Googlebits

A few fascinating tidbits from Jim Cramer’s interview with Google’s Eric Schmidt today:

* Google accounts for 0.7 percent of GDP, according to Goldman Sachs.
* Cramer says the ad market is $600 billion and asks whether Google could get 10 percent of that. Schmid says, “Well, we could,” and then corrects him: It’s a trillion-dollar market globally.
* Schmidt says Google will make more on mobile than on desktops because mobile is more targeted and Google targets.
* GMail outage? “Taht was a screw up. We fixed that. We’re not perfect.”
* What would Google make by adding sponsorship to its home page? “Some number of billions od dollars.” Why not do it? “People wouldn’t like it. We prioritize the end-user over the advertiser… We’re not going to sell it.”
* Google is 52 percent international revenue; Schmidt thinks it will go to 65-35.
* About getting too big: “How do we behave? Not the way Microsoft did. I would never do that.
* “I never worry about Microsoft.”

  • http://robertdfeinman.com/society robertdfeinman

    “How do we behave? Not the way Microsoft did. I would never do that.”

    The thing about companies that go public is that they don’t always get to chose how they will be managed. Just look at the power that Ichan has had over Yahoo. Once someone get 7+% of the outstanding stock they can start to pressure the firm to do things that are “evil”.

  • http://badideaindeed.wordpress.com/ Philippe

    It’s pretty unfair to regard google as the good guys and Microsoft as the villains. I’m a Microsoft employee and Microsoft has values as well. The way Google is behaving in China is a proof that money comes first also for Google.

  • http://badideaindeed.wordpress.com/ Philippe

    Don’t get me wrong. I don’t want to bitch about google in my previous comment. I just believe that a corporation is a corporation, that often money talks to companies more than ethical considerations. Google is not better and not worse than any other technology giant.

  • Jack Johnson

    Philippe, interesting point. Microsoft has been the company we love to hate. And Google, the one we hate to love – since we see how each day it gets bigger and bigger, and we simply hate that. Around China’s issues, everyone (not only Google) is out for their money, sometimes doing some dirty business (Microsoft won’t allow a *tibet*@hotmail.com email account, for instance.

    And Google has had some disappointments, as mentioned in this top-10 list. Some are fair, some are “fill-ins” but it comes to show that we don’t always have to love Google.

  • Michael Katcher

    @rdf – Google has a tiered ownership structure so they control a majority of voting rights. Anyway, the Ichan example proves the opposite: how little power a minority shareholder has. He got a board seat as a consolation prize.

  • http://badideaindeed.wordpress.com/ Philippe

    You’re right, Jack. I don’t want to swap the roles and I don’t claim Microsoft is the first defender of persecuted tibetans.

    I just say that both companies are huge corporations with high ambitions, financial objectives, shareholders to please and tons of spreadsheets to fill in :)

  • http://www.geexoo.com NS @ Geexoo

    I hv never understood this Google-eulogy thing. I think it is more of a geek phenomenon…this singing-google’s praise thingie…

    Let’s get this straight…Google is as bad and corrupt as any other billion $ company, possibly worse because it often takes the holier than attitude that the others at least don’t…Just why do you think Page & Brin are saints, as much as Gates & Ballmer are not? There is nothing in Page’s & Brin’s background to suggest that they have helped humanity any more in their youth or now than does Gates and Microsoft (which actually does much more with their humanitarian trusts and so on)…

    And at last, let’s give credit to Google where it belongs – they have an excellent spin (read PR) department that makes every ordinary corporate move they make seem as if it was done to benefit humanity…Hint to M$ – poach their PR department…

  • Pingback: Google will make more on mobile than desktops : Mobile Industry Review

  • Francis Burdett

    “Taht was a screw up. We fixed that. We’re not perfect.”

    “taht” was a screw-up? indeed, was it really? :-)

  • http://stevenjens.blogspot.com dWj

    0.7% of US GDP is about $90 billion a year. Google’s revenue, while still climbing, is in the $20 to $25 billion per year range. If you measure by EVA or gross profits or anything else, you’re going to get a smaller number. I have no idea how to get a number above 0.2% for this.

  • http://www.lymington.com Jan Simmonds

    I’m not sure where I saw it, but when I read these articles relating to social networking and community, I immediately have a vision of loads of insects flying towards a UV light as if it is some beautiful paradise, with Toy Story voice overs to accompany the naivety of the soon to be dead cartoon characters. In my humble opinion, the social networking and indeed search engine portal phenomenon as it is currently structured is that UV light for the advertising industry.

    As a side business, I run a handful of local community websites where I live, and generate several hundred thousand dollars in ad revenue on each one annually. They aren’t perfect by any means, but they are at least relevant. Our uniqueness and IPR is our format and our local understanding of the community and the refreshing abscence of any nationalised advertising. Personally it irritates the hell out of me if I visit a so called local or personal website when I see Google syndicated or similar ad boxes within it, as in my experience the ads are irrelevant 90% of the time, whatever the agencies are feeding their Clients and I can’t believe many people who are now more accustomed to the internet would continue being tempted to click aimlessly on those ads like they used to on thier virgin forays.

    I’ve looked long and hard at how I can roll out what we do on a global basis whilst maintaining the ‘personalisation’ we achieve of our community and have come to the conclusion, that instead of trying to own and control the advertising medium, for hyperlocal relevance and decent sensible revenues, the trick is to focus on local user-generated advertising NOT user generated content and create a platform for hundreds and thousands of local businesses like mine to work within collectively. I have other business interests though so am not in any hurry, (and I suspect that Google and the like are far to busy on world domination to be taking any notice of my ramblings), so am confident I have plenty of time to put something together at some point which could take everyone by surprise. In any event, if nothing else, I bet none of the mentioned new or old directory sites generate the revenues we do as a proportion of audience. I suspect all of them will just keep on diluting their ad value to oblivion and in the meantime I’ll just keep watching their journey towards the light with amusement! http://www.lymington.com

  • Pingback: My problems with Google applications: holes in these journalism tools « Christopher Wink