Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google Passes Microsoft’s Market Value as PC Loses to Web

businessweek.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 70 posts

Re: Google Passes Microsoft’s Market Value as PC Loses to Web

#21

Post by photon137 »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #14

Weak signal given the size of the companies and their volatilities. Let's observe the quoted, albeit stale, Google market capitalisation of $249.2 billion with a current vega-weighted mean implied volatility (market's opinion of what Google's volatility will be) of 31.12% and the quoted Microsoft market cap of $248.7 billion with an IV index of 22.51%. The question is, assuming these two Gaussian random variables var…

They are not Gaussian random vars - a very dominant growth factor ("mu" as you would call it in a stochastic process) applies to both - which is higher in Google's case - without a doubt.

Re: Google Passes Microsoft’s Market Value as PC Loses to Web

#22

Post by YokoZar »

Alternative headline: Google passes Microsoft's market value as Microsoft gives gobs of cash to shareholders rather than hold onto it to inflate market value.

Still, it's a significant thing I suppose. But we tend to ignore the cash position of companies in stories like this. If Google suddenly paid out 100 billion to shareholders tomorrow then it's market value would rightly drop by about 100 billion, but that wouldn't mean Microsoft was suddenly winning again.

Re: Google Passes Microsoft’s Market Value as PC Loses to Web

#23

Post by recoiledsnake »

jamesaguilar wrote: post #12
recoiledsnake wrote: post #8

PC loses to Web ads is more likely. I think Google's got better at getting people to click on ads. For example, one of the following is a search result and the other is an ad. How many people can differentiate between them on various monitors? http://i.imgur.com/Wmdd0.png I remember the time when Google differentiated itself by clearly marking ads, now it's no longer true for high value keywords.

It's quite clear to me which is which just from the color differences. You also cut the "ads related mesothelioma (?)" at the top of the section, which should make it even more clear. And there's the fact that people who understand the difference have already learned where Google ads are on the page.

The color contrast from the white background is extremely low #FFF8E7 vs. #FFFFFF and there's deliberately a lack of border. The color difference is almost invisible based on monitor settings and the age of the user.

I believe these are relatively recent changes, earlier the background was blue or purple. I guess Google "optimized" the color and appearance to gain more clicks.

Re: Google Passes Microsoft’s Market Value as PC Loses to Web

#24

Post by cooldeal »

jamesaguilar wrote: post #15
r3m6 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every HN reader knows that. But "normal" web users do not know it (anymore?). Every so often I see some anecdotal evidence of that when I watch people doing searches.

There are limits to the amount of due diligence companies should have to do to ensure that people know they are clicking on ads. Anyone who is interested in avoiding clicking on ads will easily identify Google's, or not see them at all via a software solution. For the rest, there's not much short of an acknowledgement overlay that will get the message across reliably (for text ads -- image ads are easier, but google…

>There are limits to the amount of due diligence companies should have to do to ensure that people know they are clicking on ads.

There are also limits on disguising search results as ads.

>For the rest, there's not much short of an acknowledgement overlay that will get the message across reliably (for text ads -- image ads are easier, but google doesn't have them)

Really? Just increasing the contrast or adding a border around the border or using extra spacing as a separator or another separator can help a lot. But it's hard to make changes that hurt the bottom line. Changing it the opposite way is much easier. Google has a lot of UI and UX experts and I don't think the changes are accidental at all. In fact, they must be very carefully planned.

Edit: Found an old screenshot where the difference is much more apparent.

http://www.jensense.com/archives/adsensehijack.gif

Re: Google Passes Microsoft’s Market Value as PC Loses to Web

#25

Post by JumpCrisscross »

photon137 wrote: post #21
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #14

Weak signal given the size of the companies and their volatilities. Let's observe the quoted, albeit stale, Google market capitalisation of $249.2 billion with a current vega-weighted mean implied volatility (market's opinion of what Google's volatility will be) of 31.12% and the quoted Microsoft market cap of $248.7 billion with an IV index of 22.51%. The question is, assuming these two Gaussian random variables var…

They are not Gaussian random vars - a very dominant growth factor ("mu" as you would call it in a stochastic process) applies to both - which is higher in Google's case - without a doubt.

"without a doubt"

I have, unfortunately, seen a great many things beyond the shade of doubt come back and bite people.

Note, too, that GOOG has a 9% higher beta than MSFT and that we are in a rising market. We cannot let our ex ante biases colour our attributions.

Re: Google Passes Microsoft’s Market Value as PC Loses to Web

#26

Post by jamesaguilar »

cooldeal wrote: post #24
jamesaguilar wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are limits to the amount of due diligence companies should have to do to ensure that people know they are clicking on ads. Anyone who is interested in avoiding clicking on ads will easily identify Google's, or not see them at all via a software solution. For the rest, there's not much short of an acknowledgement overlay that will get the message across reliably (for text ads -- image ads are easier, but google…

>There are limits to the amount of due diligence companies should have to do to ensure that people know they are clicking on ads. There are also limits on disguising search results as ads. >For the rest, there's not much short of an acknowledgement overlay that will get the message across reliably (for text ads -- image ads are easier, but google doesn't have them) Really? Just increasing the contrast or adding a bor…

Basically, clutter up the page more? Facebook has no background, nor do Yahoo! (front page) or Reddit (sidebar). Bing's and Yahoo!'s SERPs and Reddit's sponsored link are near Google's in terms of contrast and signage. Although Reddit opts for a border but conflates ad space with space that is used to promote results algorithmically, because it's not sufficiently confusing I guess. In terms of HN darlings, DuckDuckGo is actually worse (approximately the same contrast, "Sponsored result" doublespeak rather than just calling a spade a spade). You're asking Google to follow a standard of behavior that none of the other major sites I visit reach.

In terms of industry norms, Google is about as good as it gets. Maybe you feel that's not enough, and I guess that's a qualitative judgment that you're free to make. People will differ on things like this occasionally :P. I'd ask for some kind of harm analysis at the very least before I accept that there's anything untoward going on.

Re: Google Passes Microsoft’s Market Value as PC Loses to Web

#27

Post by nhebb »

jamesaguilar wrote: post #12
recoiledsnake wrote: post #8

PC loses to Web ads is more likely. I think Google's got better at getting people to click on ads. For example, one of the following is a search result and the other is an ad. How many people can differentiate between them on various monitors? http://i.imgur.com/Wmdd0.png I remember the time when Google differentiated itself by clearly marking ads, now it's no longer true for high value keywords.

It's quite clear to me which is which just from the color differences. You also cut the "ads related mesothelioma (?)" at the top of the section, which should make it even more clear. And there's the fact that people who understand the difference have already learned where Google ads are on the page.

I've noticed that when I'm on a laptop with a glossy screen, the difference in background colors are a lot harder to distinguish.

Re: Google Passes Microsoft’s Market Value as PC Loses to Web

#28

Post by ajross »

recoiledsnake wrote: post #8

PC loses to Web ads is more likely. I think Google's got better at getting people to click on ads. For example, one of the following is a search result and the other is an ad. How many people can differentiate between them on various monitors? http://i.imgur.com/Wmdd0.png I remember the time when Google differentiated itself by clearly marking ads, now it's no longer true for high value keywords.

It might be easier to tell the ad from the search result if you hadn't cut out the part that reads, and I quote:

"Ads related to mesothelioma:"

Stop this trolling. You're quite simply lying to people with that kind of nonsense. It doesn't belong anywhere, much less here.

Re: Google Passes Microsoft’s Market Value as PC Loses to Web

#29

Post by qq66 »

ajross wrote: post #28
recoiledsnake wrote: post #8

PC loses to Web ads is more likely. I think Google's got better at getting people to click on ads. For example, one of the following is a search result and the other is an ad. How many people can differentiate between them on various monitors? http://i.imgur.com/Wmdd0.png I remember the time when Google differentiated itself by clearly marking ads, now it's no longer true for high value keywords.

It might be easier to tell the ad from the search result if you hadn't cut out the part that reads, and I quote: "Ads related to mesothelioma:" Stop this trolling. You're quite simply lying to people with that kind of nonsense. It doesn't belong anywhere, much less here.

I looked at the original search and while this text is there, and there's a colored highlight over the ads, I could imagine myself clicking the ad accidentally in a hurry, or someone less knowledgeable about the way Google runs Adwords to confuse the two.

Re: Google Passes Microsoft’s Market Value as PC Loses to Web

#30

Post by ajross »

qq66 wrote: post #29
ajross wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It might be easier to tell the ad from the search result if you hadn't cut out the part that reads, and I quote: "Ads related to mesothelioma:" Stop this trolling. You're quite simply lying to people with that kind of nonsense. It doesn't belong anywhere, much less here.

I looked at the original search and while this text is there, and there's a colored highlight over the ads, I could imagine myself clicking the ad accidentally in a hurry, or someone less knowledgeable about the way Google runs Adwords to confuse the two.

What part of your point (which I don't disagree with at all, btw) makes it OK to post a deliberately edited screenshot like recoiledsnake did?
Post reply on HN