Página 1 de 3 123 ÚltimoÚltimo
Resultados 1 a 10 de 21
  1. #1
    WHT-BR Top Member
    Data de Ingresso
    Dec 2010

    [EN] Agrava crise da Google Fiber

    Rob Powell
    October 26th, 2016

    Google and its Alphabet parent is apparently not quite as hot on fiber as it once was. According to Google Fiber's blog, they are retrenching and pausing their plans to move into some new cities. The division is apparently letting go some 9% of its workforce, and the head of the company's Access unit, Craig Barratt, is leaving as well.

    Google Fiber generated and leveraged a popular wave to kick off FTTH services in Kansas City, and then followed up with a few dozen more markets. The idea was to prove that it wasn't as hard as incumbents like AT&T, Verizon, and CenturyLink were saying it was to make the business model work. But reality seems to finally be catching up with those dreams. The buzz has moved on, and I guess the prospect of actually grinding out deployments, whether aerial or underground, is less appealing than it used to be to the Silicon Valley giant.

    So most of the company's 'potential fiber cities' are now on hold, which AT&T is probably cheering right now since most are in their incumbent territory. Just what happens next for Google Fiber is unclear. They could continue to operate it of course, just scaling back on the larger plans and focusing on the markets they have already invested in. But they could also look to sell it, and that could create an interesting situation to say the least.

    Who would the buyer be? Now that's a question I'll have to think about.


  2. #2
    WHT-BR Top Member
    Data de Ingresso
    Dec 2010
    Tuesday, October 25, 2016

    Five years after announcing we’d bring Google Fiber to Kansas City, our vision remains: to connect more people to superfast and abundant Internet. At that time, Gigabit residential speeds were unheard of, built-from-the-ground-up Fiberhood designs and builds were as yet unproven, and a great customer experience simply didn’t exist. Since then, we have reshaped the landscape — these innovations are becoming more commonplace (which we all can agree is great for everyone, particularly for consumers!).

    And thanks to the hard work of everyone on the Access team, our business is solid: our subscriber base and revenue are growing quickly, and we expect that growth to continue. I am extremely proud of what we’ve built together in five short years.

    Now, just as any competitive business must, we have to continue not only to grow, but also stay ahead of the curve — pushing the boundaries of technology, business, and policy — to remain a leader in delivering superfast Internet. We have refined our plan going forward to achieve these objectives. It entails us making changes to focus our business and product strategy. Importantly, the plan enhances our focus on new technology and deployment methods to make superfast Internet more abundant than it is today.

    These changes to our business and technology will have some immediate implications. Some of our efforts will remain unchanged, but others will be impacted. In terms of our existing footprint, in the cities where we’ve launched or are under construction, our work will continue. For most of our “potential Fiber cities” — those where we’ve been in exploratory discussions — we’re going to pause our operations and offices while we refine our approaches. We’re ever grateful to these cities for their ongoing partnership and patience, and we’re confident we’ll have an opportunity to resume our partnership discussions once we’ve advanced our technologies and solutions. In this handful of cities that are still in an exploratory stage, and in certain related areas of our supporting operations, we’ll be reducing our employee base.

    As for me personally, it’s been quite a journey over the past few years, taking a broad-based set of projects and initiatives and growing a focused business that is on a strong trajectory. And I’ve decided this is the right juncture to step aside from my CEO role. Larry has asked me to continue as an advisor, so I’ll still be around.

    I am humbled by our growth and progress across Access today, and I’m so grateful to have been part of such an extraordinary bet. And as we continue this bet, I remain confident that the future will hold a much more connected society and abundant access for all. Let’s keep doing our part to make it so!

    Posted by Craig Barratt, SVP, Alphabet and CEO of Access


  3. #3
    WHT-BR Top Member
    Data de Ingresso
    Dec 2010

    CEO departs as the company halts rollouts to new cities with layoffs coming

    Regardless of the fact that Google Fiber is one of Dycom's smaller customers, the network construction company's stock took a hit this morning. Dycom was trading at $74, down $10.65, or 12.6 percent in Wednesday morning trading on the New York Stock Exchange.

    Executive changes are coming to Google Access, including the departure of CEO Craig Barratt. The company is holding a town hall-style meeting sometime soon to announce these potential changes, sources say.

    Barratt will stay on as an adviser to Alphabet CEO Larry Page, but it’s clear this is a setback for its broadband ambitions. The company also did not name a new CEO to replace Barratt.

    Access operates as its own entity underneath the Alphabet umbrella, and runs the tech giant’s broadband internet service, Fiber. Barratt, as CEO, oversees those efforts.

    A Google Access spokesperson declined to comment.

    Barratt has been with Google since 2013, joining a few years after Qualcomm bought his connectivity company Atheros Communications for $3.1 billion in 2011. At the time, Barratt was CEO and president of Atheros, then became president of the new joint entity Qualcomm Atheros before leaving to join Google.


  4. #4
    WHT-BR Top Member
    Data de Ingresso
    Dec 2010

    Google's parent company keeps losing its top executives

    Steve Kovach
    Oct. 26, 2016

    There's been a mini exodus of sorts among executives at Google's parent company, Alphabet.

    Alphabet, which formed last year as a conglomerate of separate companies, is designed to help the company find the next big thing outside of Google's core advertising and search businesses.

    But within a year of Alphabet's formation, there have been several shake-ups and departures at the top of these divisions, especially since this summer.

    The challenge for these companies and their leaders is to prove to Alphabet's CEO, Larry Page, and CFO, Ruth Porat, that they can turn into growing businesses.

    While Alphabet doesn't report financials for these "other bets," the recent departures are our best hint that some divisions have struggled or their leaders aren't thrilled with the new pressure now that they're no longer hiding under Google's umbrella.

    Here's a breakdown of the most important Alphabet executive departures so far this year:

    Tony Fadell, Nest

    The highest-profile departure was Tony Fadell, the former Apple executive and CEO of Nest, Alphabet's smart home appliance company that makes connected thermostats and cameras. Fadell stepped down as Nest's CEO in June following reports of inner turmoil in the company and a damning blog post by Greg Duffy, the former head of Nest's camera business.

    Fadell gave a particularly rough interview to The Information before his departure in which he tersely defended his management style. He was out shortly after that.

    Fadell is still an adviser at Nest.

    Bill Maris, GV

    Bill Maris was the head of GV, formerly known as Google Ventures, an Alphabet company that invests in early-stage startups. Maris founded GV in 2009 and left in August after some other members of his team left the company.

    Craig Barratt, Google Fiber

    Craig Barratt was the CEO of Google Fiber, the internet service provider that offered super-high-speed broadband in select cities. Barratt stepped down as CEO on Wednesday and announced the company had stopped plans to expand its service to more cities. Instead, it will focus on new ways to deliver internet through wireless technologies.

    Barratt is now an adviser at Google Fiber.

    Dave Vos, Project Wing

    Dave Vos was the head of Project Wing, a division of X, Alphabet's "moonshot" lab that works on a bunch of crazy, futuristic projects. Project Wing experimented with delivery drones and even ran a pilot program to deliver Chipotle burritos to students at Virginia Tech.

    Vos stepped down from Project Wing earlier this month.

    Chris Urmson, self-driving cars

    Chris Urmson, the tech lead for X's self-driving car project, left the company in August. He had worked on the project for seven years.


  5. #5
    WHT-BR Top Member
    Data de Ingresso
    Dec 2010

    Google’s Alphabet Experiment Misses Goal: Keeping Executives

    Mark Bergen
    October 26, 2016

    When Google co-founder Larry Page created Alphabet Inc., he gave three primary reasons: free up the main internet business from its costly "moonshot" projects; turn those audacious experiments into real businesses; and keep entrepreneurial leaders from leaving.

    Fifteen months later, that third pillar looks like it’s crumbling.

    On Tuesday, Craig Barratt, chief executive officer of Alphabet’s Access unit, which runs Google Fiber, announced his departure along with a wave of staff cuts and significant retrenchment of the broadband service’s strategy. Barratt is the third Alphabet CEO to leave since June, and other senior executives have gone too.

    Google Fiber is the latest Alphabet new business -- dubbed the "Other Bets" -- to be overhauled. It comes as Page and Chief Financial Officer Ruth Porat try to control costs while putting nascent businesses in sectors such as biotech and robotics, on surer footing.

    Google, the core digital ads juggernaut, is flourishing and turbulence at "Other Bets" may reflect the arrival of fiscal discipline under Porat, who has won praise on Wall Street for her work. Former employees have described how expense and revenue expectations, once rare at the experimental units, have become common since the Alphabet reorganization in August 2015.

    Deeper Problems

    The turbulence may also highlight deeper problems creating sustainable business models. Google Fiber was one of the two chief contributors to "Other Bets," according to the company. (Alphabet does not break out financial metrics for each Bet.) The second is Nest, manufacturer of Internet-connected home devices. It has had an even rougher year.

    In June, Nest co-founder and CEO Tony Fadell left following internal disputes that partly focused on a spending crackdown. Soon after, some Nest employees moved to Google to work in its new hardware division. That included Ana Corrales, Nest’s chief financial officer, who now runs supply chain operations for the hardware initiative. (A Nest spokeswoman said Corrales continues to be a "shared resource" between the two companies.)

    The other Alphabet CEO departure was Bill Maris, who stepped down in August from GV, the company’s venture capital arm.

    Google Fiber’s recast business plan -- narrowing its markets to select cities and focusing on wireless technology to deliver broadband -- is a retreat to the unit’s strategy from two years ago, a former executive said. Analysts said mounting costs likely caused the retrenchment.

    Capital expenditure for Alphabet’s Other Bets hit $280 million in the second quarter, primarily reflecting ongoing investment in Google Fiber, Porat told analysts.

    "It’s billions of dollars a year just to maintain this stuff, and Google doesn’t want to spend that kind of money on just being another player in that market," said Jan Dawson, an analyst with Jackdaw Research.

    "The long-term viability of the project was always in question," said Chetan Sharma, an independent wireless industry analyst. "I think the new CFO put an end to the experiment that wasn’t really going anywhere."

    Alphabet’s shares declined less than 1 percent to $822.78 at 11:59 a.m. in New York. The stock gained 6.5 percent this year through Tuesday’s close.

    Unstable Moonshots

    With some of Alphabet’s more experimental projects, it’s unclear if there even is a market. Alphabet has drastically pulled back from once-ambitious robotics efforts -- trying to sell Boston Dynamics and nixing other projects. Its autonomous car project, while a pioneer in the field, has lost key leaders while auto-makers and startups catch up.

    In the past two months, Alphabet’s X research lab, which incubates potential Alphabet companies, lost two other leaders on those nascent projects. The latest, Dave Vos, ran Project Wing, a drone delivery initiative that competes with a similar effort at Amazon.com Inc. Vos’ departure was sudden, and X did not immediately name a replacement.

    It was surprising to see Vos leave, said one drone legal expert, adding that such losses are rare at Amazon.

    That said, Amazon has yet to tackle as many sprawling, ambitious projects as Google’s founders are. Recent departures may indicate a sharper focus at Alphabet, which investors have demanded in recent years.

    "Now, just as any competitive business must, we have to continue not only to grow, but also stay ahead of the curve," Barratt wrote in a blog Tuesday about Google Fiber.

    He said this was the "right juncture" for him to step down as CEO. Alphabet did not name a replacement.


    Todo mundo sabe o nome e o sobrenome do problema

  6. #6
    WHT-BR Top Member
    Data de Ingresso
    Dec 2010

    What to Expect When Alphabet, Inc. Reports Earnings

    O que esperar do vendedor de anúncios ordinários de produtos ordinários?

    Steve Symington
    October 26, 2016

    Alphabet Inc. is set to release third-quarter 2016 results this Thursday, Oct. 27, 2016, after the market close.

    ... last quarter Google represented more than $21.3 billion of Alphabet's $21.5 billion in total revenue. And as operating margin for the segment expanded 100 basis points year over year, to 32.8%, Google generated operating income of just under $7 billion.

    Digging deeper into those totals, the vast majority of Google's revenue comes from advertising, which grew 19.5% year over year in Q2, to $19.1 billion. Alphabet should further break that down this quarter into both ad revenue that came from its own websites (up 24.2% last quarter, to $15.4 billion), and the amount derived from Google Network Members' sites (up 3.4% in Q2, to $3.74 billion). In recent quarters, Google has largely credited that growth to progress in monetizing mobile search, as well as rapid increases in revenue from YouTube.

    Relatedly, listen for metrics on the volume of aggregate paid clicks (up 29% year over year last quarter), and aggregate cost-per-click, the latter of which measures how much Google makes per ad. But keeping in mind cost-per-click declined 7% last quarter, don't be surprised if it continues that downward trend. In part, this is a consequence of that outsized growth from YouTube, where Google's TrueView ads reach consumers early in the purchase funnel, so tend to monetize at lower rates than traditional web-based impressions.

    We also can't forget about Google's non-advertising products, including Apps, Commerce, Cloud, and hardware products. Collectively, these sources saw sales increase last quarter by one-third year over year, to $2.3 billion. This quarter, I'm particularly interested to hear about consumers' early reactions to Google's new Pixel smartphone.

    Everything else

    On the other side of Alphabet's fence is its decidedly unprofitable -- but ripe with long-term potential -- Other Bets segment, which includes Fiber (high-speed internet), Nest (connected home products), Verily (longevity), Calico (life sciences), self-driving cars, and X ("moonshot" initiatives).

    With the exceptions of Nest, Verily, and Fiber, which together helped Other Bets revenue rise last quarter 150% year over year, to $185 million, Alphabet's other bets are primarily pre-revenue businesses that seek to solve novel problems across multiple industries. As a result, that revenue translated to a segment operating loss of $859 million last quarter alone.

    But we also shouldn't judge Other Bets' results by viewing each quarter in isolation. Because these efforts are early-stage, can be hugely affected by one-time items like new partnerships, and operate in disparate industries, Alphabet CFO Ruth Porat will almost certainly reiterate her assertion that it's most "instructive" to view Other Bets with at least a 12-month time frame in mind. That's fair enough; given their considerable potential to meaningfully change the way we do things -- and, of course, with the financial resources and cash flow provided by Alphabet's massively profitable Google segment -- Alphabet can afford to thoughtfully invest in these young businesses.

    In the end, barring any negative surprises from its usually stable core business, I suspect this week's report will contain little to fundamentally alter Alphabet's compelling growth story. But that won't stop us from digging in to better understand Alphabet's progress in continuing to generate long-term value for shareholders.

    Suzanne Frey, an executive at Alphabet, is a member of The Motley Fool's board of directors. Steve Symington has no position in any stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool owns shares of and recommends Alphabet (A and C shares).

    Última edição por 5ms; 26-10-2016 às 22:49.

  7. #7
    WHT-BR Top Member
    Data de Ingresso
    Dec 2010

    Salvaging Google Fiber’s Achievements

    In the wake of Google Access CEO Craig Barratt’s “goodbye Access” post on the Google Fiber blog, there are papers left, right and center predicting the end of Google Fiber.

    Benoit Felten
    October 27, 2016

    Barratt’s post tries to sound upbeat, but in essence he’s announcing that Google Fiber won’t be expanding further (pending a strategic reevaluation), that people will be made redundant, and that he’s leaving. I don’t know Craig and can’t really comment on his tenure as Access CEO, but that doesn’t exactly sound like good news. For analysts like me this is a complicated topic for a very simple reason: for anyone other than Google, an infrastructure venture on the scale of Google Fiber as currently announced would have had to disclose numbers by now. Wall Street would have asked for take rates and ARPUs and all kinds of other metrics to evaluate the validity of the investment. Before the Alphabet restructuration however, this was just another Google project. Now that Access is its own company, we might have expected these numbers to come out. The problem is, Google isn’t talking.

    So we’re left to speculate. I’ve been thinking about this not just for the last few weeks but for a couple of years at least, and I finally want to share these thoughts now that Google Fiber seems to be at a turning point. So just to be clear: this is not me sharing information, this is me analyzing and speculating on the basis of what little we know and trying to think how what’s been achieved might be salvaged and expanded upon.

    Without going too far back, my impression has always been that Google Fiber was a schizophrenic project. At the very beginning it felt like those Google decision makers who were more interested in achieving important policy goals wanted Google Fiber to be a catalyst, something that would shift the market with a bang and then be a shared experience for others (public or private) to take over. The idea of a blueprint was floated in the early days.

    But there were also those who seemed to think that Google Fiber could become a new business for the company, something not just aimed at shifting market perceptions and shaking the complacency of telco and cable incumbents but a profitable business line in its own right. That has always seemed to me to be an unlikely proposition. I am confronted on a daily basis to the paradox of short-term focused telecom operators considering long-term fiber investment efforts, but their short-term is longer than Google’s core business short-term by an order of magnitude. Unless there was a long game plan to view this as the “pension fund” arm of Google’s finances, it didn’t really make sense to me.

    And if I’m honest, I didn’t much care about that second proposition anyway. The US market is already plagued by a lack of competition in fixed. Replacing one closed monopoly by another (no matter how sexier) didn’t seem to me like a particularly desirable goal. So while I fully wanted to believe in the potential for Google Fiber kicking the telecom anthill, I wasn’t so convinced by the relevance and likelihood of this becoming a fiber business like every other.

    Now that it looks like there’s at least some serious soul searching around the second proposition, I think it’s time to consider whether the first has worked and how things could go from there.

    My take is that there was one fundamental flaw going into this, one that’s probably still floating around: Google believed they could revolutionize the laying of fiber. They didn’t just think they could offer a kickass service, they thought they could deploy much cheaper and much faster than anybody else had ever done. That’s fully in line with the Google mindset, but unfortunately it ignores the fact that hundreds of company had been deploying wireline access infrastructure for years by the time Google Fiber decided to give it a go.

    I’d suggest we’re now seeing the windfall from that misguided assumption: Google is finally admitting (in a roundabout way) that despite all the clever people they have on hand, they haven’t revolutionized fiber deployment. It still takes time to do the planning properly, to work with local authorities effectively, to do the outside plant layout efficiently. Did Google manage to do things cheaper than others did ? Probably, but not by a wide margin. And as they decided to scale beyond Kansas City, they realized that the efficiencies they might have been able to find in KC didn’t scale well elsewhere because a lot of those things are down to local specificities and relationships.

    So Google is deploying fiber in the access, they’re doing it well, but they’re not doing it so well that it’s hugely more profitable for them than it would be for anyone else. In other words, the cost side of the equation is roughly on par with industry norms (again, my speculation). What about the revenue side ?

    On the revenue side, the two key metrics are take-up and ARPU. And the first one is much more important than the second one. Google understood that and went with a frankly very cool product at a very affordable price point. I’ve never been really convinced by the need to have a linear TV-play, but that’s besides the point: if they wanted a chance at a high take-up, they needed a low price point and a kickass product. That’s not always enough though: incumbents respond by lowering their price locally, migration is a painful process for the customer, etc. There are many reasons for inertia in customer acquisition even with a good product, a fantastic brand and a collaborative local community.

    My bet is that Google’s take-up is not that great in the markets they’ve started commercializing. Note that it may be very good by industry norms, but again, remember that Google expected to blow industry norms from the get go. If I had to guess a number I’d say Google Fiber is in the 30-40% take-up range in areas that have been open for service for three years. Industry average is about 7% per year the last time we looked into it, so that’s very good, but again probably not enough by Google standards.

    Keep in mind also that the pre-sales in Kansas City were astounding. When that data was still publicly available we scraped the website and analyzed it. Some areas had over 100% pre-subscription and, if I recall, average pre-subscription rate was already in that 30-40% bracket even before they’d started deploying. The problem is that these people want you to connect them now, and in actual fact it’s going to take months, if not years, to get to them. By the time you actually get there, they may have moved out, they may have finally had a good offer from their cable operator or they may just be pissed-off at you taking so long to serve them.

    And that (in my opinion) is what’s happening at Google Access right now: costs are higher than planned (even though lower than industry norms would suggest) and take-up is lower than expected (even though higher than industry norms would suggest). Since Google isn’t really looking at this as an infrastructure player would, it’s time to reconsider.

    In parallel to that, wireless is starting to look like a potential solution to some of the problems. Don’t believe the hype about residential fixed service being substituted by a wireless access solution anytime soon, at least not in most urban geographies. There are promising technologies ahead, but they’re far from mature yet.


  8. #8
    WHT-BR Top Member
    Data de Ingresso
    Dec 2010
    Google’s acquisition of Webpass however is interesting. Few journalists took the time to try and understand what Webpass does. Webpass uses wireless solutions for urban aggregation, not access. In other words, it doesn’t connect homes wirelessly, it connects multi-tenant buildings wirelessly and uses existing in-building wiring to connect the homes from the rooftop antenna.

    It’s a clever approach that solves two fundamental deployment issues:
    – it eliminates the need to pull fiber along street poles or bury ducts in the pavement to pull fiber along the streets. This is both costly and time consuming;
    – it eliminates the need to deploy fiber inside the homes, also expensive and time-consuming, by reusing the existing wiring.

    However, that approach does not seem to me to be so universal as to be usable in any deployment scenario. There are a number of potential issues that I see with it:

    • first, you need to target multi-tenant buildings to make the economics work. I suspect (again, not knowing the exact costs of their solution) that the equipment necessary to install this on single homes would make the price point too high. Furthermore, you need line of sight between rooftops which is comparatively easy when people live in high downtown MDUs, not so easy when they live in detached homes.

    • second, you need to be able to reuse the existing cabling in the house. I haven’t had time to look into the specific regulatory aspects of this (and particularly to see if this varies from state to state or county to county in the US) but my bet is you can’t always bank on being able to reuse the cabling, especially if it’s been deployed by an incumbent or a cable operator. I may be wrong here, and I will be doing my homework on this, but I’m flagging it as a risk.

    This doesn’t mean that Webpass doesn’t open up opportunities. I don’t think you’d get as good and stable a service as you’d get with FTTH but you might get a service that’s good enough for most customers’ needs. Would it be good enough to compete with AT&T’s FTTC ? Most likely. Good enough to compete with Cable’s Docsis 3.1 as it gets deployed ? Less likely.

    So assuming I’m right, what should Google do about it ? Here are several (non mutually exclusive) scenarios that I think would be beneficial to the US and to US customers as well as to Google. Keep in mind that I see a lot more value in the “catalyst for change” goal outlined above than in the “Google as another broadband operator” goal.

    On the deployment side, the equation has changed from Google Fiber’s early days. Because Google made very targeted deployment and phased them over time, it’s now easy for AT&T and cable operators to respond in kind locally with a combination of price lowering and infrastructure deployment (or at least announcements) in the markets that Google publicly targets. The only way around that would be for Google to announce and undertake deployment in say 30 markets at the same time. It’s now quite clear that they don’t have the stomach for that.

    Assuming they still want to play some kind of long game, they could however destabilize the incumbents by announcing a broad Webpass type deployment scenario. Target and quickly deploy in 30 markets with a Webpass like solution with the promise that if the demand is there, Fiber may be installed down the line. This positions the wireless broadband solution as a quick to market acquisition tool. It also forces AT&T to respond everywhere at the same time, something which (I suspect) they are incapable of and unwilling to do. This could be part of the catalyst, forcing AT&T and/or cable to really up their infrastructure game or (failing that) look at structural solutions to respond (assuming the TWC/AT&T merger goes forward, the scenario of AT&T spinning off telecom infrastructure altogether is maybe not so unlikely anymore…)

    Beyond that though, I think the best bet to stick to the original goal (wanting to change the market by pushing existing players to deliver significantly better service) is to open up the Google Fiber experiment. Instead of keeping everything close to the vest, go public with it and tell everyone out there: “this is how we’ve done it, these are the challenges we have faced, this is how we’ve overcome them”. In other words, “here is the blueprint”. Google could even be the one to federate an open discussion about this, organise and/or sponsor workshops to enable the sharing of experience for companies and municipalities looking to deploy decent infrastructure in many places in America. They could even build a consulting team to help these projects get in shape.

    I think this would have two major impacts on the market:

    1/ it would unleash private and municipal initiative: many cities are on the fence about this, many private players are struggling with funding. They all want to do something about the state of broadband in their communities, but they’re afraid of doing it wrong, of chewing more than they can swallow. Having a clear set of “instructions” for lack of a better word, a clearer understanding of the ecosystem of deployment (Google could build and maintain a registry of subcontractors, for example), a well documented list of dos and don’ts would be hugely beneficial.

    2/ it would reassure potential investors, simply because of the association with the Google name. Remember that I assume here that Google didn’t underperform by industry norms, just that they fell short of their own ambitions. As far as infrastructure investors go, I suspect Google’s performance would be seen as more than acceptable. Therefore following the Google recipe would be a massive help for projects in attracting capital.

    This may not be enough to generate the catalyst Google should be looking for. It would have worked had they started doing this in 2011, but the situation has changed. The incumbents and cable operators have upped their game, the early mover advantage no longer pays. There are two more things Google could do that I think would clearly make a difference.

    First, Google could start an infrastructure fund and look for worthy fiber to the home (or, to be slightly more technologically neutral, let’s say gigabit broadband) projects to back. Again, simply because of Google’s name being attached to a project, this would make capital raising incredibly easier for fiber projects. It would also allow Google to target markets where they genuinely think a difference can be made. Finally, it would position Google as a company that invests in access infrastructure when telcos are often hammering at them for being “freeriders” of the access. A win win win.

    Second, Google could build a set of rules that would allow ISPs to operate with a “Google Inside” label. The idea would be for these ISPs, assuming they follow a set of standards established by Google (and maybe accept to be transparently measured on performance) to use the Google label. Why would this be important ? Because many customers sadly prefer the lousy service from a brand they know and see on TV to the potentially better service from a brand they’ve never heard of that can’t afford TV ads. Associating Google’s brand to these competing gigabit broadband ISPs would go a long way to compensating for that lack of notoriety and reassure the potential customers. The risk to Google would be minimal, because as soon as an ISP stopped to meet the requirements, they would be dropped from the scheme.

    These are just some of the ideas that have been floating around my head for the last few years about Google Fiber. I think it was a great idea, a massively ambitious project and while it has (in my view) partly lost its way I still think it can make a difference going forward. I hope this post generates a conversation about that potential both outside and inside of Google.


  9. #9
    WHT-BR Top Member
    Data de Ingresso
    Dec 2010

    Google Caracu

    Citação Postado originalmente por 5ms Ver Post
    ... Google could build a set of rules that would allow ISPs to operate with a “Google Inside” label. The idea would be for these ISPs, assuming they follow a set of standards established by Google (and maybe accept to be transparently measured on performance) to use the Google label. Why would this be important ? Because many customers sadly prefer the lousy service from a brand they know and see on TV to the potentially better service from a brand they’ve never heard of that can’t afford TV ads. Associating Google’s brand to these competing gigabit broadband ISPs would go a long way to compensating for that lack of notoriety and reassure the potential customers. The risk to Google would be minimal, because as soon as an ISP stopped to meet the requirements, they would be dropped from the scheme.
    Esse filme passou no Brasil estrelado por um outro ator canastrão

  10. #10
    WHT-BR Top Member
    Data de Ingresso
    Dec 2010

    Alphabet announces $7 billion buyback

    Anita Balakrishnan
    2 Mins Ago

    Alphabet reported quarterly earnings that topped analysts' estimates and revenue that beat expectations on Monday, and announced a more than $7 billion stock buyback authorized this month.

    The primary driver was strength in search and YouTube, Ruth Porat, Alphabet's chief financial officer, told investors in a conference call. Google Cloud is also seeing "substantial revenue growth," Porat said.

    Google's parent company posted third-quarter earnings per share of $9.06, adjusted, on revenue of $22.45 billion. The technology titan was expected to report fiscal third-quarter earnings of $8.63 a share on revenue of $22.05 billion, according to a Thomson Reuters consensus estimate.

    That's up against the comparable year-ago figure $7.35 a share, with revenue up 20 percent from last year's $18.68 billion.

    The company also approved a stock repurchase up to $7,019,340,976.83 of its Class C shares. This quarter last year, the company repurchased $5,099,019,513.59 of its Class C capital stock. (5.099019514 is the square root of 26 — the number of letters in the alphabet).

    "I think that the buyback outlook is important. People are looking for more balanced return profile out of Google now: a little bit of growth, a little bit of margin, and a little bit of capital return. So I think it all makes sense," Michael Graham, senior internet analyst at Canaccord Genuity, told CNBC's "Closing Bell" on Thursday.

    "Mobile search and video are powering our core advertising business and we're excited about the progress of newer businesses in Google and Other Bets," Porat said in a statement.

    The Google parent company updated investors on the state of its behemoth advertising business, as well as projects like cloud, phones and internet. Google's quarterly growth reflects strength in mobile search, Google Play and cloud, Porat said.

    Google's websites saw sales increase 23 percent to $16.09 billion while advertising revenues rose 18 percent to $19.82 billion.

    Total traffic acquisitions costs were 21 percent of revenues, the same as this quarter last year.

    Traffic acquisition costs to Google Network Members rose to $2.62 billion, 70 percent of revenues from Google Network Members. Meanwhile TAC to distribution partners rose to $1.56 billion, 10 percent of Google website revenues.

    Co-founders Sergey Brin and Larry Page changed Google's corporate structure last year, creating a collection of companies called Alphabet and naming Sundar Pichai head of Google. The move was praised for adding transparency between core businesses — such as search, Android and YouTube — and its more creative endeavors, "smaller bets in areas that might seem very speculative or even strange when compared to [Google's] current businesses."

    During the quarter, Google's revenues rose to $22.25 billion, while "other bets" revenue rose to $197 million, thanks to Nest, Fiber and Verily, Porat said.

    Google is second only to Facebook when it comes to 2016 display ad revenue worldwide, and is the leader of search ad spending, eMarketer estimates. And after search traffic on mobile surpassed desktop last year, ads followed suit, eMarketer estimates.

    About 59.5 percent of the company's net global ad revenues will come from mobile internet ads this year, up from about 45.8 percent in 2015, according to eMarketer.

    It's no coincidence, then, that Google has introduced new businesses this fall, including a house-designed mobile phone, Pixel. CEO Sundar Pichai highlighted Android's open platform during a conference call with investors.

    "The new devices are not only aimed at diversifying Google revenues but also at enriching Google's advertising targeting capabilities as consumers engage and share information with Pixel, Google Assistant, Daydream View, Chromecast and other Google ecosystem devices," eMarketer senior forecasting analyst Martín Utreras said in a statement.

    The company has also spent on key hires in priority areas like cloud, and in acquiring YouTube content.Still, the non-Google businesses have reportedly seen some setbacks, with high-profile departures, most recently from Google's fiber unit for high-speed connectivity. Porat highlighted Nest and self-driving cars.

    "As we reach for moonshots that will have a big impact in the longer term, it's inevitable that there will be course corrections along the way, and that some efforts will be more successful than others," Porat said. "Over the past year, for example, you've seen us make progress and accelerate our efforts in some areas, while re-positioning or taking a pause in others. We are taking the steps necessary to lay the foundationa for a stronger future."


Permissões de Postagem

  • Você não pode iniciar novos tópicos
  • Você não pode enviar respostas
  • Você não pode enviar anexos
  • Você não pode editar suas mensagens