3 ms·
The vast majority of what google has grown in the "moat" and the "scorched land" that surrounds "the castle" of search and paid clicks is at best useless and of
by ronilan 9y ago
The vast majority of what google has grown in the "moat" and the "scorched land" that surrounds "the castle" of search and paid clicks is at best useless and often toxic. And then there is YouTube.
Edit: when useless, it is useless to a buyer, but not to a user. When toxic, it is toxic to both.
- mbesto 9y ago> useless to a buyer To the potential buyer of the asset or a client buying a Google service? Good example, non-Google related - Pinboard buying Delicious.
- ronilan 9y agoExcellent example. Can a one-man-show benefit from the disposal of a Google owned asset? Most likely. Parent was talking "tech M&A", "corporate assets" and "the street". Not same.
- mbesto 9y agoI was the OP btw :) I'd have to dig further but I have to imagine there are products that are created by Google that don't reach $100M+ in revenue that Google eventually folds. Something more likely - a product that is $10M in revenue that plateaus and could be sold off as an asset. I honestly don't know, just throwing it out there.
- ronilan 9y agoGoogle doesn't operate that way. Almost everything that comes out is a loss leader in one way or another (and more often than not, in one way and another). You can dig, but it will most likely be extremely hard to find a stand alone product/service that plateaued at such a revenue level. Wishing that such a product would be "created by Google" puts the bar way way too high. The Nik Collection, for example, arrived via acquisition...
- olau 9y agoCare to provide some examples? Having a bunch of happy users doesn't seem like a bad starting point for a business to me.