Google Cancels Spring IPO 246
securitas writes "Google fans and potential investors will be disappointed to learn that they must wait a while longer before they can own a piece of Google. The Times of London's James Doran reports that Google's IPO plans are on hold. CEO Eric Schmidt appears to think that market conditions are not right. When pressed for details about the delayed IPO, Schmidt said, "An IPO is not on my agenda right now." A commentary about the delayed Google IPO follows. Mirror at Australian IT."
Not terribly surprised (Score:5, Insightful)
Bravo Google (Score:5, Insightful)
Good (Score:5, Insightful)
Why would I be disappointed? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Not terribly surprised (Score:5, Insightful)
Enjoy it while it lasts.
Good thinking, Google (Score:4, Insightful)
This is good news (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not interested in Google as an investment opportunity; I just want a search engine that doesn't suck. Staying private lets Google concentrate on what they're good at -- making good tools -- and not worry about having Wall Street yahoos questioning every decision they make and penalizing them for long-term strategy over short-term profit.
glad they cancelled (Score:4, Insightful)
Easy answer (Score:4, Insightful)
Not being in SCO's sights, maybe?
Here's the deal (Score:5, Insightful)
Here's the deal...private Google stock is held by too many people. They are at the threshold of legally be required to make their books public, and for all intentensive purposes acting like a publically held company.
As long as they will be required to act like a public company, there is a large financial incentive for them to take the next step and trade publically.
Whether they need the money or not...it is knocking on their door (both corp. and personally) asking to be taken. This knocking is (or maybe was) too hard for them to resist.
-Pete
Re:ugh (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Bravo Google (Score:5, Insightful)
You make it sound like every company that is traded publicly doesn't produce good products. I am a shareholder of a number of different companies and the only thing I care about is that they keep producing quality products so customers continue to buy them. Companies that fit your description typically don't last.
Good move (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:ugh (Score:3, Insightful)
Bryan
I hope the postpone it indefinitely. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Good move (Score:2, Insightful)
Not disappointed at all (Score:5, Insightful)
Nope. I'm a huge fan of google, but I'm quite happy at this turn of events. Going public puts pressure on a company to push for maximum short-term profit, and I like google just the way it is. If they needed the money to stay alive then that'd be one thing, but they don't.
Re:Bravo Google (Score:3, Insightful)
Um...Ever heard of this thing call cash? You can give it to people in exchange for them providing you with goods and services.
Most "worker bees" would prefer cash to stock options.
Re:ugh (Score:1, Insightful)
Anyone remember the days when Microsoft just wrote software? Why do they have to get their hands into everything? Can't they be satisfied just making umpteen billion dollars in profit a year on their operating system and office product line and leave the rest of the industry to try to eek out a profit on the crumbs leftover?
Re:Bravo Google (Score:2, Insightful)
If I were in charge.. (Score:4, Insightful)
If I were running Google, I'd be thinking of getting out of it right about now and starting something else. Sadly, just like Real, Netscape and others, Google will be quickly decimated by MS once they make their own search tools the default. MS understands human nature well - people generally don't want freedom, they just want safety and the path of least resistance.
Re:ugh (Score:2, Insightful)
No, because Microsoft is in constant fear of becoming marginalized, and so they feel the desperate need to jump into anything and everything to try to stave off the inevitable.
Re:Not disappointed at all (Score:2, Insightful)
Good question. :)
I could imagine a person choosing to do so. There are many ideas that need money to get to the phase of sustainable execution; this is, for example, the proposition commonly put before early investors. I'm not savvy enough regarding the stock market to categorically say that such funding should never occur at the point of IPO; there's too much I don't know about public portrayals of a company (for PR and fundraising purposes) vs internal ambitions and ledger balances. For my part, I don't play the stock market at all, I think of it as a game rigged in the favor of large institutional investors.
Re google specifically: if google's continued existence hung in the balance, then I'd probably support an IPO in that I'd hope that enough buyers came along to give it the chance to be something rather than nothing.
Re:Why would I be disappointed? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:ugh (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe Microsoft thinks that their days of OS domination are numbered? Isn't that what most FOSS leaders like Linus, ESR, etc continue to say? That software is a commodity?
Despite what I think of their way of doing business, MS has some really smart people running it. I think it's more than a little likely they've considered the above, and want to make sure that the company survives life after the Windows monopoly.
out of context? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:ugh (Score:4, Insightful)
They are expensive only if your looking exclusively at the initial cost and don't take results into account. Clickthroughs from google are far more likely to actually make a purchase than from almost every other source I've looked into. The result is that a google adword page view is a lot more valuable than an ad elsewhere.
The fact that they alert you if they think it's not effective enough only adds to the value.
Re:ugh (Score:5, Insightful)
Companies can either grow or stagnate. If Microsoft didn't venture into new areas, other companies would. Microsoft is interested in capitalizing in every area they can and they owe it to their stock holders to do so (I am not one and am not generally a Microsoft fan).
But to play devils advocate....
Remember when Apple concentrated on making computers and allowed others to make hardware that was compatable with their OS? Now they sell MP3 players, sell music online, drive businesses who made major software for their platform away by building competing products (Adobe and FCP), force all of us to use their hardware, ect...
To paraphrase your comment, "Can't they (Apple) be satisfied just making umpteen...dollars in profit a year on their operating system...and leave the rest of the industry to try to eek out a profit on the crumbs leftover?
Of course not, that would be silly and shortsighted, just like your comment...
My theory: MSN will buy Google (Score:3, Insightful)
Google is faced with a few problems, and a challenge:
1. It is being dropped by Yahoo! as a its algorithmic search provider. This will have a minor effect on Google's revenue and profit.
2. MSN is developing its own search engines (for paid advertisements and algorithmic search). While Slashdotters will deride Microsoft's efforts in these areas, it will be additional competition that Google cannot ignore.
3. Out of the three biggest portals (Yahoo!, MSN and AOL), Google is supply advertisements to the least healthy one: AOL.
4. Google realizes that algorithmic search is on the way to becoming a commodity. The difference in quality of the results is becoming minor. There is not a lot of money to be made there because people do not pay much to see or be seen in algorithmic results.
5. The money is in the advertising results that are shown with the algorithmic results. (No, Virginia, there is no Santa Claus, and Google does make most of its money through ads.) There are two ways to get people to see those ads: get them to come directly to your own site, or get those advertisements to the sites that people visit. Most normal people (i.e., not people who read Slashdot) go to portals.
So the challenge for Google is to become a portal. Becoming a portal means offering a lot of services beside "search in a box". It means news, chat rooms, music, games, auctions, free email, the list goes on and on. Google recognizes this. That is why it has added other products, such as news and free email. But building a portal from scratch takes a lot of time and money. If Google were planning to make itself into a portal, it would launch its IPO and use the money to build a portal.
Which brings me to my theory. Some portal is negotiating with Google to buy Google. There are only two portals big enough: AOL and MSN. AOL is a declining portal, but it already has a deal with Google, and terms of that deal apparently include a partial ownership stake in Google if Google goes public. Microsoft has piles of cash, has missed chances to buy an algorithmic search engine in the past, and regrets that failure. It sure would be easier for Microsoft to buy Google than build another Google.
In summary, my theory is that Microsoft is trying to buy Google, and Google is seriously considering accepting the offer. Microsoft wins by getting a terrific search engine and ad machine, and Google wins by getting a lot of money for its employees, a permanent partnership with best available portal, and the opportunity to stay focused on search.
If it happens, the "popping" sound that you will hear all over America will be the heads of Slashdotters exploding when their favorite search engine is owned by their favorite villain.