8 ms·

I know it sounds a little ridiculous, but I think Google still has a long way to grow. I can easily see them as the first trillion dollar company and well beyon

I know it sounds a little ridiculous, but I think Google still has a long way to grow. I can easily see them as the first trillion dollar company and well beyond that. I think they understand the process of re-inventing themselves better than any other tech company. They acquire a lot of companies, some of which continue to grow and change the very nature of Google itself (example Android). They also understand Black Swan Farming and practice it at a level (billions of dollars at a time) that almost no one else does. Andy Rubin's robotics undertaking is a good example. Page wrote him a billion+ dollar blank cheque and should it succeed, it'll make Google the leading robotics company - likely alone worth as much as Google today. Should it fail, well, it's only 2% of their cash pile. They've made similar bets on almost all promising future tech - AI, clean energy, the internet of things etc.

rayiner 13y ago
> I can easily see them as the first trillion dollar company and well beyond that. At least Saudi Aramco, if not some of the other state-owned oil companies, are already over $1 trillion.
- vonmoltke 13y ago
  In fact, Saudi Aramco's 2012 revenue[1] was greater than Microsoft's market cap (at 4th most valuable us company). [1] http://biz.yahoo.com/ic/55/55881.html http://biz.yahoo.com/ic/55/55881.html
  - vonmoltke 13y ago
    Actually, I just did the math and Exxon's market cap is actually less than their annual revenue right now, which is about $438b.
- thewarrior 13y ago
  I don't think the comparison is valid because Saudi ARAMCO is basically a state owned company with a monopoly over the natural resources of an entire country. If Google attains a trillion dollar valuation it would be amazing because they'd have achieved it due to their vision and hard work.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
Steko 13y ago
Agree the sky is the limit for Google's future but there's always some risk that FB or Baidu or someone could come in and take 80% of Google's users. Aso by any reasonable measure Apple's market cap should be well over a trillion. Take away their $165 billion cash pile from their $465 billion market cap, give them 0% growth and you're left with the idea that Wall St's expects Apple to be turning out the lights in 4 or 5 years depending on how you value their IP, tangible assets and other investments. That's why Apple is buying Apple stock like whoa.
- guelo 13y ago
  That's the thing about Apple, they have $165 billion but they have no idea what to do with it. The only R&D they seem to be able to think of is how to make their consumer boxes shinier. No moonshots, no diversification. That's why Wall Street doesn't see any huge upside.
  - encoderer 13y ago
    Apple is traded cheaply to its P/E. That's true. But I think any attempt to explain that in a single sentence is certainly flawed. It's complicated. Apple is widely held. There is ENORMOUS open Options interest in the stock. Etc. There are many reasons it's not trading at its ATH's. So I think you're wrong about your conclusion but I also think you're wrong about your premise. Product development cycles take several years. It took 3 years to follow the iPhone with the iPad -- essentially just a big iPhone and a product that they started working on before the phone. There were 6 years between iPod and iPhone. It's not like cash is the only constraint here. I of course do believe in Apple, and I use their products, and yes I'm definitely long on their stock. And I see so many people today frustrated by their low P/E. It delights me. Every month I dollar cost average into it and the longer it stays in this "cheap" P/E range the better.
  - wlesieutre 13y ago
    Says someone with no more insight than the rest of us on what's going on internally at Apple. Recent hires and job postings suggest that they're angling for the wearable electronics market, and I would bet they'll be years ahead of the Pebble of Galaxy Gear when they do announce something. Would people prefer that they be like Google, with piles and piles of R&D projects that go public, get users, and are shorty abandoned? Ask me how long Google has been working on MMS support in Google Voice for. I honestly wish they'd never bought Grand Central, at least it would have improved in the last several years.
yapcguy 13y ago
The first Trillion dollar company is/was PetroChina. At least for a few days. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aA1jwRD9tCuA http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aA1jw...
nostromo 13y ago
My gut agrees. But I'm still wondering what their next hit is. Despite a million products, they're still a one-hit-wonder in terms of revenue.
- no_gravity 13y ago
  A two-hit-wonder. 50% of their revenue comes from search and 50% from adsense.
  - ConnorBoyd 13y ago
    Their search revenue is still advertising revenue though
    - csallen 13y ago
      Any two things can be sufficiently generalized to being describable using a single term.
      - erichocean 13y ago
        No, it's simple: Google is not payed by people for search. They are payed to display ads, whether it is alongside search, or as part of AdWords. Seriously, are you really arguing that Google's revenues are not primarily from ad revenue? With the sale of Motorola, it'll be back above 90%—just like it was before Motorola.
        rieter 13y ago
        No one is arguing Google's revenue is mostly ads. It just doesn't mean Google is a one-hit-wonder. There are different advertisement products. You could generalize any company that way. Apple would be a one-hit-wonder who's revenue comes from one source - selling consumer electronics.
  - runako 13y ago
    So half from ads and the other half from ads?
millstone 13y ago
> I think they understand the process of re-inventing themselves better than any other tech company. Google has never successfully reinvented themselves. They were founded as a search engine, and that's still what most people associate them with. I would give the crown to Apple. Since Google was founded, Apple has been best known for the Mac, iPod, and iPhone at varying points, each product eclipsing the prior one in popularity, mindshare, and profit.

rayiner 13y ago

> I can easily see them as the first trillion dollar company and well beyond that. At least Saudi Aramco, if not some of the other state-owned oil companies, are already over $1 trillion.

vonmoltke 13y ago
In fact, Saudi Aramco's 2012 revenue[1] was greater than Microsoft's market cap (at 4th most valuable us company). [1] http://biz.yahoo.com/ic/55/55881.html http://biz.yahoo.com/ic/55/55881.html
- vonmoltke 13y ago
  Actually, I just did the math and Exxon's market cap is actually less than their annual revenue right now, which is about $438b.
thewarrior 13y ago
I don't think the comparison is valid because Saudi ARAMCO is basically a state owned company with a monopoly over the natural resources of an entire country. If Google attains a trillion dollar valuation it would be amazing because they'd have achieved it due to their vision and hard work.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

Steko 13y ago

Agree the sky is the limit for Google's future but there's always some risk that FB or Baidu or someone could come in and take 80% of Google's users. Aso by any reasonable measure Apple's market cap should be well over a trillion. Take away their $165 billion cash pile from their $465 billion market cap, give them 0% growth and you're left with the idea that Wall St's expects Apple to be turning out the lights in 4 or 5 years depending on how you value their IP, tangible assets and other investments. That's why Apple is buying Apple stock like whoa.

guelo 13y ago
That's the thing about Apple, they have $165 billion but they have no idea what to do with it. The only R&D they seem to be able to think of is how to make their consumer boxes shinier. No moonshots, no diversification. That's why Wall Street doesn't see any huge upside.
- encoderer 13y ago
  Apple is traded cheaply to its P/E. That's true. But I think any attempt to explain that in a single sentence is certainly flawed. It's complicated. Apple is widely held. There is ENORMOUS open Options interest in the stock. Etc. There are many reasons it's not trading at its ATH's. So I think you're wrong about your conclusion but I also think you're wrong about your premise. Product development cycles take several years. It took 3 years to follow the iPhone with the iPad -- essentially just a big iPhone and a product that they started working on before the phone. There were 6 years between iPod and iPhone. It's not like cash is the only constraint here. I of course do believe in Apple, and I use their products, and yes I'm definitely long on their stock. And I see so many people today frustrated by their low P/E. It delights me. Every month I dollar cost average into it and the longer it stays in this "cheap" P/E range the better.
- wlesieutre 13y ago
  Says someone with no more insight than the rest of us on what's going on internally at Apple. Recent hires and job postings suggest that they're angling for the wearable electronics market, and I would bet they'll be years ahead of the Pebble of Galaxy Gear when they do announce something. Would people prefer that they be like Google, with piles and piles of R&D projects that go public, get users, and are shorty abandoned? Ask me how long Google has been working on MMS support in Google Voice for. I honestly wish they'd never bought Grand Central, at least it would have improved in the last several years.

yapcguy 13y ago

The first Trillion dollar company is/was PetroChina. At least for a few days. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aA1jwRD9tCuA http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aA1jw...

nostromo 13y ago

My gut agrees. But I'm still wondering what their next hit is. Despite a million products, they're still a one-hit-wonder in terms of revenue.

no_gravity 13y ago
A two-hit-wonder. 50% of their revenue comes from search and 50% from adsense.
- ConnorBoyd 13y ago
  Their search revenue is still advertising revenue though
  - csallen 13y ago
    Any two things can be sufficiently generalized to being describable using a single term.
    - erichocean 13y ago
      No, it's simple: Google is not payed by people for search. They are payed to display ads, whether it is alongside search, or as part of AdWords. Seriously, are you really arguing that Google's revenues are not primarily from ad revenue? With the sale of Motorola, it'll be back above 90%—just like it was before Motorola.
      - rieter 13y ago
        No one is arguing Google's revenue is mostly ads. It just doesn't mean Google is a one-hit-wonder. There are different advertisement products. You could generalize any company that way. Apple would be a one-hit-wonder who's revenue comes from one source - selling consumer electronics.
- runako 13y ago
  So half from ads and the other half from ads?

millstone 13y ago

> I think they understand the process of re-inventing themselves better than any other tech company. Google has never successfully reinvented themselves. They were founded as a search engine, and that's still what most people associate them with. I would give the crown to Apple. Since Google was founded, Apple has been best known for the Mac, iPod, and iPhone at varying points, each product eclipsing the prior one in popularity, mindshare, and profit.