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 capex ramps up again - now $700B - 8/15/2005 08:10:00 PM

Google disclosed today in its second-quarter SEC filing today that it expects to spend $700 million in 2005 on capital expenditures. This money is invested in new servers and networking gear, plus some in real estate. It doesn't include funds for acquiring other companies (which Google also said would consume "a significant amount of cash ... from time to time).

This $700 million figure is up 40% from their estimate just 4 months ago. Since Google has already spent $299 million in the first half of this year, they will spend that much again plus ramp up their rate of investment by 34% in the second half. Google is investing almost twice as much as Yahoo in this category, as Yahoo's capital expenditure in the first half of the year was $161 million.

Google must be anticipating either accelerating growth of current products, or (more likely) is investing in advance of launching new products. I read this as extremely positive news for Google, since their new product development must be ahead of plan, or traffic is increasing faster than anticipated, since Google has repeatedly raised its forecast.

I posted back in April that Google expected to spend a whopping $500 million in 2005 on new datacenters:
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."
Then in May Google raised their estimate by 20%. And now in August they've raised it another $100 million. And a million bucks at Google can go a long way -- they're buying generic, bargain-basement PCs and running free open-source software.

It's funny -- just the change in Google's capex estimate ($200 million) is more that the total Yahoo spent in half a year ($161 million). And Yahoo's no slouch here, either. At this rate, it looks like Google is on track to outspend Yahoo by 2-to-1 this year.

Update Sept 25, 2005 5:33 PM: The title of this post is wrong. Google's capex is $700 million this year, not $700 billion. I haven't changed the title since it would mess up the links to the original post.


How to tell who has the bigger index - 8/14/2005 10:26:00 PM

Yahoo claimed last week that their index now covers about 20 billion items. Google's publicly acknowledged about half that number. Although most observers say that size doesn't matter much, it would certainly be an insult to Google if Yahoo really does swing a bigger stick.

I did my own non-scientific sample, and I can't find queries where Yahoo has more results than Google.

Yahoo says that their index size can't be independently verified. But the Wall Street Journal quotes Sergey Brin (sub req'd) as saying that it's not that hard for ordinary users to see who has the most comprehensive index:
Verifying the approximate size of an index is easy for anyone to do -- just find a few searches that return a small number of results (about 50). Look through them, check that they are unique, and count them.
It's important to note here that searches with many results won't work here -- if you get a million hits on Britney Spears, there's no way you can verify that there really are a million valid links. And that million hits is just estimated by the search engine as well - it's not a verifiable number.

So here are 10 relatively obscure queries and the results for Google and Yahoo. My numbers include the duplicate items that each engine returns.

1. ["relatively obscure queries"] Google - 8, Yahoo - 5
2. ["blondes have no fun"] Google - 39, Yahoo - 28
3. [cowabunga schlumberger] Google - 10, Yahoo - 3
4. [studious carabinieri] Google - 51, Yahoo - 34
5. [séptimo álbum de la banda de Athens] Google - 97, Yahoo - 67
6. ["burning sepia"] Google - 56, Yahoo - 7
7. [Shickler waltz] Google - 13, Yahoo - 2
8.
[hakuna matata dissemble] Google - 6, Yahoo - 4
9. [counterrevolution netflix] Google - 35, Yahoo - 27
10. [Fremdsprache bietet Unterrichtsmaterialien Didaktisierung] Google - 95, Yahoo - 3

I didn't find a single search string that yielded more results in Yahoo than Google. How can Yahoo have a bigger index if every query shows Google with more results?

Now I know that this site is called "buygoogle," and you should infer that I have a Google bias. But I just recorded the results as they came, didn't exclude any trials, and didn't alter the results. In half the cases I started with Yahoo, and in half I started with Google. I tried to be as fair as possible, but it's still a non-scientific sample. But I sure expected the results would be a little more balanced.

Try your own search terms and feel free to post your results in the comments. (It's harder than it looks to find search terms that only yield 50 or so results!)

Update August 14, 2005 11:18 PM PDT: Maybe the difference isn't in the queries with small result sets, but in those with very large result sets. Google claims 4,770,000 hits for [britney spears], while Yahoo says they have 14 times as many at 68,200,000. Verifying that these are genuine links is left as an exercise for the reader.


 buygoogle.com