase has been a disaster. They are going to get away from what made them great and muddy the waters with their business plan.
If/when Facebook finds a way to completely separate your FB profile from your professional profile, Linked In will almost be an afterthought.
someone has 140 contracts of LNKD 130 weekly puts
so they turned $14.00 into $26,000 in a day
Quote:
Even after losing 1/3 of its market cap? What the what?
Sometimes I wish companies just stayed private and focused on doing one thing well. The Linkedin product is fine. Good. Market leading. Just leave that well enough alone.
I'm guessing the people who got in before the IPO, in particular the founders, would disagree with that sentiment.
Im not saying that it's not good for those investors. Im just saying I feel like we'd be better off as a society if some of these companies focused more on staying within a core competency and managing a product well, rather than going public and then doing the things that a public tech company needs to do to meet "market expectations". Essentially, we should allow a path to declare some tech companies mature earlier, and just count on good profits from them (or leave them private).
It's not a fully cooked idea on my part.
I've received my last 2 jobs from LinkedIn, gotten contract work from LinkedIn, and have generally had great experiences. I'm also a 26 year old so social media networking is kind of baked into my realm (along with those recruiting me).
Quote:
offer us and actual value they've received from this site in return for the incredible value you give to them by offering up your entire work history and professional network? I guess I'm old but I'll never understand why people give away so much information for free, kinda like buying bottled water at a 10,000% markup instead of filtering it yourself.
I've received my last 2 jobs from LinkedIn, gotten contract work from LinkedIn, and have generally had great experiences. I'm also a 26 year old so social media networking is kind of baked into my realm (along with those recruiting me).
I've also gotten my last two positions with recruiters that contacted me through LinkedIn. 20%+ raises for each move.
Quote:
In comment 12801971 Deej said:
Quote:
Even after losing 1/3 of its market cap? What the what?
Sometimes I wish companies just stayed private and focused on doing one thing well. The Linkedin product is fine. Good. Market leading. Just leave that well enough alone.
I'm guessing the people who got in before the IPO, in particular the founders, would disagree with that sentiment.
Im not saying that it's not good for those investors. Im just saying I feel like we'd be better off as a society if some of these companies focused more on staying within a core competency and managing a product well, rather than going public and then doing the things that a public tech company needs to do to meet "market expectations". Essentially, we should allow a path to declare some tech companies mature earlier, and just count on good profits from them (or leave them private).
It's not a fully cooked idea on my part.
I don't disagree - but you have to remember the whole lifecycle.
A lot of these tech startups exist because of the promise of IPO riches. Very bright people work extremely long hours with the hopes that what they're building takes off and that their equity skyrockets in value.
Take away that promise - compensate them fairly, straight up, and I'm not sure you get the same result.
The whole process is ultimately destructive, though. Many of these people tend to be the first ones out the door once they can cash out (take off the "golden handcuffs"), and the company tends to suffer as the result of their loss. It's even worse in instances where a company is bought out, aside from only those considered essential the rest tend to not get paid, so they're usually out the door pretty quickly.
Im not saying that it's not good for those investors. Im just saying I feel like we'd be better off as a society if some of these companies focused more on staying within a core competency and managing a product well, rather than going public and then doing the things that a public tech company needs to do to meet "market expectations". Essentially, we should allow a path to declare some tech companies mature earlier, and just count on good profits from them (or leave them private).
It's not a fully cooked idea on my part.
Sounds like you're probably is with the short term thinking that being public often encourages and you're not alone in that regard. I think the CEO of Blackrock just put out a "proposal" for companies to not give quarterly earnings reports while also focusing on more long term strategies.
I doubt many (any?) will adopt that approach, but there's a lot of merit to it.
Granted it helps when you're search business basically prints money.
I'm not trying to discredit LinkedIn, they take the cake for recruitment. But their net worth is ridiculous. They purchased Bizo last year in order to get into audience and B2B targeting. Paid $1 billion I believe. However, they way they run things over there leads me to believe that purchase has been a disaster. They are going to get away from what made them great and muddy the waters with their business plan.
If/when Facebook finds a way to completely separate your FB profile from your professional profile, Linked In will almost be an afterthought.
I agree with everything you are saying - especially in regards to the valuation!
Biggest benefit is Linkedin is approved for employee use by most employers (in my industry at least) and allows me to explore job opportunities passively and with proper decorum.
Quote:
Im not saying that it's not good for those investors. Im just saying I feel like we'd be better off as a society if some of these companies focused more on staying within a core competency and managing a product well, rather than going public and then doing the things that a public tech company needs to do to meet "market expectations". Essentially, we should allow a path to declare some tech companies mature earlier, and just count on good profits from them (or leave them private).
It's not a fully cooked idea on my part.
Sounds like you're probably is with the short term thinking that being public often encourages and you're not alone in that regard. I think the CEO of Blackrock just put out a "proposal" for companies to not give quarterly earnings reports while also focusing on more long term strategies.
I doubt many (any?) will adopt that approach, but there's a lot of merit to it.
I do have a problem with the short termerism driving the market. I've been following the Blackrock chief's crusade. I dont necessarily agree that his most recent proposal, once you get into the details, is all that great. The problem IMO is the investors (activists and passivists) and compensation structures (not levels per se). But on the general theme he's 100% right and I appreciate his leadership. My thoughts on this really gelled after I had a chance to talk to a VC titan who made a really compelling case about the lack of investment by corporate America.
Interestingly, some think the real short termerism push comes overwhelmingly from activists (I dont completely agree) and that activists are going to get less active going forward. The rise of activists since the recession has coincided with a persistent bull market. Theory is that activists could easily afford to buy into almost anyone and fuck around, because all boats were being lifted. In a middling or bear market they maybe cant afford to buy into a vulnerable company and try their tricks. (I dont want to be too negative on activists -- they come in differenct colors. Some are great, some are rent seekers and short termers).
Granted it helps when you're search business basically prints money.
In general I think the dual class structures are bad. Amazon is not controlled. Bezos has less than 20% of the vote, and there isnt a group backing him. As for Google, there isnt a shred of evidence that the company has done better because of Page and Brin's control. They had a brilliant math idea for the search engine. The VC funded it. The VCs forced them to hire Eric Schmidt, because Larry was out of his league. Schmidt did a very good job running the company, including making the key acquisition in Google's history -- Doubleclick. Google's search algoriths + Doubleclick = revenue bonanza. Most of the other high profile acquisitions/projects have been money losers (Youtube notwithstanding). Frankly, a lot of what they do it treat the company as a toy. The Google X lab IMO is a slushfund toy for Brin, who I think would otherwise quit and cause the company to lose its controlled status. Page recently got the board to fire Schmidt because he wanted his toy back. So the board did it, and after I think a few puttering years restructured as Alaphabet, a not too thinly veiled "I told you so move" to get Larry away from day to day ops.
As an aside, IMO Page sniffed out Brin wanting to quit and tried to cook up a way for him to get all of Brin's votes without paying Brin any money. The board sniffed it out and prevented it.
That's kind of the point, though my horizon might be longer than yours. Most of the "moonshots" are going to be money losers. But if you hit on a few of the "right" ones, it'll pay off over the long term. Though long term here is probably measured in 10+ years and that's really only possible because of the cash flow generated by search/advertising.
Though it's not really a "moonshot" from a *new* technology perspective, Google Fiber will likely cost $10s of billions to roll-out and reach enough households/businesses to turn a profit.
Self driving cars can certainly pay for themselves and more, but with seemingly everyone focused on that now, that's going to come down to which aspects Google develops IP in and any licensing deals that come out of it.
Quote:
Most of the other high profile acquisitions/projects have been money losers (Youtube notwithstanding).
That's kind of the point, though my horizon might be longer than yours. Most of the "moonshots" are going to be money losers. But if you hit on a few of the "right" ones, it'll pay off over the long term. Though long term here is probably measured in 10+ years and that's really only possible because of the cash flow generated by search/advertising.
Though it's not really a "moonshot" from a *new* technology perspective, Google Fiber will likely cost $10s of billions to roll-out and reach enough households/businesses to turn a profit.
Self driving cars can certainly pay for themselves and more, but with seemingly everyone focused on that now, that's going to come down to which aspects Google develops IP in and any licensing deals that come out of it.
I dont have a problem with lots of moonshots, even acknowledging that they are likely money losers individually. I was just refuting the notion that somehow the dual class structure is some great thing.
I would say there is space between blindly defending moonshots and not managing quarter to quarter. These moonshots arent paying off after a decade. The problem (if you want to call it a problem) with Google's moonshots isnt that they dont turn a profit quickly... its that even 10 years out their hit rate is piss poor. Other than the algorithm, what has Google really produced? DoubleClick, Youtube, Android -- acuqisitions. Chrome, Gmail, Maps, Docs -- refinements of products already out there. IMO Google has always been better at execution than innovation. The most interesting moonshot is self-driving cars; they were very early to that in the grand scheme of things (obviously no on market yet, but I think it will be society-changing within 10-20 years).
Google to me is somewhat of a special case. Their managers have been crystal clear that they're going to treat the company kind of like an experiment. They said it pre-IPO, so you cant complain. They're not in the business of maximizing profits long term. I do have some concerns about vanity projects there though.
Earnings disappointed.
Quote:
this week?
Earnings disappointed.
People who have expectations for Amazon's earnings deserve to be burned.
Carnegie Mellon in particular was the "early" leader here as I believe their student teams won both DARPA challenges (desert + urban). Presumably they've licensed a significant amount of the IP they developed. That's why its hard to know if Google will even come out ahead in this realm which is one of the more developed "moon shots" they have.
I don't know how Google Labs is run specifically, but often even when a moonshot itself fails, other viable technologies are spawned along the way. Bell Labs was similar in this regard, though a lot of their "moonshots" were fundamental research and not as product specific.
adwords (which they didn't even invent ) is like the perfect money machine
it is a product that is just 8k of text -unlimited inventory and no sales people needed and with a 89% profit margin ..
was 200 bucks a share last week
not 105
that is just insane
and it is taking the rest of market down with it
The FANG stocks down 20% in past month
was 200 bucks a share last week
not 105
that is just insane
and it is taking the rest of market down with it
The FANG stocks down 20% in past month
when will the bottom hit?
which stands for Facebook Amazon/Apple Netflix Google
but also encompassed other high beta tech stocks like Linkedin Tesla GoPro
basically these stocks have been leading the charge in the market the past few years.. and thought to be a flight to quality .. tech market leaders.
this reminds me of the late 60's and early 70s "Nifty Fifty" which were NYSE big cap stocks that were thought to be high quality and solid buy and hold types. that propelled the market until the bear market of mid 70s when the NIFTY FIFTY all deflated and actually under performed the market .
The Nifty Fifty were a cautionary tale of unrealistic investor expectations for growth stock EXACTLY like FANG stocks are today.
which stands for Facebook Amazon/Apple Netflix Google
but also encompassed other high beta tech stocks like Linkedin Tesla GoPro
basically these stocks have been leading the charge in the market the past few years.. and thought to be a flight to quality .. tech market leaders.
this reminds me of the late 60's and early 70s "Nifty Fifty" which were NYSE big cap stocks that were thought to be high quality and solid buy and hold types. that propelled the market until the bear market of mid 70s when the NIFTY FIFTY all deflated and actually under performed the market .
The Nifty Fifty were a cautionary tale of unrealistic investor expectations for growth stock EXACTLY like FANG stocks are today.
I had a summer job working back office for small brokerage house (a type of entity that no longer exists) back then and trust me, the air started coming out of the Nifty Fifty as early as '71. There was a brief rally in '73 before the Energy Crisis took the whole market down.