14 ms·
Alphabet Third Quarter 2021 Results [pdf]
- disdi89 5y agoI do not understand this financial books and lingo enough to understand this correctly so have to ask "Is google cloud business gone really down as compared to previous years? Am I reading this correctly?"
- Tenobrus 5y agoYou're misunderstanding, the numbers show 4990 million in 2021 vs 3444 million in 2020.
- disdi89 5y agoThanks for explaining.
- dragonwriter 5y agoNo. Google Cloud Revenue went up from $3.4 billion for Q3 2020 to $4.9 billion for Q3 2021 Google Cloud operating losses went down from $1.1 billion in Q3 2020 to $640 million in Q3 2021. (Though it looks like this change is almost exactly accounted for by a change in depreciation expense due to revised estimate of the useful life of servers.) So they are bringing in significantly more money through the front door with Cloud, though they are still losing money (either about the same or half as much, depending on how you look at it) on Cloud.
- dustintrex 5y agoThe server depreciation changes affect all of Google. GCP accounts for only a portion of Google's server usage.
- dragonwriter 5y ago> The server depreciation changes affect all of Google. Good point. Not sure why I miscontextualized that number.
- slownews45 5y agoQuick summary. Revenue up 41%!! Incredible for an already very large company. Op Margin also up to 32%? When you realize how hard walmart and friends works for every point of margin and growth - these guys are literally printing millions.
- easton 5y ago> In January 2021, we completed an assessment of the useful lives of our servers and network equipment and adjusted the estimated useful life of our servers from three years to four years Does anyone know what the observation was here that made this possible? Have Google's internal workloads not grown in size as quickly as they thought, or is this a "Moore's law is slowing down" thing?
- kyrra 5y agoGoogler, opinions are my own. I know nothing about this. I wonder if this was Google's response to the chip shortage? Maybe the cost/benefit (and just sheer inability to get certain parts) made them hold on to hardware for longer.
- DennisAleynikov 5y agoThat would be an interesting adjustment
- bduerst 5y agoCould also be the fact that Google has built a ton of new data centers in the last two years. Newer hardware, infra, utilization, etc. could lead to better quality/lifespans.
- sidibe 5y agoI don't think the workloads would have much to do with this, probably saw that they were having less failures than anticipated or memory/chip shortages have them keeping equipment around longer than they planned.
- jdavis703 5y agoMy assumption is the hardware was more reliable than expected. If it was about slowing workload growth one might expect them to switch to a usage-based (instead of time-based) depreciation schedule.
- DennisAleynikov 5y agoSeemingly the latter. Less benefit between generations and more stress resistance in hardware compared to earlier data center practice
- belval 5y agoNet income up 68%, that's terrifying high for a company that size. Good job everyone at Alphabet/Google.
- kansface 5y agoMore like the pandemic is good for pushing activities onto the internet of which Google takes its slice.
- TrainedMonkey 5y agoAnd $2T dumped into stock market, portion of which companies have used on online ads to compete for increased revenue.
- mrep 5y agoWhere are you getting your $2T number from?
- TrainedMonkey 5y agoLooking at https://www.investopedia.com/government-stimulus-efforts-to-fight-the-covid-19-crisis-4799723 https://www.investopedia.com/government-stimulus-efforts-to-... and roughly guesstimating $1.5T from direct loans / PPP and additional $0.5T from the knock off stimulus and inflation effects.
- mrep 5y agoThat's money given to people and businesses. Secondary effects could go into the stock market but not directly and I definitely would not call that dumping into the stock market considering most was probably used to keep business and people afloat.
- Jensson 5y agoIn a trickle up economy it doesn't matter where you drop it, it will go into the stock market.
- klelatti 5y agoAlphabet + Facebook revenue now represents 1/2% of world GDP and still growing rapidly. Edit: possibly not quite but almost certainly 1/2% excluding China.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- TameAntelope 5y agoConsidering the world would be more than 0.5% worse without Google, I guess they're still undervalued?
- gmiller123456 5y agoYou're making the assumption that no company, or companies, would step in and provide a similar service for a similar or better value.
- Jensson 5y agoBing search, edge browser and windows phones? Amazon owning youtube? Companies would step up, but not sure if that would be a better scenario than what we have now.
- Kranar 5y agoDon't see how your claim follows. If another company would have stepped in to provide a similar or better service instead of Google, then it would have been that company worth 0.5% of world GDP.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- theevilsharpie 5y agoThis isn't even close to being true.
- 5y ago
- purple_ferret 5y agoI like to think I'm doing my part as a sharehholder. Every so often I'll google something like Criminal Defense Attorney, send money, or file taxes and click on the highest ads.
- echelon 5y agoThat seems like fraud, especially if you were to do it at scale.
- TameAntelope 5y agoA lot of things we do are a little fraudulent, no? The measure is probably impact.
- netr0ute 5y agoYou won't want to know what AdNauseam does.
- echelon 5y agoIt's one thing to click ads. It's quite another to do it for a company you own stock in.
- rige 5y agoHmm, I don't understand what would make that fraudulent, could you explain? Many users, and presumably many shareholders, click on ads that aren't relevant to them, or search for things that aren't relevant to their interests or purchases -- I would think that's just one of the many assumptions built into the advertising market.
- echelon 5y ago> Every so often I'll google something like Criminal Defense Attorney, send money, or file taxes and click on the highest ads. The original poster is deliberately searching for some of the highest cost per click ads [1]. They have no intention of using these services, and they're moving lots of money from the ad purchaser to Google. Up to $50 per click. This person owns stock in Google and has a vested interest in seeing their revenues go up. These effects are minuscule, but it's not far off from stealing a furniture item every time you go to Target. Someone is paying for these and it has a nonzero effect on Google stock. [1] https://www.wordstream.com/blog/ws/2017/06/27/most-expensive-keywords https://www.wordstream.com/blog/ws/2017/06/27/most-expensive...
- HWR_14 5y agoOnce more, I don't understand how advertising revenue keeps growing. Once people install ad blockers, they don't typically remove them. And ad-blockers keep growing. So who is actually seeing these ads? How can those numbers be going up? I understand, intellectually, that not everyone thinks like me. But I don't fundamentally understand why people allow ads on their devices when they can prevent it. Then again, I don't understand a lot of behaviors people exhibit.
- pcurve 5y agoI also think there's a lot of negative ROI on ad campaigns, with no shortage of new players queuing out the door to try their luck in digital space.
- lotsofpulp 5y agoThe price of the ads could be going up at a quicker rate, especially as more and more viewers from previous ad spending channels (such as TV channels) move to online options (such as Youtube). Also, the number of people using ad blockers must be extremely low. Even crazier, most people who I talk to about content blockers on iOS zone out of the conversation before I can even get to how easy it is. They do not even care that much about the ads or notice how annoying they are. Then again, many or most people still watch live sports and old school TV channels, which are chock full of ads. I cannot even stand too obvious product placement, much less ad breaks. So while I will go out of my way to remove ads from my life, there are probably 9 others who will not spend a single second thinking about it.
- simfree 5y agoSounds like a bad pitch then. Shorten it up, better not to overdo a sales pitch than to do too short a pitch. I don't pitch Signal, but when I do see it pitched those that are most successful pitch 1 directly useful feature as why you should install it. Eg: Get Signal, our videos won't look like a fuzzy potato lens image Remember, your reason should be a problem the person your pitching to has faced and would like to see fixed. If they are having trouble with a different issue, pitch that instead!
- Shadonototra 5y agoWhat value do they provide to our society? We empower the wrong things..
- dietr1ch 5y agoI'd love to have access to a free search engine, email, and a video platform. But objectively running and improving those systems takes money that people is not really willing to pay for. Wikipedia is a good example on how our anchor on that everything digital must be free keeps us from developing free systems. I wish we could change that. Now, what value do those systems provide? I would definitely be living a much different (and likely worse) life if I didn't had access to the Internet and systems like those since middle school.
- Shadonototra 5y agoit's not free, you pay with your data, privacy and is not "free" of capitalistic censorship (shadowing actual result with value because entity X bought the spot to get included at the top of your 'free' search) wikipedia actually is free, and we do not empower it for the value it provides to our society
- xHDC 5y agoAutomated bidding, Google's greatest invention yet. Google decides how much you pay them now... They are also doing a good job at turning unsellable searches into sellable searches with their suggested search queries.