Lively no more
[googleblog.blogspot.com...]

Google has always been supportive of this kind of experimentation because we believe it's the best way to create groundbreaking products that make a difference to people's lives. But we've also always accepted that when you take these kinds of risks not every bet is going to pay off.

Just put it in the room with Froogle, Google Catalog, Google Web Accelerator, Google Coupons, Google Voice Search, Google Checkout, Google Video, Google Answers, etc.

[bbc.co.uk ]

"You know things are getting bad when the often thought of mighty Google starts acting like most Silicon Valley companies amid the global economic crisis that is rippling throughout the country."

Just wait until shareholders start asking questions about employees having 20% of the time to do their own things - given high cost of employment this means (on paper) that elimination of that time would greatly reduce costs and this increase profits considerably. A few bad quarters and shareholders will demand that - this is when they will realise that the shares they own do not have any serious voting rights - the company is still controlled by the founders, so the value of shares is actually a lot lower than it may seem. That's when real problems start at Google and the way they manage it would determine if they maintain their leadership or not.

You mean that Google CEO's Sergey Brin and Larry Page might have to trim back on the number 767-200 jets they own? It makes the CEO's of Ford and GM flying in their small G4 jets look downright economical.

Google CEO does not ask for taxpayers money, so he can continue to fly his jet so long as his shareholders are okay with it.

that elimination of that time would greatly reduce costs and this increase profits considerably

Don't be too quick to assume that. I'd be willing to bet that the 20% is a major draw for top talent, and if Google made a unilateral decision to remove that incentive, they'd find it harder to retain the kind of people they need.

given high cost of employment this means (on paper)

You missed out from quoting this - (on paper) - meaning pure financial analysis of the situation using cost data would result in this conclusion.

I'd be willing to bet that the 20% is a major draw for top talent

And shareholders could argue that recession is the time when retention of top talent should not cost as much as it was during the boom years.

I don't actually think Google founders would agree to remove it and this is exactly my point to future conflict - shareholders would think this is a good idea and it will be rejected and then when shareholders look at the small print they will find out that Google founders control the company so they can't be outvoted! This means people who buy Google stock should do so purely on the basis of dividends and growth potential, not control of the company - I am not sure many people who buy Google stock realise that.

I'd be willing to bet that the 20% is a major draw for top talent

And probably, as a guess, not that much more, if any more, than what the average employee spends on personal or off project activities anyhow.

Google only formalized the time use.

not all google employees have 20% projects, that is more for programmers. also in reality it works out more to 20% on top of a full work week.

This means people who buy Google stock should do so purely on the basis of dividends and growth potential, not control of the company - I am not sure many people who buy Google stock realise that.

...err, don't most (of us) already buy stocks "only" for dividends and/or growth

rather than (a very small amount of) control of a company?

I can just about afford ONE Google share; and I'm not convinced that would give me a lot in the way of control.

...err, don't most (of us) already buy stocks "only" for dividends and/or growth

A lot of growth value can come from the fact that some other company can buy it to control it, however they won't do that if they can't possibly obtain control, this means that even though control value of your own shares might be low if combined control is high then you get more value, in case of Google combined control of those shares is low so that important element is a non-factor.

The irony is that I doubt most people who buy into GOOG realise that this important element is missing from the shares they own.

Personally I see it like this - Google can either sit around waiting for smart folk to develop new business ideas which will end up competing with Google - or it can allow its own smart folk to come up with those ideas themselves - thus benefiting Google financially while stoping competitors from forming.

I therefore think it saves money, protects their business, and perhaps stops staff from forming their own start ups to a significant degree.

Indeed good strategy - highly anti-competitive, but that's what you can reasonably expect from a monopoly. There are always times though when monopolies get squeezed (sp?) by general economical trends, just like it happens now - that's why we read in the news that Google might let go a lot of contractors.

From your earlier posts, I's have thought you'd be aware that Google is not a monopoly - or even close to it.

See many other threads where this discussion has 'raged'.

In 'common sense' terms, it isn't a monopoly; in the business world, it doesn't come within a mile. Or two.

As to the issue at stake in this thread, Google is probably clearing out some overlap between Adwords and doubleclick, as well as several other projects that have run their course, or been automated.

And while Google will (almost certainly) have a reduced turnover due to the r******, as clear market leader, they'll probably not lose profits to quite the same degree, as well as being ideally placed for the recovery. Assuming there is one! We'll see.

From your earlier posts, I's have thought you'd be aware that Google is not a monopoly - or even close to it.

I don't want to argue about whether this monopoly or not but if you look at UK supermarkets there are 4-5 big players with one leader - Tesco at 30%, this makes them pretty close to be referred to commission that deals with monopoly like issues here, in case of Google in the UK Google gets 90% of searches, in US share is lower but still 70% is probably correct. That's an effective monopoly, though some people would certainly disagree with that.

So my view is that Google has an effective monopoly on online searching, especially when it comes to PPC advertising. This is offtopic however so I don't want to get deeper into this arguement - soon it will be settled once and for all, either via pre-emptive regulation or in court.

That's a good sign - much harder to can a project than to just leave it running unsupported.

All businesses have to make those calls from time to time.