6 ms·

I bet the founders of Indeed are glad they sold it when they did. Any business that depends on putting their own search results inside of Google's is going to

• halflings 9y ago
  Looks like Indeed sold in 2012, for 1 billion. I would bet it would've sold for much much more if they sold it later (at peak "unicorn" hype), but this is easy to say in hindsight.
  • kornish 9y ago
    And perhaps, in six months with Google Jobs Search eating up market share, it would have sold for much less. Seizing a 1 billion USD exit opportunity seems like a more than acceptable outcome.
    • a5seo 9y ago
      Heh, especially considering they only took 1 round of VC years after bootstrapping. I wouldn't be surprised if they still owned 80% of it at exit.
• ocdtrekkie 9y ago
  True, however, Google is facing more and more pressure from regulators for favoring their own services in search. The EU is expected to drop a massive penalty in the next month or two for Google favoring their own shopping services over others, and surely implement new restrictions on how they can conduct themselves in this regard.
  • soldierofhayley 9y ago
    I look forward to the US absolutely destroying EU companies, the few that exist, with massive fines and penalties in retaliation :)
    • tekkk 9y ago
      Really, you look forward to? What makes this that personal to you? You are somehow afflicted if Google is indeed fined and regulated? "The few that exist" what is that supposed to mean? That operate in US? I believe it's more than "few".
      • soldierofhayley 9y ago
        Well I work at Google. And a significant portion of my compensation is in RSUs. And I am not a fan of the EU's approach to regulation, economically they are already failing and I predict that it only gets worse. Free markets win every time.
        • perseusprime11 9y ago
          EU makes money by fining American companies. If you take that away, how else can they make money?
        • specialist 9y ago
          Free markets? Sounds interesting. How are the markets (spheres of influence) of USA, EU, and China different? What makes one of these markets more free than the others?
        • tekkk 9y ago
          I agree that EU has too many bureaucrats inviting new ways to regulate things. Sadly it seems that it's the only way countries inside EU are going to have more uniform (and sane) laws. Without really no knowledge of the Google ruling in my opinion it seems that it's a flick to show Google that there is a line that it can't cross. Maybe Google in all of its superiority has become too arrogant, who knows. And free markets work only if they are fairly regulated. If there was no penalty from abusing your monopoly you think companies wouldn't do it? I think even Google wouldn't be all the goody-goody with its business practices if we'd let its actions go unchecked. Granted Google seems better than most.
        • Veratyr 9y ago
  • ehsankia 9y ago
    Meanwhile, Amazon bans Chromecast from its store and promotes their Fire stick, yet they don't get hit with anything.
    • ocdtrekkie 9y ago
      This is a commonly misunderstood issue, because of Google's superior PR. Amazon banned Chromecast in response to Google's refusal to allow Amazon products like the Kindle Fire from using Google services like Chromecast, without agreeing to the illegal requirement of bundling competing products like Play Books, which Amazon obviously doesn't want to load on their Kindles. Google behaved anticompetitively, Amazon responded in turn, but unfortunately, very few people are aware of the former. (And yes, Google's anticompetitive behavior regarding Android apps and services is subject to another, separate EU antitrust investigation than the one mentioned above, which is still ongoing.)
      • eitally 9y ago
        This is an incomplete answer. Google Play Services are required on all OEM Android devices running supported Android distributions. Google wasn't behaving in any untoward way, but the result was Amazon's refusal as you describe. Imho, it's perfectly reasonable for Google to include Play Services as a requirement to OEMs running managed Android (as opposed to custom compiled flavors based on AOSP). Don't you agree?
        • ocdtrekkie 9y ago
          Ah, you forget how incomplete your answer is. It controls not just the Android devices with Play Services, but restricts all Androids (and SDKs based on Android) that the company releases, including strict "compatibility" requirements, which include branding, pre-installed applications, etc. Google's agreement for this is in fact, illegal anticompetitive tying (or bundling, if you prefer). Requiring that in order to support Chromecast, Amazon must include Google Play Books is a very questionable requirement legally, especially considering the other highly dominant apps they require, like Google Search, Google Maps, and Google Chrome. In almost every civilized country, it's illegal for a company to use one monopoly to expand it's reach into another market. (Like to use these bundling requirements to encroach on the Kindle ebook market.) If, as you suggest, however, it's perfectly reasonable to require all this of Amazon in exchange for Kindle support, isn't it perfectly reasonable for Amazon to decide not to sell hardware not compatible with their products?
• trca 9y ago
  Google has said numerous times they don't want to get involved in any further steps of the job applicant process more than they are with this search tool.
  • shostack 9y ago
    Which makes sense, because this is the step in the funnel where they can make the highest margins. There is incredibly strong user intent, and their existing ads product can plug in nicely. That combined means advertisers (read: companies trying to hire) could find a lot of value in using this over other options, and that could mean a large revenue opportunity for Google.
  • peteretep 9y ago
    But neither -- really -- are Indeed. Indeed are (sort of) only an aggregator.