buygoogle  
 Google's prospects from a Google user and independent investor   
 
    
« Home

Add to Google

Web www.buygoogle.com

Posts

Contextual dating and leaked Powerpoint notes
Google's Vulnerabilities, its Cash Hoard, and Amazon
Travel is crap?
Forbes: Google is becoming a marketplace
Microsoft is serious about search
If you can go fast, no one will ever catch up
Why is this news?
The program is not responding
Endangered species cookie recipe
Google promotes GWA
 
     Archives
04/25/04 05/02/04 05/09/04 05/16/04 05/23/04 05/30/04 06/13/04 06/20/04 07/04/04 07/11/04 07/25/04 08/01/04 08/08/04 08/15/04 09/19/04 10/10/04 10/17/04 01/30/05 02/06/05 03/13/05 03/27/05 04/10/05 04/17/05 04/24/05 05/01/05 05/08/05 05/15/05 05/22/05 05/29/05 06/05/05 06/12/05 06/19/05 06/26/05 07/17/05 07/24/05 08/07/05 08/14/05 08/21/05 08/28/05 09/18/05 09/25/05 10/02/05 10/09/05 10/30/05 11/13/05 11/27/05 12/04/05 12/11/05 01/08/06 01/15/06 01/22/06 01/29/06 02/12/06 02/26/06 03/05/06 03/12/06 03/19/06 03/26/06
 
     Links
Chris Anderson, Current TV, Google Blog, Google Investor, Inside Google, John Battelle, MSN Search Blog, PVR Blog, Yahoo! Search Blog


Google TV - 4/23/2005 11:48:00 PM

On Thursday's analyst call, Larry Page said that Google will do for TV what they did for the Web.

It's a simple statement with tectonic consequences. While most pundits are focused on the lame video search that's currently in beta, or think that Google will allow users to put videos in their blogs, I think there's possibly something much bigger going on. If Page was speaking literally, then Google will be the center of the media universe just as it is the center of the Web universe today. And that's huge.

As investors, we need a point of view on Google's prospects. A foray into TV could make the Web advertising explosion look like a fire cracker, or it could blow up in Google's face. So just for kicks, let's look at what Google really did for the Web, then apply that to the world of television to see what Page might be talking about.

1. What was the Web like before Google?
  • Millions of individual sites, but hard to find anything worthwhile
  • Primitive search engines produce hundreds of pages of results, virtually all irrelevant to what you're looking for or subverted by ad money
  • If we didn't know the exact character string to search for, we used human-edited directories (see this example, Yahoo in 1996) that were often out of date or distorted by who paid to be in the directory
  • Remember channels and "push" software like PointCast? They tried to force the Web into narrow channels just like TV, a handful of corporations controlling the information and ads that we received
  • Untargeted, annoying, and usually ineffective banner ads
  • One-way communciation, from them to us, read only
2. What did Google do for the Web?
  • Singlehandedly cleaned up this mess with a few elegant ideas coupled with massive computing power
  • Made the Web relevant by democratizing it with PageRank, not through central command and control
  • Automated system got rid of human directories, which allowed the Web to grow exponentially
  • Put users at the center of the Web universe pulling information through search, replacing a few big corporations pushing content to all of us peasants
  • Established trust through its Don't Be Evil philosophy, refusing to allow ad dollars to influence search results
  • Broke free of channels, opened up the long tail of content, and paved the way for user-produced content that rivals the established powers
  • Relevant, unobtrusive ads that often help the user find what she's looking for
  • Infinite-way communication, with shared conversations happening on the Web across continents
3. Funny how TV today is a lot like the Web before Google
4. If Google does for TV what they did for the web, what would that look like?
5. But it's gotta be more than just searching closed-captions and viewing still images on your computer
Google is one of the few companies with the scale, expertise and vision to pull this off. If they can, they'll change the world again.

Update 04/24/05 10:07: Mike Lambert agrees that while "everyone seems to be talking about home videos and video blogging, other possible outcomes are even more interesting. Such as iTunes for movies, with the twist that the content producer directly sets the price, eliminating the intermediary. Or the the Current TV tie-in, but beyond just providing a general zeitgeist segment (via Poynter).

Update 04/24/05 20:12: John Battelle sketched his vision for merging TV and search in October last year. It's a thought-provoking read as it employs today's technologies -- search, DVRs, feeds -- to paint a compelling picture.

But I have two issues with that vision. First, it solves the advertiser's problem first, when Google's proven approach is to solve the user's problem first and figure out how to monetize the solution well after several revs of the solution.

Second, the user problem that Battelle's sketch does (incidentally) address is one of the smaller problems, that of searching the program guide for shows are currently delivered by cable or satellite provider. Google is likely to go after the larger and more interesting problem as Page articulated -- to do for TV what Google did for the Web -- and that starts with the long tail of user-produced content, leveling the playing field, and rich searching of content.

Finally, one of the biggest obstacles to the Webification of TV is bandwidth, since an HDTV signal requires 10-20 Mbps. There have been solid developments here recently: Hong Kong Broadband launched 1 Gbps residential service to 800,000 households; US cities are putting in Wi-Fi; WiMax is rolling out this year; and don't forget about the broadband blimp!


Party like it's 1999 - but different - 4/23/2005 11:02:00 AM

We partied in the internet boom and got high on irrational exuberance. So people look at Google today with skepticism and get that sinking feeling that it must be too good to be true.

Investor's Business Daily says it really is different this time. Unlike in 1999, when "valuations were based upon eyeballs or press releases," Google has "real companies and real customers ... buying because it works, not for any other reason."

And I'd add, real cash flow. I don't know of any other $50 billion company that's doubling revenues, quintupling earnings, and dramatically increasing margins all at the same time.

Analysts are starting to wake up, competing to raise estimates. Michael Gallant of CIBC World Markets raised from $245 to $270, and Piper Jaffray's Safa Rashtchy raised from $250 to $275.

Standard & Poor's raised their target from $260 to $300 per share. ThinkEquity analyst John Tinker says there's a "tidal wave taking place with Internet advertising" and raised to $330.

If the analysts believe the opportunity is just about explosive growth in internet advertising, just wait until they realize that this revolution goes beyond the Web -- think about what it means to "organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful."


Google will do for TV what they did for the web - 4/21/2005 07:42:00 PM

On today's analyst call, Larry Page said, "What we've done for the Web, Google will do for television."

There's been a lot of action and speculation on this topic lately:
All of these may be well and good, but even taken together do they add up to Page's promise to "do for TV what Google's done for the Web"?


Google's dazzling results - 4/21/2005 02:36:00 PM

Looks like another blow-out quarter for Google, exceeding even the most optimistic analyst estimates. Check here and here for the full story, but let me highlight a few things that the mainstream press doesn't always appreciate.

(You can check my math yourself, though Google doesn't make it easy. The most relevant measure of revenue is net of traffic acquisition cost, what Google pays partners to show ads. Google doesn't calc this for you, so you have to subtract TAC from revenue yourself. To just look at gross revenues would be like eBay taking credit for the total value of products traded on its site, even though it only takes a transaction fee on each sale. Google's reporting the way the accountants insist, but it's not very relevant to an investor evaluating the business.)

1. Growth and margin. Google is such a strong story because of the combination of growth and margin. They've been warning since the IPO that growth rates will fall and margins will shrink as they become larger, and that only stands to reason. But instead we've seen growth rates accelerating, and margins expanding, which is truly extraordinary for a $50 billion company.

For all of 2004, revenue net of traffic acquisition cost (TAC) was up 108.7% over 2003. While you would expect that the growth rate would decelerate, net revenue in the quarter ended March 31 '05 was 108.9% higher than the first quarter '04.

And even more impressively, any way you slice margins, they're up dramatically -- so Google is keeping more of every dollar of revenue now than they were a year ago. Cash flow from operations this quarter was 66% of net revenue (!!!), up a full 1000 basis points just from last quarter and from the first quarter of '04 -- they're simply blowing the doors off. Net income is up 1500 basis points over last quarter, cash flow margin is up 1000 basis points, and free cash flow is up 1600 basis points over 1Q04 even though Google spent a whopping $142 million on new computer hardware and facilities just this quarter.

In contrast, Google is growing twice as fast as Yahoo and much more profitably, with margins that are more than double Yahoo's. Yahoo's revenue (ex-TAC) grew 52% over last year (compared with Google's 108.9%) and operating cash flow was 42% (compared with Google's 66%). Google's profitablity is much higher, and improving faster than Yahoo, with operating margin increasing from 24% in 1Q04 to 35% this quarter. Yahoo's operating margins increased, from the same 24% in 1Q04 but only to 30% this quarter.

Yahoo's favorite metric is free cash flow, and I like it a lot too. For a capital-intensive business like Google and Yahoo, or even your local cable company, you want to know how much cash is left over after paying for normal operations and after investing in new equipment. Yahoo's free cash flow as a percentage of revenue ex-TAC was 35.9% in 2004's first quarter, and increased to 38.7% -- a terrific performance. Google started lower last year at 32.1%, and pumped it up 1670 basis points to 48.7% this quarter.

Google pays partners for traffic acquisition, and for every dollar left over, they use 51.3 cents for sales, marketing, admin, R&D, to run the data centers, and to invest in new facilities and equipment -- and still have 48.7 cents in cash left over. For all of last year, Google had $658 million in free cash flow, and they've already put more than half that number on the board in just the first quarter of this year.

So Google is growing much faster and keeping more of every revenue dollar than its nearest competition. These are solid reasons for a high multiple on the stock, if you believe that the music will keep on playing.

2. Capital expenditures. Google expects to spend $500 million this year, primarily to add new computer hardware. This is a gigantic number. To put it in perspective, it's more than Google spent in the last 2 years combined. And it's even more significant when you consider that hardware is at least twice as powerful now as it was two years ago.

Just this quarter, Google spent more on new computer hardware than it did in the last half of '04.

This kind of investment seems much too high just to keep up with the growth of existing services. And on today's conference call, Google execs hinted at their plans. They said they wouldn't be using their $2.5 billion cash balance (which is growing 15%-17% each quarter) to buy back shares. Instead, they have some "very interesting things to do with the cash over the next year or two." At another point, Larry Page said, "what we've done for the web, Google wants to do for television."

3. Just the beginning.
Eric Schmidt said several times on today's conference call, as he has on past calls, that Google is just at the beginning of their opportunities. He says they're seeing "no saturation" in their markets, that there's "plenty of upside."


Clever options accounting helps Google results - 4/19/2005 09:10:00 PM

The Wall Street Journal reported tonight on its web site (sub req'd) that Google's results will look better due to some accounting moves they made back in 2002, 2003 and 2004.

Companies can choose the time period over which to book stock option expenses. Google chose to take the hit early, while it was still a private company, so that its expenses now as a public company are smaller.

The WSJ estimates that this year Google will show net income $133 million more than it would have been if Google had expensed its options over a longer period. By my math that equates to about 48 cents per share for the year.

The article stresses that this accounting is perfectly acceptable to accounting experts, and may even be the preferred treatment because it recognized option expense when the options vested.

And analysts generally strip out options expense anyway when setting their earnings targets and comparing with other companies, so the accounting for the options expense isn't terribly relevant. But it will allow Google to show net income growing at a faster rate than it otherwise would have.


Google love/hate index - 4/17/2005 01:30:00 PM

Here's a neat tool to measure the opinions of internet-savvy people (bloggers), and track opinions over time. Blogpulse allows you to chart the results of up to three search strings over time.

Here I used "love google" and "hate google" as my search terms. You can see spikes in the "love google" results in February, when Google introduced Google Maps, and again in early April when Gmail space was doubled (plus), and satellite mapping was rolled out.



The tool can also be used for competitive assessment, measuring the relative passion bloggers have for a given brand. Here I plotted "love google" against "love yahoo." What a brand!



Finally, check out the hate factor for Google, Yahoo and Microsoft:



Love/hate index inspired by Brand Mantra and enabled by BlogPulse.


 buygoogle.com