All good things come to an end, as my mother used to say. The question now is whether this applies to Google, the search engine to end all search engines.
How come? Well, Google is a private company, based in Silicon Valley. It was founded by two Stanford students, Sergey Brin and Larry Page, who invented a clever set of algorithms for ranking web pages. It was a classic case of disruptive innovation -- a smart idea, embodied in computer code, which comes from nowhere and conquers the world.
For most of us, internet chronology divides into two periods, BG (before Google) and AG. Nobody who used Google ever went back to anything else. At a click, all the other search engines were dumped on the rubbish heap of history.
Unlike most Internet start-ups, Google made money virtually from the outset. One revenue source is licensing its search technology to other Internet portals such as Yahoo and AOL. About 75 per cent of all referrals to Web sites now originate from Google's algorithms. A second revenue source is discreet, paid-for advertising on the right-hand side of the Google search page. And finally, the company makes money from "contextual advertising." This is where Web publishers allow Google to trawl through their pages and place relevant text advertisements in the right margin. Once visitors click on the links, the webmasters share the revenue with Google. All told, Google brings in something like US$200 million a year, which you'd think would be enough to keep anyone happy. Not so.
Among the early -- and most influential -- investors in Google were two of Silicon Valley's leading venture capitalists, John Doerr of Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers and Michael Moritz of Sequoia Capital. These gents are interested primarily in capital growth, and they have come to the conclusion that payback time on their Google investment is nigh.
Consequently, Google is moving inexorably towards flotation. Investment bankers -- including, no doubt, some of the geniuses who brought us the last internet bubble -- have been whispering figures like US$15 billion as a possible valuation for the company. Google is, after all, overwhelmingly the market leader and a truly dominant global brand, like Amazon, Ebay and, er, Microsoft.
Which is what ought to set alarm bells ringing. For there was a time when a company called Netscape was overwhelmingly the market leader in the web browser business -- and we know what happened to Netscape. And it emerged last week that Microsoft approached Google a few months ago to inquire whether it would like to be bought by the Gates empire. We are told that Google declined. But Microsoft has been working on search technology -- which it naturally plans to build into Windows in due course. Just as it once began work on a browser which was eventually folded into Windows.
History repeats itself, said Marx: the first time as tragedy, the second as farce. Netscape went public without a strategy for dealing with Microsoft's ruthlessness. The original investors made fortunes, but the company perished, and the world is a less diverse -- and therefore poorer -- place.
As Doerr and Moritz prepare to cash in their Google chips, I wonder if they have a game plan for their amazing company beyond the IPO. If they have, then they will sell its shares on Ebay rather than via Wall Street. Google should belong to the world and not to the banks and pension funds who will cave in to Microsoft.
Taiwan’s victory in the World Baseball Softball Confederation Premier12 championship is an historic achievement. Yet once again this achievement is marred by the indignity of the imposed moniker “Chinese Taipei.” The absurdity is compounded by the fact that none of the players are even from Taipei, and some, such as Paiwan catcher Giljegiljaw Kungkuan, are not even ethnically Chinese. The issue garnered attention around the Paris Olympics, yet fell off the agenda as Olympic memories retreated. “Chinese Taipei” persists, and the baseball championship serves as a reminder that fighting “Chinese Taipei” must be a continuous campaign, not merely resurfacing around international
This month, the National Health Insurance (NHI) is to implement a major policy change by eliminating the suspension-and-resumption mechanism for Taiwanese residing abroad. With more than 210,000 Taiwanese living overseas — many with greater financial means than those in Taiwan — this reform, catalyzed by a 2022 Constitutional Court ruling, underscores the importance of fairness, sustainability and shared responsibility in one of the world’s most admired public healthcare systems. Beyond legal obligations, expatriates have a compelling moral duty to contribute, recognizing their stake in a system that embodies the principle of health as a human right. The ruling declared the prior
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) appears to be encountering some culture shock and safety issues at its new fab in Arizona. On Nov. 7, Arizona state authorities cited TSMC for worker safety violations, fining the company US$16,131, after a man died in May. The Arizona Division of Occupational Safety and Health released its six-month investigation into the fatality and cited TSMC for failing to keep the workplace free from hazards likely to cause death or serious harm. At about the same time, the chip giant was also sued for alleged discriminatory hiring practices favoring Asians, prompting a flurry of debate on whether TSMC’s
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Legislator Weng Hsiao-ling (翁曉玲) has motioned to abolish the “Wu Sz-huai” (吳斯懷) clauses of the Act Governing Relations Between the People of the Taiwan Area and the Mainland Area (臺灣地區與大陸地區人民關係條例) — which forbid all Taiwanese who enter China from engaging in any activities detrimental to national security or interests. This motion led the Taiwan Statebuilding Party (TSP) to report her for infringing upon the National Security Act (國家安全法), which Weng called a lawless and undisciplined attempt to threaten a legislator. However, the true lawless and undisciplined person is Weng — the one standing in the enemy
RSS