8K earnings (Beta), then?
Google caused something of a stir by releasing its quarterly financials ahead of schedule – and the results aren't good. Net income for the third quarter was $2.18bn, compared to $2.73bn this time last year, with non-GAAP income down to $3.01bn, compared to $3.18bn on the same time period. Overall revenues were up 45 per cent …
Your joking, they make a fortune from it, both from phone makers paying for all the extras like gmail and maps etc plus all the ad revenue they get from it.
These figures whilst not good are nowhere as bad as a 10% drop in share price because of them happening.
They share price will jump straight back up as soon as the markets reopen on them. After all its not like they have reported a big lost......
Because if 80% of your revenue is down by 15% it's net negative compared to 20% of your revenue being up by 30%.
I'll leave the maths to you. On second thoughts you don't seem too blessed in that department.
Figures are illustrative before some clown says 'Where'd you get those numbers from'
"Your (sic) joking, they make a fortune from it, both from phone makers paying for all the extras like gmail and maps etc plus all the ad revenue they get from it."
There are reasons to think that they are not really making much money at all from Android, even holding the legal costs of IP/patent/copyright litigation in complete disregard. I have seen analysts on both sides of the question of its profitability. If I remember correctly, Google filed affidavits in the Oracle-Google matter in connection with their Daubert motion that claimed that Android generated less that $100 million per year. I would expect that they spend more than that on lawyers and litigation and connected costs in defending Android. On the other hand, if the Google affidavit turned out to be borderline fraudulent, I wouldn't be surprised either.
We're in the midst of a massive and world-wide economic crisis. And Google took a slight hit on profits making only a couple of billion instead of couple and a half billion they made last time. And you conclude confidently that "the advertising business is going down the shitter". Congratulations - you make the short-term thinking panickers on Wall Street look like sober models of considered assessement by comparison. And that's not an easy feat!
Google will be fine.
Last figures I saw suggested that their Android business was bringing in $550M per year. Which is chicken feed in global tech company terms. However, it now looks like the widespread adoption of Android is actually LOWERING the search revenue they get as a search on a mobile device is less profitable than a search on a PC. So they are cannibalising their own revenue with the wonder that is Android. Plus, of course, Bing is starting to really make head roads in to their core business in search in the US. Funny that they are slowly killing themselves with their own mobile strategy though. Makes me chuckle. Could not happen to a nicer company……..
In 2011 96% of Google's income came from advertising (source: http://venturebeat.com/2012/01/29/google-advertising/). Even if Android were the only other one of Google's income streams, it would still be insignificant in comparison in terms of revenue and in any case I think that trying to close it up and squeeze more money by that route would be counterproductive. It's certainly not in itself going to lead to the sort of growth that is going to offset advertising losses.
So I'm confident that Android is safe exactly as it is.
... early means Google paid shills not in place to talk up the results,
"The problem is when this happens in the middle of the day, there is no time for a conference call to massage it, there is no time for analysts' questions and for an evaluation."
The big number there is a big rise is operating expenses:
"Operating Expenses – Operating expenses, other than cost of revenues, were $4.81 billion in the third quarter of 2012, or 34% of revenues, compared to $3.28 billion in the third quarter of 2011, or 34% of revenues."
total costs and expenses (9mnth,fig in $bn)
19,087(9mth 2011) 27,632(9mth 2012)
There are strong revenue growths and I wouldn't panic too much. If they fall another %10 tomorrow then it looks a good long termer (i.e buy) as I expect the costs to be brought under control.
Don't Panic Mr Mainwaring !
Yeah because they need to start running their company like an actual consumer serving business and offer things like actual customer support now. Those costs will probably only increase.
But then again the stock market is a load of shit too. They should tell people to suck it up and let them provide something of value for once.
One trick pony company and they've beat the pony for so long and so hard the maggots are taking over. We've hit peak search and it's advertising is moving deeply into "Tired" cesspool. These days social is key and Google sucks at social.
By the way how are those billionssss of activations treating you Eric? If only you had a machine to turn hot air into profits - or if turning on the ads on Android wouldn't be so unpopular given the competition.
"These days social is key and Google sucks at social."
Really, you think? Social has been done to death and is dull as hell. Social websites are hardly raking it in considering their marketcap.
A company that provides advertising, cloud apps/storage, a mobile/pc OS, browser amongst many other things can hardly be called a one trick pony.
Besides, I doubt they ever went with Android expecting it to bring in stunningly vast sums of profits.
I bet the print company comes up on about page one zillion of the results. :-)
It will be interesting to see what happens when the market re opens, my first thought on hearing this was 'oops a significant number of fuckwits with red braces have realised the emperor is in the nip'
prolly not tho, business as usual tomorrow
...Does it make sense that a single quarter of slightly worse income, during a worldwide economic crisis, means that an industry juggernaut is -instantly- worth 10% less.
You know what I think? I think that buy or sell orders should take, say, two months to execute. You make the decision and you're committed, but you get your money (or spend it) in two months based on that stock price.
Perhaps this would encourage investors to bet on -businesses- (which is the whole idea) rather than -other investors' likely moves-, which is the reality.
It's the same vicious cycle idiocy that's essentially created the Euro crisis from whole cloth; investors bet that other investors will bet that the debt yields will go up in country N. They don't care about the fundamentals - witness people saying that investors are "targetting" France and Germany(!!) - just about their predictions of what other peoples' reactions to their predictions will be.
It's a mind-bogglingly terrible system, and it's painfully obvious to everyone - except, it seems, economists, who still base -all- their models on a fundamental assumption of investor rationality! Then when things don't match they're terribly shocked: How is this possible?!! Even The Economist acted like it was some kind of earth-shattering revelation when someone suggested that maybe, just MAYBE, investors aren't ALWAYS completely rational!
except, it seems, economists, who still base -all- their models on a fundamental assumption of investor rationality
Not all their models - behavioral economics has been around for a while, and is picking up steam. There's quite a lot of work being done these days in economics and cognate fields (such as finance) on modeling the behavior of irrational actors, accounting for intangibles (such as emotional penalties and rewards), and so on.
This is what happens when people do not invest in the company and their product, but only in the hope that an idiot will pay more for their share than they paid for it.
There's simply nothing solid to hang a share value onto. No product. Just some bits flying about with a perceived dispersion measured in clicks. The whole predictability of the business model is based on vapor.
The sheer stupidity of these 'investors' and 'market analysts' is nothing short of baffling.
"Still a sinking ship. Time to put your wallet where your mouth is, shills."
Aside from being needlessly offensive and probably fairly groundless, it's also bone-headededly misunderstands what a "shill" is. The point of a shill is that they get paid by the company, not that they rush to give that company money. "Shill" is not another word for fan. It's an allegation of secret payment for what someone says.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019