That $100B is a based on a ballpark estimate of how much a passive investor would expect to earn by putting $32B of their money into a high-yield stock fund (yielding 15% per year, which is a conservative annual growth rate for a cloud provider) and sitting on it for 10 years. If Google can't do at least as well as that, the investor would be better off with the stock fund.
Do you live in the EU? From where I stand I mostly got cookie banners, can't get to Google maps or flights from Google search, get AI launches 6 months after the rest of the world if at all etc.. Not yet feeling all the consumer benefits
1) cookie banners are because tech giants are giants c-nts that will do anything to drive their point (and they are breaking the law because "reject" is usually hidden); though the UE should push to have it as a browser setting and voila - not nagging
2) there was a push for Google, as a monopolist, to offer option to use different map services but becase it's typical for the bully to abuse it's possition they removed the setting. And it seems to work as it causes the frustration in the end users.
It's kinda sad that people are still drinking google cool-aid
This is a ridiculous take. Of course Google should be allowed to link to Google Maps from their homepage and search. I have never seen this level of adoration for ridiculous overregulation.
This is the reason the EU has stagnated and will continue to stagnate indefinitely. There is simply no culture of getting shit done, it's all about hand wringing.
Americans have learned a lot more from having a flourishing tech industry than the EU has, which has stagnated for 20+ years and has missed out on the mobile revolution and will miss the AI revolution.
Our model works to create actual progress. Your model results in nothing but a rent-seeking regulatory industrial complex. The EU can only miss so many industrial revolutions before it fades into total irrelevancy over time. There is a reason your share of global GDP is declining rapidly vs the US.
This is almost certainly untrue. But if it gives you a piece of mind, so be it.
> Facebook can no longer create shadow profiles for people who aren't on it.
What impact does Facebook not having a ledger with my name on it have on my life? You still have ads and tracking in Europe, except now with cookie banners.
> You can ask any company to tell you all they know about you, and delete it (with some small regulatory exceptions).
Have you ever done this?
> You don't have 50 different chargers in your home.
I don't need anyone telling me what types of devices to buy. I prefer competition and can make up my own mind about chargers. Role of the state is not de-cluttering my home.
I'd prefer Google Maps and free 2 day shipping to these. Not to mention $300k+ developer salaries compared to 55k a year. But I guess you don't have to check your emails after 5, so there's that.
> This is almost certainly untrue. But if it gives you a piece of mind, so be it.
If it is untrue, they'll get slapped in the face with another multi-billion dollar fine, and have to remove the offending models.
> Have you ever done this?
Yes, I do this regularly for backups, and have asked for sketchy orgs I've had to use to delete my data.
> I don't need anyone telling me what types of devices to buy. I prefer competition and can make up my own mind about chargers. Role of the state is not de-cluttering my home.
Do you also prefer competition and to make up your own mind about unsanitary food? Unsafe cars? Unsafe airliners and airlines? Where would you draw the line of what is acceptable role of the state?
> I'd prefer Google Maps and free 2 day shipping to these
Google Maps is still there. I have free 1 day, and sometimes same day shipping with Amazon in France, so idk what you're referring to.
> Do you also prefer competition and to make up your own mind about unsanitary food? Unsafe cars? Unsafe airliners and airlines? Where would you draw the line of what is acceptable role of the state?
Cables. I draw the line at cables. I think its a reasonable line to draw.
Which part of cables? Having standards to ensure cables don't melt and catch fire is a good thing too. Having a common set of port standards to ensure they're reliable, reusable, etc. is also good.
> Are you trying to suggest Europeans shouldn't complain about the EU? Because that seems... backwards.
I don't think anyone said that, EU citizens complain about the EU all the time. But complaining that the EU should be molded on the shape of the US is... Backwards.
When people say "well then leave" it means "stop complaining". So of course that's what was said.
> But complaining that the EU should be molded on the shape of the US is... Backwards.
No. What's really backwards is your jingoism here. That's entirely uncalled for. Countries aren't sports teams. Trying to argue that either the EU or the US is more "backwards" than the other is an idiotic conversation to have. So please take your backwards attitudes elsewhere -- this isn't the place for them.
> Trying to argue that either the EU or the US is more "backwards" than the other is an idiotic conversation to have.
It's really not an idiotic conversation considering that the US has a very clear problem with religious nuts accumulating increasingly more power to dictate other people's lives, that's very backwards and should be brought up. I don't want other countries being molded by that. The USA already exported the bullshit televangelicals stupidity into my home country (Brazil) which made Neo-Pentecostalism the biggest religion there with all the problems it entails, it's extremely backwards and stems from America's cultural values around money.
It would be a lot harder to do if the market had more viable competitors. In a world with 5-6 dominant options and a long tail of niche search engines you'd probably have options that penalize blog spam, aggregators like pinterest and sites with paywalls or millions of ads / affiliate links.
Buybacks "pumping the stock price" is a common misconception, but not actually true (unless the buyback is executed at prices lower than fair value).
There are less shares outstanding afterwards, but there is also less cash, so if executed at fair prices there is no reason for the stock price to move.
Just think through an example of a simple company which is a pot of $1000, and can get 10% returns on it. There are 100 shares, so if investors want 10% returns, shares should trade at 10$ (P/B = 1). If the company repurchases half the shares, there will be only 50 shares but the company only has 500$ now, making each share still worth 10$ for 10% hurdle rates.
But companies are not pots of assets. What you are buying is assets - liabilities + predicted future cashflow * discount rate.
So a more realistic example would be a company with 100 shares, $1000 of cash, and $1000/yr stable income.
So before a buyback, 1 share grants you the benefits if whatever the company does with $10/yr of income. Whether it be dividends, reinvestment, etc.
If the share price is $25 and they spend half their cash on hand to buy 20 shares back, now one share gets you $12.50/year of income. Thus the share is worth more than it was before.
Disclaimer: Armchair finance / economics knowledge. Hope the above is correct.
But delete/rename columns are not the only operations, nor the most common. Adding columns is the most common, and there only one of those options breaks
Where are you getting this from? I cannot for the life of me find profits by business unit. I have glanced over the 2021 Annual Report but don't have to analyze it. If you have a source I would appreciate it.
I find the "you're not paying enough" argument a little strange. By definition, not every company can pay top of market and get the most skilled engineers.
If the average engineer doesn't have a certain skill, I think it's fair to say that it's hard to hire for it, because it will be for the average company.
