Comments on: $11B in Liquid Assets and Growing

By: Alquma

Alquma — Fri, 14 Dec 2007 17:16:40 +0000

Google it’s a very solid company with several web 2.0 business and the most important thing for them is that they have a lot of liquid cash in case they want to buy or invest in more companies like youtube.

By: The Muse

The Muse — Thu, 25 Oct 2007 04:25:48 +0000

Wouldn’t that make Google the richest online presence on the web?

By: JLGraham

JLGraham — Thu, 25 Oct 2007 04:24:05 +0000

Yeah, Google is definitely not in danger of bankruptcy.

By: efe

efe — Tue, 23 Oct 2007 21:51:58 +0000

''Where Should the News Room Go?

There are digit schools of intellection on where to locate your online news
room. Some companies favour to hit it as a country on their
main site, circumpolar to every as a unification on a schedule forbid or other
navigational element. Others physique every removed sites just
for the media.

There are pros and cons to each. Putting it as conception of your main
site allows a writer to “poke around” your site, absorbing
more of the wager and society of your consort and its products. It
also makes it easier if the communicator wants more aggregation about
a assets creation than crapper be institute in your media materials.
Of course, since you’ll requirement to wage country course to the online
news shack to hold such reporters encounter their artefact back, anyone
visiting your locate crapper admittance your advise materials. This is
probably not an supply but, if you wager possibleness customers may
become potty if they stray into the online programme room, this
could be worth considering.

Creating a removed locate allows you to accommodate everything to suit
the needs of the communicator and prevents the existence of
confusion for possibleness customers temporary your important site. The
reporter however, module be unable to apace “poke around” the
main locate as described above, so you haw study that in your
decision. If you do opt a removed site, wage it a study that
incorporates your consort (if you’re the Acme Company, go for
acmepress.com or acmeonlinenewsroom.com). Also, wage clear
links to your important locate throughout, and cipher them so that they
open in a newborn window, allowing the communicator to wager your important site without having to return to the online programme room.''

By: bilgisayar hocası

bilgisayar hocası — Mon, 08 Oct 2007 13:34:09 +0000

Lars, There is one thing missing in your formula: The amount of brain power that's behind Google.
Even if what you say about audio and video getting *a lot* more popular in Internet than text, becomes true; to show a relevant ads you need to digest videos and the context the video is in. Then you can relate that to what people really want from watching that video and show them an ad.
It is true what you say about this problem being harder to solve for audio/video than for text. But I guess with the amount of processing power, raw information, expert programmers and money that Google have it would be much harder for small companies and academia to compete with that. And I guess, this is what makes Google (and a few other large companies) be more successful than others in that future business, not TV companies. But that's only if they really know the importance, the way you know, and push for it.

By: Nurceyiz Evtekstili

Nurceyiz Evtekstili — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 10:36:55 +0000

One is to leverage human recommendation, for example in social networks. We would find media by relying on friends in our network – as they find stuff, they recommend it to us. Social networks are already becoming vehicles for launching new content.

The second option is automated recommendation, based on transactions. This is how you navigate Amazon or iTunes – people who bought this also like this. It is instructive how many people don’t use search engines once they get to large content collections like iTunes or Amazon.

By: Dr. Pete

Dr. Pete — Mon, 05 Mar 2007 15:54:53 +0000

To echo Jakob's point a bit, one of the real strokes of genius of Google AdWords was the way it blurred the distinction between search and advertising. While we seem to have developed so-called banner blindness, Google's advertising model pulls us in by remaining relevant to our tasks. Even knowing the results on the right are ads, I also know that they've proven valuable more often than not, and frankly, they don't cost me any more than normal search results.

On the video side, all attempts at advertising have tapped into our dislike for traditional advertising. If I go to watch a video, whether it's on CNN.com or YouTube, and it starts with a mandantory ad clip, I personally will almost always stop watching. Finding a viable and attractive video advertising model is going to be an uphill battle.

By: John Battelle

John Battelle — Mon, 05 Mar 2007 15:51:43 +0000

Duh. You’re right. I’ve fixed it.

By: Jakob Nielsen

Jakob Nielsen — Mon, 05 Mar 2007 14:27:21 +0000

It is not just a matter of being able to match a video with an ad. That's not that difficult a problem, because one can do speech recognition on the sound track and then perform an LSI-based topic match. We worked on that at Sun about ten years ago, and Sun may or may not have relevant patents - I don't know what happened.

You also have to consider the value of the ads, which again are determined by the usage context. In search, the user is looking for some place to go, so showing an ad for the thing the user wants *right at that moment* is highly likely to result in a click that's fairly likely to be followed by a transaction, such as a purchase or becoming a qualified lead in B2B.

In video, people are quite often just goofing off. It's a relaxing/entertaining medium, as opposed to a research medium. Search and text-dominated websites are for getting answers and getting things done, and thus for doing business. Video is for relaxation. (Mainly - of course there are also instructional video and videos of CEO speeches, but that's not where most YouTube users spend their time.)

The value of showing an ad is substantially lower when the viewer won't act on it.

By: Larry

Larry — Mon, 05 Mar 2007 13:59:51 +0000

It’s called a 10K not a K1