14 ms·

Numbers: - Q1 EPS $24.63 Est 25.71 - Q1 Add Rev $54.66B, Est $54.14B - Q1 Cloud Loss of $931M, still not sure how they can't compete with Azure and Amazon he

Numbers: - Q1 EPS $24.63 Est 25.71 - Q1 Add Rev $54.66B, Est $54.14B - Q1 Cloud Loss of $931M, still not sure how they can't compete with Azure and Amazon here? This is a slight improvement YoY. Though cloud revenue was up 43% - Q1 Services Rev of 61.47B - Q1 Other Bets lost $1.16B - Q1 Other Bets Rev $440M - Q1 Re $68.01, Est $67.98 - looks like they are reporting a loss(1.2B) this quarter, which is a big swing YoY where they made a profit of 4.9B - youtube Add Rev 6.9B, bit of a miss here, TikTok is starting to affect google growth finally, they already have affected Meta's add revenue, maybe related also to iPhone privacy changes? - Authorized to buyback up to $70B in shares, that's a large number and indicates someone at google thinks rev is slowing down, see TikTok Misc: - shares down slightly, but negligible. - numbers for Q1 shouldn't be affected by Russia but next quarter will be interesting - want to see how their US vs rest numbers work out as that should indicate where they'll hold cash and therefor where they'll look for take over targets next. - specifically for their cloud offering, sooner or later they'll get it working - note to watch Meta as alot of people will use GOOG advertising numbers as a proxy for how screwed META will be with the iPhone privacy changes going forward.

richardwhiuk 5y ago
> - looks like they are reporting a loss(1.2B) this quarter, which is a big swing YoY where they made a profit of 4.9B I don't see this in the statement?
- gniv 5y ago
  As others have said, this is just loss form investments, due to the general market correction. If you want to see it in the press release, look for "Other income" in the press release (the most interesting part is on page 9).
bryanrasmussen 5y ago
didn't Google announce a year or two ago that Cloud had 5 years to make a certain amount or it was gone?
- dekhn 5y ago
  no. that was a tabloid claim based on iffy data. Cloud's main products (compute, storage, databases, load balancers, etc) aren't going anywhere.
  - toomuchtodo 5y ago
    Does Google dogfood cloud? Or is it compartmentalized from internal service infra?
    - cmrdporcupine 5y ago
      Both. In reality almost all of Google is hosted on Borg. But I worked briefly on a project that was heavily interlinked between the two. I believe there's been more efforts to move things into GCP.
      - dijit 5y ago
        Afaik even “google cloud” itself runs atop Borg.
        jeffbee 5y ago
        Where else would it run? G runs lots of small things on cloud but a company that is willing to fund 0.1% global efficiency efforts is never going to sacrifice far larger efficiency regressions just for the aesthetic pleasure of dogfooding cloud for major services like websearch.
    - dekhn 5y ago
      You can do some stuff on cloud; for example, for a few minor projects where we needed to make some web pages, we used GCP. However, it wasn't well integrated with internal, it was effectively just a web site like any other. I believe there had been multiple waves of attempting to get people to move to cloud, but at the time, there was no coherent strategy to move large parts of the tech stack to cloud. Unfortunately with any sufficiently complex production service that runs in borg, untangling the web of dependencies is usually too hard. Other things work great in the cloud; if I was a Google Researcher working on public data and publishing papers, I'd intentionally use Google Cloud (with access to VMs, CPUs, and GPUs, but not any internal data like the web page crawls) with Jax, Keras, TF, etc.
kvathupo 5y ago
Tempted to sell at a loss, as opposed to waiting for the split at this point
- midasuni 5y ago
  If you own 10 at 2000 or it splits 10:1 and you own 100 at 200, what difference does the split make? (Obviously you can buy and sell smaller units but aside from that)
  - rubiquity 5y ago
    Retail traders that started "investing" in the last two years have been trained to believe that stock splits means a bunch of money will pile in because the price looks cheaper. Obviously there has never been a correlation there and even less so now with the wide availability of fractional shares.
    - mupuff1234 5y ago
      I heard it might also mean that it can then be added to the dow index which might trigger some automatic buying?
      - rubiquity 5y ago
        I'd expect that to be negligible because the size of funds Google is already part of (QQQ, VTI, SPY, etc. etc.) are orders of magnitude larger than ETFs that track the Dow (DIA is the only one that comes to mind). The Dow itself is a bit of gimmick in that its value is the sum of all the prices of the stocks in the index. Meaning if Google joins at $120 but kicks out a stock that was $300 then the Dow would go down 180 points.
        hasty 5y ago
        No, it wouldn't. The Dow is weighted for exactly this reason: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dow_Jones_Industrial_Average#Calculation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dow_Jones_Industrial_Average#C...
tempnow987 5y ago
Does Add = Ad?
jljljl 5y ago
> - looks like they are reporting a loss(1.2B) this quarter, which is a big swing YoY where they made a profit of 4.9B You are looking at Other Expenses/Gains. The bottom line net income was 16,436 vs 17,930 LY -- so still a Net Profit, but down 8% YoY
- aliston 5y ago
  If you look deeper, though, the biggest difference is actually in "other income" which itself was primarily driven by gain/loss in securities. In other words, the entire difference in net income this quarter is really a result of the markets tanking over the past few months. Google's operations are as profitable as ever.
  - colinmhayes 5y ago
    Google's net income is up 35% if you ignore the equity numbers. Not only is Google as profitable as ever, it's quite a bit more profitable than it has been. I fully expect GOOG to open up tomorrow, maybe even climb higher than today's open.
    - jsnell 5y ago
      That doesn't sound right. The operating income grew from 16.4B to 20.1B. That's 21%, not 35%?
      - colinmhayes 5y ago
        I'm counting net income less gains from equities. $13 billion last year to $17.5 here. You're right though, probably should've just looked at change in operating income which is still a strong 21%.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
owlninja 5y ago
> Authorized to buyback up to $70B in shares, that's a large number and indicates someone at google thinks rev is slowing down, see TikTok Good for shareholders?
mupuff1234 5y ago
> that's a large number and indicates someone at google thinks rev is slowing down I thought buybacks were supposed to show a sign of trust in the company and that they believe the stock is "cheap"?
- vannevar 5y ago
  Yes, seems like a bad move to buy stock if you expect it to go down.
- bombcar 5y ago
  Buybacks are submarine dividends, it means the company doesn't know what to do with the money to grow so they're giving it back to the shareholders.
  - Mikeb85 5y ago
    Buybacks and dividends are literally the way public markets are supposed to work. Raising capital without ever giving it back = a ponzi scheme. Anyhow buybacks are a way to give money back to investors while making each remaining share more valuable.
  - bduerst 5y ago
    Shrinking float and lowering the cost of capital is still better than sitting on a pile of excess cash. Buybacks are a valid tactic in corporate finance.
    - bombcar 5y ago
      Very valid - but they can scare “growth” investors.
      - waych 5y ago
        Growth investors don't like piles of cash doing nothing either so much. Especially with inflation.
baskethead 5y ago
> - shares down slightly, but negligible. As of right now, shares are down $120, after being down $80 during the trading session so it's pretty huge.
davidbarker 5y ago
Anecdotally, I spend a reasonable amount of time on YouTube (perhaps an hour per day), and recently (6–12 months) the frequency of ads has noticeably increased. It’s so notable that I can’t help but think overall watch time has flattened but they’re desperate to continue increasing revenue. Although at some point they’re likely to go into a downward spiral where they annoy too many users. I’m not there yet, but I’m on the trajectory.
- bombcar 5y ago
  The ads have increased and the number of different ones have decreased; either they have less purchasers for ads for my demographic or something's going weird. I only need so many ads for "current SAAS desperation".
  - davidbarker 5y ago
    Now you mention it, I’ve noticed the same. It feels like 80% of the ads I see are for HelloFresh, Monday.com, or Grammarly.
  - guyzero 5y ago
    Businesses with high long-term customer value and high customer acquisition costs will always dominate these sorts of transactional ad channels.
  - progre 5y ago
    For me, I think the type of ads have shifted a little bit too. Less German cars and carbonated sugar drinks (big brand ads) and more Home Shopping Channel type ads. And Get Rich Quick While Working From Home-testimonials.
    - ss108 5y ago
      That's what the algorithm thinks you are now
    - pkaye 5y ago
      I bet it will be more random ads in the future as restriction are put on targeted advertising and blocking of cookies.
redmen 5y ago
shares down negligible? It's down 6% after hours, and was down 4% intraday which took no wind out of the sails.
- arberx 5y ago
  lol I was going to say...
dijit 5y ago
> still not sure how they can't compete with Azure and Amazon here? People go AWS because it’s the default, easy to hire people who know it, AWS are willing to throw credits at you if you’re in the US and once you’re on the platform it’s a serious effort to get off due to weird lock-ins. Azure has its niche in the windows market, a lot of smaller orgs are going AzureAD as a replacement (or in addition to) a normal on-prem AD solution, once you’re on the platform it’s easy to just use more of it and consume existing contracts. It helps immeasurably that if you’re running windows workloads they “happen” to be reasonably priced, as opposed to other cloud providers. It’s a shame, because google cloud is definitely my favourite of the public clouds, I hope it doesn’t go anywhere and I’d be extremely happy to go back to it after using AWS for a while now.
- deanCommie 5y ago
  IMO: * AWS makes the best 0th impression (the whole "nobody gets fired for choosing AWS" and as you said you can justify it based on absolutely no knowledge of it's details just purely on reputation) * Google makes the best 1st impression, by the virtue of it's beautiful consistency of behaviour, SDK standardization, clean billing models, and overall cross-platform cohesion. It just seems like you can learn GCP faster at first. * But AWS makes the best 2nd and subsequent impressions, as you realize consistency and clarity lacks the depth of AWS, or the true productivity gains by native services - native services Google has mostly rejected in favour of doubling down on it's K8S offering as a differentiator. While GCP can seem faster to learn, in practice building on AWS is actually faster and you can go build new full applications from scratch that you're happy operating in production quicker.
- simsla 5y ago
  I'd challenge that. Used to work with AWS, now with GCP. - They both throw credits at companies. - Services are similar. - Prices are similar, although Google sometimes has silly costs for "enabling" a service/API. - GCP dashboard is snappier. - AWS has good support. I'd wager the quality of support is the main differentiator.
  - dijit 5y ago
rtall 5y ago
leokennis 5y ago
Regarding GCP my gut feeling is Google is way too unpredictable and quick to cancel products to seriously attract big enterprises. Anecdotally their Google Workspace offering however almost seems to be the default for smaller business that are not IT oriented or have a separate IT department.
- EnKopVand 5y ago
  It has a lot more to do with how bad they are at selling IT to enterprises in my experience from the European public sector, which is now a very large Azure and AWS market. We went with Azure because it was the sort of “obvious” direction for a non-tech enterprise organisation that was already heavily windowsy and using office365, but what Microsoft and Amazon sell to enterprises is support. AWS didn’t start out so well here in Europe, which is what gave Azure the chance to catch up, but once Amazon caught on, they became more compliant with European legislation than Microsoft is. Things like guaranteeing that every employee that comes near your data is an European citizen, is one area where AWS is still better than Azure, but basically what they do that Google doesn’t, is that they listen and adopt to the needs of the trillion dollar industry. When Teams rolled out as a new feature in Enterprise 365, as available to everyone, our techies called Seattle (I can’t spell redmund) and a few days later it was possible to not have it auto-available for everyone. When we had issues with Google education, and Google education was actually Google’s best attempt at being supportive of enterprise, we had to talk with a chatbot and eventually had to physically drive to Google Denmark to annoy someone to get real support because our sales rep was on vacation. I’m not sure if you know this, but a major part of selling IT to enterprise is to sell the CTOs the ability to say “yes, email is down, but our guys are working directly with the people at Amazon/Microsoft headquarters and they are calling us with updates every 30 minutes.” or “yes our servers are in Ireland, but some of our best techies have gone and physically inspected them with the EY consultants and our DPO firm and it was completely GDPR compliant”, and all the other stuff you get to do when you make the companies billions.
  - pkaye 5y ago
    That is interesting about Google support because a while back I had some issues with my Google home devices so I was browsing their help guides and a popup asked if I need to speak with technical support. One click and 30s later someone was one line and spent 30m fixing my device issue. Not bad for something I spend $100 on.
trenning 5y ago
An aside comment I wanted to say thanks for doing these posts after earnings announcements. It’s been a while since you’ve done one and I always appreciate seeing them.
bufferoverflow 5y ago
> Authorized to buyback up to $70B in shares, that's a large number and indicates someone at google thinks rev is slowing down, see TikTok Isn't it the opposite? It means Google thinks their stock will be undervalued, and they want to buy it back?
- christophilus 5y ago
  Depends on whether you have good capital allocators at the top. Most companies don’t, really.
  - rabidonrails 5y ago
    Althought 70B is a large number and based on the anti-trust lens that GOOG is under I wonder if they think this is a better way to return money to the shareholders than inviting DOJ scrutiny.
user3939382 5y ago
The political corner of YouTube that I spend the most time on probably isn’t even on their radar, but it’s gotten to the point where almost every channel I subscribe to often mentions their out of band content on Rumble, Rokfin, Substack, etc because YouTube has been demonetizing left and right.
- bmarquez 5y ago
  Oh yeah some creators are afraid of demonetizing (even though they're non-political, they're afraid the algorithm might accidently trigger on them) so they'll tell their viewers about their backup Odysee or Rumble page. It turns out there are fewer ads on their backup pages so I tend to watch there instead on YouTube.
colinmhayes 5y ago
The big number to me, Gain (loss) on equity securities, 2021:4,837 2022:(1,070) I don't think their equity gains/losses have anything to do with future business outlook, so ignoring this $6 billion loss YOY I'd say this was a fantastic quarter for them. They could show more in some of their non search sectors, but excluding that equity number went fro. $13 billion in profit to $17.5 for a 35% gain.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
gigatexal 5y ago
What’s this 1.2B loss you speak of? I don’t follow
paulryanrogers 5y ago
"Add Rev" as in advertising revenue?
sidcool 5y ago
Their investment in research and development has increased by $1 billion. This is good news. GCP should be a concern for the. More than a decade in and it's still facing losses. But cloud is a long game.
tommiegannert 5y ago
> Q1 Cloud Loss of $931M, still not sure how they can't compete with Azure and Amazon here? If you haven't analyzed the revenue and expense, this number doesn't say anything. Thay may willingly be spending more to grow, but could change stance and be profitable on Monday if they wanted to. These are numbers that sound like output, but my guess is someone had a "revenue+$1B" budget, and they spent it. I have no clue if that's the case, but it would surprise me if Google Cloud is inately unprofitable.

richardwhiuk 5y ago

> - looks like they are reporting a loss(1.2B) this quarter, which is a big swing YoY where they made a profit of 4.9B I don't see this in the statement?

gniv 5y ago
As others have said, this is just loss form investments, due to the general market correction. If you want to see it in the press release, look for "Other income" in the press release (the most interesting part is on page 9).

bryanrasmussen 5y ago

didn't Google announce a year or two ago that Cloud had 5 years to make a certain amount or it was gone?

dekhn 5y ago
no. that was a tabloid claim based on iffy data. Cloud's main products (compute, storage, databases, load balancers, etc) aren't going anywhere.
- toomuchtodo 5y ago
  Does Google dogfood cloud? Or is it compartmentalized from internal service infra?
  - cmrdporcupine 5y ago
    Both. In reality almost all of Google is hosted on Borg. But I worked briefly on a project that was heavily interlinked between the two. I believe there's been more efforts to move things into GCP.
    - dijit 5y ago
      Afaik even “google cloud” itself runs atop Borg.
      - jeffbee 5y ago
        Where else would it run? G runs lots of small things on cloud but a company that is willing to fund 0.1% global efficiency efforts is never going to sacrifice far larger efficiency regressions just for the aesthetic pleasure of dogfooding cloud for major services like websearch.
  - dekhn 5y ago
    You can do some stuff on cloud; for example, for a few minor projects where we needed to make some web pages, we used GCP. However, it wasn't well integrated with internal, it was effectively just a web site like any other. I believe there had been multiple waves of attempting to get people to move to cloud, but at the time, there was no coherent strategy to move large parts of the tech stack to cloud. Unfortunately with any sufficiently complex production service that runs in borg, untangling the web of dependencies is usually too hard. Other things work great in the cloud; if I was a Google Researcher working on public data and publishing papers, I'd intentionally use Google Cloud (with access to VMs, CPUs, and GPUs, but not any internal data like the web page crawls) with Jax, Keras, TF, etc.

kvathupo 5y ago

Tempted to sell at a loss, as opposed to waiting for the split at this point

midasuni 5y ago
If you own 10 at 2000 or it splits 10:1 and you own 100 at 200, what difference does the split make? (Obviously you can buy and sell smaller units but aside from that)
- rubiquity 5y ago
  Retail traders that started "investing" in the last two years have been trained to believe that stock splits means a bunch of money will pile in because the price looks cheaper. Obviously there has never been a correlation there and even less so now with the wide availability of fractional shares.
  - mupuff1234 5y ago
    I heard it might also mean that it can then be added to the dow index which might trigger some automatic buying?
    - rubiquity 5y ago
      I'd expect that to be negligible because the size of funds Google is already part of (QQQ, VTI, SPY, etc. etc.) are orders of magnitude larger than ETFs that track the Dow (DIA is the only one that comes to mind). The Dow itself is a bit of gimmick in that its value is the sum of all the prices of the stocks in the index. Meaning if Google joins at $120 but kicks out a stock that was $300 then the Dow would go down 180 points.
      - hasty 5y ago
        No, it wouldn't. The Dow is weighted for exactly this reason: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dow_Jones_Industrial_Average#Calculation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dow_Jones_Industrial_Average#C...

tempnow987 5y ago

Does Add = Ad?

jljljl 5y ago

> - looks like they are reporting a loss(1.2B) this quarter, which is a big swing YoY where they made a profit of 4.9B You are looking at Other Expenses/Gains. The bottom line net income was 16,436 vs 17,930 LY -- so still a Net Profit, but down 8% YoY

aliston 5y ago
If you look deeper, though, the biggest difference is actually in "other income" which itself was primarily driven by gain/loss in securities. In other words, the entire difference in net income this quarter is really a result of the markets tanking over the past few months. Google's operations are as profitable as ever.
- colinmhayes 5y ago
  Google's net income is up 35% if you ignore the equity numbers. Not only is Google as profitable as ever, it's quite a bit more profitable than it has been. I fully expect GOOG to open up tomorrow, maybe even climb higher than today's open.
  - jsnell 5y ago
    That doesn't sound right. The operating income grew from 16.4B to 20.1B. That's 21%, not 35%?
    - colinmhayes 5y ago
      I'm counting net income less gains from equities. $13 billion last year to $17.5 here. You're right though, probably should've just looked at change in operating income which is still a strong 21%.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]

owlninja 5y ago

> Authorized to buyback up to $70B in shares, that's a large number and indicates someone at google thinks rev is slowing down, see TikTok Good for shareholders?

mupuff1234 5y ago

> that's a large number and indicates someone at google thinks rev is slowing down I thought buybacks were supposed to show a sign of trust in the company and that they believe the stock is "cheap"?

vannevar 5y ago
Yes, seems like a bad move to buy stock if you expect it to go down.
bombcar 5y ago
Buybacks are submarine dividends, it means the company doesn't know what to do with the money to grow so they're giving it back to the shareholders.
- Mikeb85 5y ago
  Buybacks and dividends are literally the way public markets are supposed to work. Raising capital without ever giving it back = a ponzi scheme. Anyhow buybacks are a way to give money back to investors while making each remaining share more valuable.
- bduerst 5y ago
  Shrinking float and lowering the cost of capital is still better than sitting on a pile of excess cash. Buybacks are a valid tactic in corporate finance.
  - bombcar 5y ago
    Very valid - but they can scare “growth” investors.
    - waych 5y ago
      Growth investors don't like piles of cash doing nothing either so much. Especially with inflation.

baskethead 5y ago

> - shares down slightly, but negligible. As of right now, shares are down $120, after being down $80 during the trading session so it's pretty huge.

davidbarker 5y ago

Anecdotally, I spend a reasonable amount of time on YouTube (perhaps an hour per day), and recently (6–12 months) the frequency of ads has noticeably increased. It’s so notable that I can’t help but think overall watch time has flattened but they’re desperate to continue increasing revenue. Although at some point they’re likely to go into a downward spiral where they annoy too many users. I’m not there yet, but I’m on the trajectory.

bombcar 5y ago
The ads have increased and the number of different ones have decreased; either they have less purchasers for ads for my demographic or something's going weird. I only need so many ads for "current SAAS desperation".
- davidbarker 5y ago
  Now you mention it, I’ve noticed the same. It feels like 80% of the ads I see are for HelloFresh, Monday.com, or Grammarly.
- guyzero 5y ago
  Businesses with high long-term customer value and high customer acquisition costs will always dominate these sorts of transactional ad channels.
- progre 5y ago
  For me, I think the type of ads have shifted a little bit too. Less German cars and carbonated sugar drinks (big brand ads) and more Home Shopping Channel type ads. And Get Rich Quick While Working From Home-testimonials.
  - ss108 5y ago
    That's what the algorithm thinks you are now
  - pkaye 5y ago
    I bet it will be more random ads in the future as restriction are put on targeted advertising and blocking of cookies.

redmen 5y ago

shares down negligible? It's down 6% after hours, and was down 4% intraday which took no wind out of the sails.

arberx 5y ago
lol I was going to say...

dijit 5y ago

> still not sure how they can't compete with Azure and Amazon here? People go AWS because it’s the default, easy to hire people who know it, AWS are willing to throw credits at you if you’re in the US and once you’re on the platform it’s a serious effort to get off due to weird lock-ins. Azure has its niche in the windows market, a lot of smaller orgs are going AzureAD as a replacement (or in addition to) a normal on-prem AD solution, once you’re on the platform it’s easy to just use more of it and consume existing contracts. It helps immeasurably that if you’re running windows workloads they “happen” to be reasonably priced, as opposed to other cloud providers. It’s a shame, because google cloud is definitely my favourite of the public clouds, I hope it doesn’t go anywhere and I’d be extremely happy to go back to it after using AWS for a while now.

deanCommie 5y ago
IMO: * AWS makes the best 0th impression (the whole "nobody gets fired for choosing AWS" and as you said you can justify it based on absolutely no knowledge of it's details just purely on reputation) * Google makes the best 1st impression, by the virtue of it's beautiful consistency of behaviour, SDK standardization, clean billing models, and overall cross-platform cohesion. It just seems like you can learn GCP faster at first. * But AWS makes the best 2nd and subsequent impressions, as you realize consistency and clarity lacks the depth of AWS, or the true productivity gains by native services - native services Google has mostly rejected in favour of doubling down on it's K8S offering as a differentiator. While GCP can seem faster to learn, in practice building on AWS is actually faster and you can go build new full applications from scratch that you're happy operating in production quicker.
simsla 5y ago
I'd challenge that. Used to work with AWS, now with GCP. - They both throw credits at companies. - Services are similar. - Prices are similar, although Google sometimes has silly costs for "enabling" a service/API. - GCP dashboard is snappier. - AWS has good support. I'd wager the quality of support is the main differentiator.
- dijit 5y ago

rtall 5y ago

leokennis 5y ago

Regarding GCP my gut feeling is Google is way too unpredictable and quick to cancel products to seriously attract big enterprises. Anecdotally their Google Workspace offering however almost seems to be the default for smaller business that are not IT oriented or have a separate IT department.

EnKopVand 5y ago
It has a lot more to do with how bad they are at selling IT to enterprises in my experience from the European public sector, which is now a very large Azure and AWS market. We went with Azure because it was the sort of “obvious” direction for a non-tech enterprise organisation that was already heavily windowsy and using office365, but what Microsoft and Amazon sell to enterprises is support. AWS didn’t start out so well here in Europe, which is what gave Azure the chance to catch up, but once Amazon caught on, they became more compliant with European legislation than Microsoft is. Things like guaranteeing that every employee that comes near your data is an European citizen, is one area where AWS is still better than Azure, but basically what they do that Google doesn’t, is that they listen and adopt to the needs of the trillion dollar industry. When Teams rolled out as a new feature in Enterprise 365, as available to everyone, our techies called Seattle (I can’t spell redmund) and a few days later it was possible to not have it auto-available for everyone. When we had issues with Google education, and Google education was actually Google’s best attempt at being supportive of enterprise, we had to talk with a chatbot and eventually had to physically drive to Google Denmark to annoy someone to get real support because our sales rep was on vacation. I’m not sure if you know this, but a major part of selling IT to enterprise is to sell the CTOs the ability to say “yes, email is down, but our guys are working directly with the people at Amazon/Microsoft headquarters and they are calling us with updates every 30 minutes.” or “yes our servers are in Ireland, but some of our best techies have gone and physically inspected them with the EY consultants and our DPO firm and it was completely GDPR compliant”, and all the other stuff you get to do when you make the companies billions.
- pkaye 5y ago
  That is interesting about Google support because a while back I had some issues with my Google home devices so I was browsing their help guides and a popup asked if I need to speak with technical support. One click and 30s later someone was one line and spent 30m fixing my device issue. Not bad for something I spend $100 on.

trenning 5y ago

An aside comment I wanted to say thanks for doing these posts after earnings announcements. It’s been a while since you’ve done one and I always appreciate seeing them.

bufferoverflow 5y ago

> Authorized to buyback up to $70B in shares, that's a large number and indicates someone at google thinks rev is slowing down, see TikTok Isn't it the opposite? It means Google thinks their stock will be undervalued, and they want to buy it back?

christophilus 5y ago
Depends on whether you have good capital allocators at the top. Most companies don’t, really.
- rabidonrails 5y ago
  Althought 70B is a large number and based on the anti-trust lens that GOOG is under I wonder if they think this is a better way to return money to the shareholders than inviting DOJ scrutiny.

user3939382 5y ago

The political corner of YouTube that I spend the most time on probably isn’t even on their radar, but it’s gotten to the point where almost every channel I subscribe to often mentions their out of band content on Rumble, Rokfin, Substack, etc because YouTube has been demonetizing left and right.

bmarquez 5y ago
Oh yeah some creators are afraid of demonetizing (even though they're non-political, they're afraid the algorithm might accidently trigger on them) so they'll tell their viewers about their backup Odysee or Rumble page. It turns out there are fewer ads on their backup pages so I tend to watch there instead on YouTube.

colinmhayes 5y ago

The big number to me, Gain (loss) on equity securities, 2021:4,837 2022:(1,070) I don't think their equity gains/losses have anything to do with future business outlook, so ignoring this $6 billion loss YOY I'd say this was a fantastic quarter for them. They could show more in some of their non search sectors, but excluding that equity number went fro. $13 billion in profit to $17.5 for a 35% gain.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

gigatexal 5y ago

What’s this 1.2B loss you speak of? I don’t follow

paulryanrogers 5y ago

"Add Rev" as in advertising revenue?

sidcool 5y ago

Their investment in research and development has increased by $1 billion. This is good news. GCP should be a concern for the. More than a decade in and it's still facing losses. But cloud is a long game.

tommiegannert 5y ago

> Q1 Cloud Loss of $931M, still not sure how they can't compete with Azure and Amazon here? If you haven't analyzed the revenue and expense, this number doesn't say anything. Thay may willingly be spending more to grow, but could change stance and be profitable on Monday if they wanted to. These are numbers that sound like output, but my guess is someone had a "revenue+$1B" budget, and they spent it. I have no clue if that's the case, but it would surprise me if Google Cloud is inately unprofitable.