151–160 of 258 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 'Ranking' on Google is very much a pay to play kind of thing these days with their page layout Could you expand on this? Are you referring to how AdWords content is visually privileged over organic search results?
Purely anecdotal here, but when I search Google on my mobile browser I'm only seeing 1 or 2 results per page. I've pretty much given up using it on my phone now.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Surely it can't be the case that Google was serving the 1% till recently. Their products - Gmail, YouTube, Android, Search, Maps etc. - are all leaders in their categories. So the 1%-to-99% argument doesn't quite hold. I personally think Google held itself back from OTT monetization strategies all these years as it waited for (a) its individual products to become undisputed market leaders, and (b) a unified privacy/s…
That's the wrong way to look at it. They served the whole 100%, and now they are starting to optimize for the 99% at the expense of the 1% of power users. (My guess would be more like 95% / 5%, but I may have a biased view myself) That's the only explanation to the whole set of stupid decisions they've been taking lately (reader, yt UI, gmail compose, ...): they make more cash by doing so.
I'm usually flamed or attacked for suggesting it in most forums, so it's very nice to see people experiencing the same thing with Google
Hangouts is the perfect example. Instead of an easily sortable, easily curatable list of contacts with an easy way to see if they're available or not... now the whole product is shiny, with flashy animations, very little user control of any part of the software, and a whole bunch of Google's "we know best" design ideas like a "special mix" of "recent*" contacts that you cannot alter in any way without actually removing a contact from Google entirely.
Fun fact: If you had bought a call yesterday for $300, it would now be worth $3100. 1000% return on investment. Yesterday I bought a chipotle call (because of earnings release) for $600 and now its worth $3600 Now that the political budget debate is over, I think we will see a spectacularly volatile movement upwards and strong earnings will push stocks to absurd prices way over any reason. The best thing to do is to…
Google doesn't pay dividends or give public shares voting rights, while I get it that people believe the intrinsic value will appear at some point, this is not how I would like to invest money in a company, regardless of what price the stock hits.
I think the same and wonder why aren't shareholders pressuring Google to start paying dividends.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 'Ranking' on Google is very much a pay to play kind of thing these days with their page layout Could you expand on this? Are you referring to how AdWords content is visually privileged over organic search results?
I think Danny Sullivan over at Searchengineland has done a better job of chronicling the changes but to give you a flavor, the size of the ad space before the first organic has grown tremendously, the injection of Google properties (G+, Youtube, etc) has further pushed on search results. When a buying intent is detected the 'shopping' bar activates which only shows shopping results from people who advertise on Google…
On the other hand, Google also provides much more value in search than before. When I travel to a city I can go to Google maps and visualize my destination and find a hotel near by. Navigation is useful, we are perfecting it since thousands of years and Google is really good at it.
As for advertising, it has it's place (like when I'm traveling) and somehow Google got good at showing it to me when I need it.
It's sad that they are the only player to provide this kind of value from a backup perspective, but I don't see a credible alternative to them. And they do contribute back to the community, so I can't even fault them in that respect.
Now maybe there is a point that advertisement is a kind of manipulation and they are brain washing you plus spying on your every move. But if there is one thing I learned it's that nobody cares what you want to say. Algorithms don't frighten me for every day searches (you want to know I search for Ubuntu and Python 3? be my guest!).
I also use add-block and intuitively ignore the highlighted search results in (which sometimes confuses me, as the thing I search is in there). I hate ads for stuff I don't care about or even dislike and add-block is good with that.
Maybe that's why they are so successful, they computed what to show me when I'm looking for it and keep the crap away otherwise..
Would a reverse stock split or stock merge encourage more people to buy the stock or less, or no effect?
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=plot+p%2Fe+and+price+NA...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nobody is denying this. It's an all-time high for this company . Where do you see people claiming that the $1k number is meaningful on its own?
$1000 is meaningful on its own but not for the reasons most of these comments think: it's an awkwardly large amount to pay for a single share, and an even more awkwardly large amount to pay for a standard option. Standard options are contracts of 100 shares, so that's $100,000 covered by a single option , which at current prices are about $2,500 each. This puts it out of the realm of small time investors, which is wh…
Google doesn't pay dividends or give public shares voting rights, while I get it that people believe the intrinsic value will appear at some point, this is not how I would like to invest money in a company, regardless of what price the stock hits.
I think the same and wonder why aren't shareholders pressuring Google to start paying dividends.
Their stock price might go up for the next decade for all I know, and it's not like they don't make money or something. I just don't want to invest my money without getting something in return other than the ability to convey my investment to someone else.