Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Alphabet Inc. (Google) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: KeepItSimple who wrote (6757)	1/28/2006 8:00:56 PM
From: Gabriel008	Respond to of 15857

Google was mentioned in an Editorial Commentary only. Although somewhat negative it was obviously biased Google -- selling for multiples of future earnings and cash flow that imply impossible growth -- is already a disaster waiting to happen. I only hope that GOOG opens down on Monday, because of this article, it will give my investment fund the opportunity to buy more.

To: KeepItSimple who wrote (6757)	1/29/2006 12:58:21 PM
From: William F. Wager, Jr.	Respond to of 15857

Barron's...Truth in Advertising. Why Google's technology contains the seed of its destruction By THOMAS G. DONLAN AS MANY LESSER BEINGS KNOW BY NOW, the name "Google" is a mathematics joke. An idle professor designated it as the number one followed by 100 zeros. Google the company carries the name to resonate with the nearly infinite amount of information on the World Wide Web, and to boast of its search engine's command of that information. What could be funnier to a mathematician than a company called Google, housed in a place called the Googleplex? (Which is the number one followed by a google of zeros.) Is Google a bigger joke than its name? It may be just a math joke, or it may be an investment joke as well. There's a very old saying that half of every advertising dollar is wasted -- the challenge to the executive is to figure out which half. Once ads are printed on pages or sent into the broadcast and cable waves, the advertiser has no good way of knowing what happened or what they achieved. How many eyeballs were fastened on that ad? How many of the eyeballs were attached to minds possibly interested in buying the product? Tracking the effect of advertising used to be the exclusive job of market-research firms, who polled, sampled, group-focused and ultimately guessed how effective media were at reaching target audiences and how effective ads were at impressing those audiences once reached. Much of the attraction of television advertising was its universality, now lost in the transition from three broadcast networks to hundreds of cable channels. In the days of three networks, an advertiser could plan a two-month national campaign that would hit 90% of the country's eyeballs. He couldn't miss the target audience, even though it was certain he was also advertising to people who had no interest in his product. That's how old media worked in the old economy. Now, with new media, a new-economy advertiser can find out how well his ads work. It's called click-through, and it's dynamite. The question is, whom does it blow up, the advertiser or the advertising medium? When an advertiser buys access to a privileged position in consumers' Google searches on particular subjects, or buys ads that Google places on independent Websites, the advertiser pays Google every time someone clicks on his ad and is linked to his Website. Google's standard business arrangements call for advertisers to pay by the click, at a rate set by auction, with the highest bidder getting the best spot. The minimum price at Google is a penny a click. But who's clicking? Are they legitimate customers? Over the past few years, advertisers and Internet media companies have been dealing with a rising tide of click fraud. A simple example: If your competitor is paying for clicks, then you can raise his costs by giving him too much of what he's paying for. Hire a click farm in which people are paid a little to click on ads all day -- buying nothing, of course. This is a task that also can be automated, and there are many variations, but all such frauds are designed to raise costs for the advertiser and degrade the effectiveness of his ads. Google and similar outfits say they have the problem controlled with traffic analysis and refunds of fees generated by spurious clicks. But they don't reveal details, or report how much click defenses cost them. Those few speculators who are bearish on Google cite the threat of click fraud. Their scenario runs like this: Fraudsters move more quickly than defenders, so unthwarted click fraud increases. The cost of advertising to generate a sale increases, making alternative advertising media more attractive. Google has to cut prices; revenue-per-click declines and so do clicks. Google stops being a growth stock and its multiples start to shrink. The only problem with this thesis is its dependence on the idea of click fraud. Just as dangerous to Google is Click truth. Google's best selling point -- advertisers can learn which clicks produce sales -- is potentially its biggest hazard, because advertisers can also learn which clicks don't produce sales, and scale back their advertising budget so that less of it is wasted. This may not kill Google in the world of advertising, but it will force it to change every bit as much as Google and its Internet cohorts are forcing TV, newspapers and magazines to change. Forced change is an opportunity to stumble. And in the world of stock-market speculation, Google -- selling for multiples of future earnings and cash flow that imply impossible growth -- is already a disaster waiting to happen, although nobody knows when or how the market will force a revaluation.

To: KeepItSimple who wrote (6757)	1/30/2006 9:18:00 AM
From: Proud_Infidel	Respond to of 15857

This is how people accomodate evil....one small step at a time: Google CEO on censoring: 'We did an evil scale' Macworld ^ \| 01/30/2006 \| Stacy Cowley, IDG News Service macworld.com It took Google Inc. more than a year to make the decision that offering a censored version of its search services in China would be a lesser evil than boycotting business in the country altogether, according to Google Inc. Chief Executive Officer (CEO) Eric Schmidt. “We concluded that although we weren’t wild about the restrictions, it was even worse to not try to serve those users at all,” Schmidt said. “We actually did an evil scale and decided not to serve at all was worse evil,” he said, referring to the company’s famous “don’t be evil” creed. Schmidt’s remarks came during a panel discussion on Friday at the World Economic Forum (WEF) in Davos, Switzerland, on the theme “Digital 2.0: Powering a Creative Economy.” Schmidt talked about Google’s planned Chinese service in response to a question from an audience member about the issue, which has been in the headlines this week after Google disclosed that the new service will comply with Chinese government policies requiring Google to block results to searches on politically sensitive topics. Google has also been under pressure from the U.S. government, which has requested extensive Google usage records to further an investigation into online pornography. Google said it intends to fight that subpoena. Without specifically mentioning either of those issues, Schmidt cited overly aggressive government policing as one of the threats that could derail the information economy’s rapid growth. “Things that could slow down this very rosy picture are bizarre or unreasonable laws and regulations, or fear on the part of end users who are dying to use these [technologies] but are afraid,” Schmidt said. Great volumes of information are now available online, and “exactly who has access to that, what their rights are … [those questions] are going to loom very, very large in the citizens’ minds.” Schimidt’s fellow panelist Bill Gates, Microsoft Corp.’s founder, didn’t join the discussion of Chinese censorship, but he weighed in on the topic during a previous talk at WEF on Friday. Microsoft, too, has faced criticism for acceding to censorship demands from the Chinese government. “Access to the outside world is preventing more censorship,” Gates said at the conference, according to an Associated Press report. “I do think information flow is happening in China. … There’s no doubt in my mind that it’s been a huge plus.”