Google Tries To Silence IPO Rumours 289
egoff writes "Google has put off an IPO for now, saying "Thus far, laziness has always won out. There are so many better things to do." The New York Post suggests that Google's focus on R&D doesn't really mesh with the financial accountability of a publicly traded company. However, many analysts believe a successfully Google IPO could rejuvenate Internet-company investments."
Surely the entire sector doesn't rely on this (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Surely the entire sector doesn't rely on this (Score:5, Insightful)
I believe Microsoft didn't go public for a long time until internal pressure forced the issue because the employees wanted their stock to be worth something.
Of course, maybe the pressure to "cash out" might be different if you're working at company that primarily does R&D like Google. It would probably be a unique experience, and more so in today's economy.
Re:Surely the entire sector doesn't rely on this (Score:5, Insightful)
I believe Microsoft didn't go public for a long time until internal pressure forced the issue because the employees wanted their stock to be worth something.
I doubt that most of their employees want an IPO. The way the economy is today, they should feel very lucky for what they have: good salaries, job security, incredible benefits (games, massages, free snacks, and a grand piano), and the satisfaction of working for a company they believe in.
When the economy picks up again, there'll probably be more employee pressure. I hope not: I think that the main reason Google hasn't sold out yet is that they don't have to answer to anyone. Once shareholders are in control, there's a much bigger chance that they'll eventually stop doing what's right, and start maximizing profits.
Re:Surely the entire sector doesn't rely on this (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Surely the entire sector doesn't rely on this (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Surely the entire sector doesn't rely on this (Score:5, Insightful)
Those are bullshit benefits that any company could provide for the cost of an exec's car compensation, and only appeal to twentysomethings still rebelling against mom & dad's "no junkfood" rules.
Incredible benefits would be in-building healthcare clinics, a childcare center, a credit union and maybe a post office or mailing center, a decent cafeteria, along with generous time-off and flex-time (I'm sure they have this kind of arrangement already). These are the kinds of resources adults need but have a hard time getting access to due to operating hours and work hours not always meshing.
Re:Surely the entire sector doesn't rely on this (Score:2, Insightful)
If they have buckets of cashflow, they can pay a dividend on their private stock to increase its current worth to employees. Employees who just want to flip their private stock in the public market so they can leave the company, are probably not a long term asset for Google.
If they have neither, then they can do nothing. Often inaction is a valid cho
Re:Surely the entire sector doesn't rely on this (Score:3, Interesting)
Whether to IPO or no
In a business discussion, the phrase ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Wacky headlines and sports coverage, however, are their forte.
Re:In a business discussion, the phrase ... (Score:2)
dept. of redundancy dept (Score:2)
YES, actually. Sports coverage (Score:2)
Re:Surely the entire sector doesn't rely on this (Score:2)
Re:Surely the entire sector doesn't rely on this (Score:3, Funny)
I'd like some (Score:5, Interesting)
BTW, I think I'm fp.
Obligatory (Score:5, Funny)
Google IPO [google.com]
Re:Obligatory (Score:2)
Re:Obligatory (Score:2, Funny)
IPOs ain't for everyone (Score:5, Insightful)
Certainly, R&D will suffer if an IPO happens and the focus of the company becomes delivering the almighty dollar to investors. However, if they find their good employees leaving for greener pastures (ie, more money), it might be time for that IPO to raise funds to keep them.
-Erwos
Stay private and free. (Score:2)
Yay (Score:4, Funny)
I'd buy a google IPO if I had any money, but
Private companies = freedom (Score:5, Insightful)
A: Anything it wants.
When a company seeks a wide consumer base, especially from the financial sector itself, it makes sense to go public. However, when a company is heavy on R&D, needs to be nimble, and supplies directly to other corporations, there is no _need_ to go public.
Re:Private companies = freedom (Score:2)
Re:Private companies = freedom (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, if you think that M$ is rich because of their stock price, you're grasp of economics is slim.
M$ got it's riches from lucrative licesnsing deals and then a monopolistic position in the marketplace. Their stock price is actually a security liability to them, and much of their 'wealth' is virtual (in options unable to be excersized): witness Gates' loss of billions in equity when their stock took a fall a couple of years back. One could argue that he would have just as much 'actual' wealth if they never took the company public...
The employees were lured with huge options-- which does help get good talent when the price is going up. However, that was before the bubble popped-- there is no such illusion now, therefore there is no cache in the options.
Re:Private companies = freedom (Score:5, Insightful)
Its the same in politics and war mongering now - better to be SEEN to be doing good than to actually do any good.
Stay private google. Please
They are already enslaved to Venture funds (Score:5, Informative)
Re:They are already enslaved to Venture funds (Score:3, Interesting)
I cannot argue with your observations at face value. They are essentially correct. And yet I feel the need to counter your dark outlook. Isn't it funny that these greedy butchers decided to make their fortunes by giving us a really useful, superior, and inoffensive alternative to the other search engines? Maybe "
Re:They are already enslaved to Venture funds (Score:4, Insightful)
A common financial strategy for VC's to employ is to keep a company like Google (assuming that is particularly profitable)private, as a hedge against volatility in the market.
Re:Private companies = freedom (Score:3, Insightful)
Be Pessimistic for a minute... (Score:5, Interesting)
And an unsuccessful Google IPO could make things worse.
With the war and the volitality of the market right now, I say "Stay Lazy for a While Longer, Google!"
Re:Be Pessimistic for a minute... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Be Pessimistic for a minute... (Score:5, Insightful)
I really don't understand their logic. Why should one company try to make a quick buck/die instantly in the IPO game so that others can have a chance?
Google should do what is in google's best interests, not that of analysts. Too many people listen to them. They're just men with calculators, something people continually forget. If said analysts really knew how to make money in the business world, they'd be out there.
Yikes (Score:5, Funny)
There are more grammatical disagreements in that sentence than I've had good days!
Re:Yikes (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Yikes (Score:3, Funny)
So... (Score:3)
Re:So... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's illegal; companies have to act in the interests of the shareholders and the shareholders get to vote on what that interest is. If they vote that Google needs to break into the pork-belly market then the management have to do it. If they don't and they can't show that it would have harmed the shareholders to try then they can be prosecuted. Regardless, they are likely to get sacked at the next AGM for defying the shareholders.
TWW
Re:So... (Score:4, Informative)
All the time.
"Going Public" basically means that you, the owner, are offering a percentage ownership to the public in exchange for the public's money. On the plus side, you get a fresh infusion of money to do research, increase inventories, hire more employees, etc. On the flip side, you are now responsible to the investors to keep the company profitable, and every now and then kick back a slice of your earnings to your investors as dividends.
Shareholder rights are managed like a pure democracy -- majority rules. This is why you usually see that "Pres So-and-so" owns 51% of the stock in the company... so their vote can always override whatever the public decides, providing that they disagree with the public. This is where stock options have an effect; directors giving themselves gobs of company stock in place of salary.
Now, it's not a good idea to piss off your investors, because they'll just turn and sell your stock, and you have to pay that capital back. That's why there are quarterly reports (you know, those big books you throw away every 3 months) that tell the public the state of the company, and whether your staff is doing a good job making money (price to earnings ratio). And, like most of the IPOs of the late 90s, your up the creek if that investment capital is your operations budget, and people want their money back, because then *poof* you're bankrupt.
Re:So... (Score:2, Informative)
What the heck is this? No company is ever obliged to redeem their shares for cash. People who want to sell their shares sell them on the public market, to other people, not back to the company itself. That's what the stock market is about.
People "wanting their money back" from stocks has no effect on a company's bottom
Just you wait (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, in the short run, though Brin says laziness always wins out, in the long run, it's greed that always does the winning.
Inevitable? No. Probable? Maybe. (Score:2)
Inevitable? I don't think so. There are some pretty big companies out there that are privately held, e.g. DHL. Whether Google IPOs is going to depend on the people involved and what they want. And even if Schmidt really is in favor of the idea, it's still possible that he'll get ousted before any such move occurs.
Uh, look at the Google board (Score:2)
Wrong! Google's board is weighted with two of the biggest VCs in the valley. These boys are all about taking companies public. Why do you think they funded Google???
Re:Uh, look at the Google board (Score:4, Interesting)
Greed (Score:2)
Putting off an IPO can be the greedy thing to do.
Inevitable? (Score:2)
I am going to have to disagree here. From what I have seen, Google is not a company with huge (IE potentially disastrous) type dreams of putting search engine capability into your refrigerator. As such, they do not need IPO type cash to finance their operations. Google is very focused on being a search company, and while it has branched out into research, catalog indexing, etc... it has all fit into its main strength- searching. When I think of companies going public, I see
Google. (Score:5, Interesting)
If inktomi comes around and does something better than google, google will turn over and die unless it can one-up inktomi.
Amazon survives because it sells physical things, and not services (contracts/licenses). It's also the bigger sales company. If you dont' buy a segway, it won't go out of biz. If you don't by electronics, it has other revenues in other areas of merchandise.
Google NOT IPO'ing has its strengths. No investors to try and please. Being public means you are even more watched than ever, since you now have shareholders. If one scandle comes about, GOGL (google) could tank.
Sometimes, it's easier to be a humble celebrity than a flashy one.
Re:Google. (Score:3, Insightful)
Stupid Analysts (Score:2)
Re:Stupid Analysts (Score:2, Interesting)
An analyst's job is to read into statistics. With that, I'd like to mention the following:
Also, analysts get paid to comment on things - mostly things people WANT to hear. Therefore I'm not surprised by the statement.
The only reason I pay attention to analysts
Man, way back when... (Score:4, Interesting)
Seriously though, companies like Google are such amazing innovations that it's hard not to want just a small piece of it, yet at the same time there is so much corporate internet garbage flooding Wall St. that it makes you think twice.
It's not the Google lovers who really want this. (Score:5, Insightful)
Here's a really telling part:
"The sector really needs Google to go public," a veteran investment banker said.
It's not those people who want Google to get more funding. It's everyone who lost money in when the Internet stocks collapsed. They're hoping that something like Google will go public, draw money into other Internet-related stocks (halo effect), and then take out their money for less of a loss.
My US$0.02. Google seems to be doing fine without needing to get money from Joe Sixpack.
Re:It's not the Google lovers who really want this (Score:2)
My personal theory is that it's the popularization of stock trading/ownership which has dumbed down market reactions and behavior.
Just look how the market reacts almost instantly to any development in Iraq, no matter how trivial.
Don't do it, Google! (Score:5, Insightful)
Google is better with its current benevolent dictatorship than with a democracy of ignorant stockholders.
That said, if they do IPO, I know I'll be among many others asking, where can I get some?
--G
Not their decision (Score:2)
So let me get this right.... (Score:2)
Y'know, it's really beyond me how that whole internet bubble thing occurred.
Rich
IPO v. Censorship (Score:3, Interesting)
question (Score:2)
Most companies go public when they need to raise immediate cash. For example, Company XYZ wants to launch a new product, but it will take 20 million to set up the equipment and such to do it. Since they can't just increase sales, they have to find investors. They could do it in private, and solicit people individually, but that's why the stock exchanges were created in the first place -- for the free exchange of investments in one centra
Absolutely (Score:5, Interesting)
Hmm (Score:2)
However, many english teachers believe a succesfully readed slashdot articles could rejuvenated the art of grammar.
Don't do it!! (Score:2)
Umm, you mean "could destroy the one internet company whose business model wasn't dependent on overvaluation." Google is successful because they eschewed the cash-cow growth models that other internet firms depended on. Instead they focused on the quality of their product. My sense is that injecting a few hundred million dollars of strings-attached funding into the life-cycle of a software project is
Google's Pre-IPO Trademark Vigilance? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Google's Pre-IPO Trademark Vigilance? (Score:2)
The Race Masters from planet Zoltar wish to manipulate Google and send subliminal messages to billions of unsuspecting food beasts. To do this they must gain control of the Google Master Facilities. Once Google is vulnerable to the Zionist stock market, the RM consortium will step in, replace the Google staff and begin manipulating.
Don't be surprised if you begin to feel slack jawed and bovine, and perhaps even crav
Been there, done that (Score:2)
You mean rejuvenate over-valued internet-company investments. Am I the only one who paid $85 for Palm stock? No way I'm falling for that one again.
Isn't the stock market a scam? (Score:5, Insightful)
Isn't the stock market, at least the way it is operated these days, more of a scam than an investment?
Perhaps some business major can explain this to me.
As I see it, here's the problem:
1) I buy x shares of stock in SomeCompany, at some price n.
2) I want to sell this stock at some point in the future for some price y > n.
3) In order for the price of the stock to increase, it must be "worth more".
4) Assuming no further stock is issued and that I purchase no additional stock, that means my stock constitutes a fixed percentage "ownership" in the company.
5) Given that my percentage ownership is fixed, in order for the stock to be worth more at some time in the future, the value (read: size) of the company must grow.
Well, that's fine and dandy for a small company, but that seems to assume that any given company will grow without bounds pretty much forever (especially when we start talking about options)
But the "economy" is a bounded system. Those bounds may be high, but they DO exist. So the fundamental premise of "stock price increases with time" seems fundamentally flawed to me. What do you do with a successful company that produces a flat amount of profit each year, and does not seek to grow?
Now DIVIDENDS, THAT I understand. I own some share q of the company, the company produces w amount of profit, so I'm entitled to a dividend w/q - that makes sense.
But this whole speculation thing I just cannot wrap my head around. It looks like a pyramid scheme (with a gentle slope) to me.
Somebody want to explain?
DG
Re:Isn't the stock market a scam? (Score:5, Insightful)
3) In order for the price of the stock to increase, buyers must be willing to pay more.
This can be based on anything, as we have seen in the 1990's.
Re:Isn't the stock market a scam? (Score:2)
Assume that I produce widgets, and that my profits are tie to widget sales.
So I can:
1) Sell more widgets - this is fine, but bounded. Eventually, EVERYBODY has a widget, and, assuming that widgets have an infinate life, that means my market shrinks with time.
(Of course, one can sidestep this by building a fixed life into widgets - perhaps an ever-decreasing life - but there are problems with this approach too)
2) As you mentioned, get more efficient at widget p
I think this makes sense (Score:2)
All of that sucks up design time and development time that could be spent on better things.
Crazy English (Score:3, Funny)
A little excited about the 'ly' and 'd'?
Why? (Score:2)
Google+Blogger+IPO=Go_Ogle, Online Dating Search (Score:5, Funny)
- 26M Americans visited an online dating site during 12/02
- "Personals Comprise the Largest Paid Content Category on the Internet: According to a [12/02] study...the Personals category grew 387 percent to become the largest online paid content category among consumers in the third quarter of 2002, surpassing Business Content." (source: comScore Media Metrix)
- "'I have 43 employees, and we'll bring in $43 million this year. That's $1 million per employee,' [uDate president Martin] Clifford said. 'We have zero cost of sales within our business...The margins are almost super-margins.'" (source: MSNBC.com)
Google+Blogger is an ideal combination for serving this market.Once Google goes public, here's how I think Go_Ogle will happen:
Soon, Google will improve the searchability of "blogspace" by making it easy for bloggers to annotate their blogs with information about themselves and their blogger friends. This information will be encoded in an RDF dialect called FOAF (Friend of a Friend).
It will then dawn on people that the FOAF file is effectively a static online profile, while the associated blog is akin to a living profile (in the 'living document' sense).
With this, Googling people will come to encompass both researching people you have met -- already a common practice -- and researching people you would like to meet.
The upside potential of this, as introduced above, will prove too substantial for publicly held Google to ignore. (In addition, I believe leadership of the market for online matchmaking software is the gateway to early leadership of the market for lifelong learning and career services, which will be worth hundreds of trillions of dollars in the coming decades. Toward understanding the relationship between the two markets, consider: according to a recent American Demographics survey, couples in the U.S. meet primarily at work (36%) or school (27%). More on 'online dating software -> LLCS' here [opportunityservices.com] ).
Google will then acquire the best makers of RDF query tools and launch Go_Ogle, the mother of all online dating sites.
Thoughts?
investment banker suckage (Score:2)
Google, please please just continue to do good things. And stay private.
And, no, I am not just being cynical.
IPO's aren't a requirement (Score:5, Informative)
Microsoft's IPO in 1986 is an interesting case - they were dragged to the IPO kicking & screaming. Think about it - Apple started in 1976 and IPO'ed in 1981 (at the time, one of the most successful IPOs in history). Microsoft started in 1975, and still hadn't IPO'ed by 1986. So what made them do it? Their employees had been using their vested options in lieu of cash when buying houses, cars, etc. For a privately held company, that's completely illegal, and as a result, the SEC forced them to go public. Even at that point, Microsoft didn't need to raise capital publically, BillG and company wanted to retain complete control of the company.
Re:IPO's aren't a requirement (Score:4, Informative)
Actually, there are two "exit strategies" that venture capitalists think about when they fund a company; an IPO is one, an acquisition by a large public company is another. In the case of Silicon Valley, the latter possibility is actually more common.
Who needs Google to go public? (Score:2)
So which sector is he talking about? The investment banking sector?
Re:Who needs Google to go public? (Score:2)
Yes. The washed up, middle aged, "missed the
WTF is a "sector" anyhow? Google is a collection of NOCs with a bunch of almost racked PeeCee boxen herded by some R&D geeks. It could be cloned in short order with a minuscule amount of capital. There is no investment value here. How does this constitute a "sector."
F*cking money pundits. They dream their warped little dreams and spew it to the publ
consider the source (Score:2)
oops (Score:2)
R&D incompatible with public stocks??? (Score:4, Interesting)
They don't want to go public because they don't have to, period. Their venture funding still has miles to go.
Google IPO could... (Score:2)
OMG. Please, lets not piss away a good thing on some vague notion of how IPOing Google and having the stock price balloon for two days is going to turn anything around. The simps that promulgate such things are the very same people the created the
Post IPO Google would be subject to a board. These folks, recognizing the "vast marketing potential," will have more pop-ups flying around then you can even imagine. Th
Translation into English... (Score:5, Insightful)
"Modern shareholders are chickenshit squatters who care more about their liqudity of their portfolio then they do about the future of the company or its products."
True innovation and really new developments will always come from small business, where commitee thinking is almost non existant and against the grain geniuses are considered an asset and not dangerous dead wood.
As soon as the head of a company gets his eyes on the prize of some arbitrarily huge number of lucrative options, you can pretty much forget about taking risks. Every company I've worked for that's gone IPO has very suddenly switched into maintenance mode, treading water in a market they were breaking records in with a casual sidestroke. Red tape increases and so does the ratio of useful hours to administrative BS. And strong, brave CEOs easily cave under the heel of a room full of industry delphis with the power to fire indiscriminately.
Product failures mean firings of smart people to appease the same. And there's always the chance that some rogue company with a discordant worldview will take you over, complete with more firings for "redundancy" and to afford bullshit multi million dollar "Good Faith" payments. Can you imagine Google owned by Inktomi...or Slashdot owned by Microsoft?
Google doesn't seem to be struggling. They have the position and the clout to manipulate the fund -- repay -- fund cycle necessary to afford new development. So who cares if you want a framed Google OneShare [oneshare.com]?
This is better for you. It's better for us. It's better for them. (With all due respect to Cap. K)
Publicly traded vs Privately held (Score:2, Informative)
Publicly traded companies change thier focus from development of newer/better/cheaper product or service, to generating press releases showing partnerships with other publicly traded companies that may or may not actually have a worthwhile product/service. Publicly traded companies are just fine with skipping a partnership and announcing lay
Heh - "many analysts" (Score:4, Funny)
Yes, but... (Score:2)
Yes, but many analysts also believe that a solid understansing of the English language and grammatical profeciency are even more important...
LOL! (Score:5, Funny)
I think the last 4 years have proved that analysts know shit.
One question: other than AdWords... (Score:5, Interesting)
Answers:
1. Intranet search appliances
2. Search hosting solutions
To be a successful publicly traded company, Google would need to sustain year-to-year growth, year after year, etc, etc. They are not selling the kinds of things which support that goal.
Personally I would keep Google privately held. What are they going to do with more capital, anyways?
Re:One question: other than AdWords... (Score:2)
Although if Google started offering services like Yahoo, but would stay true to the "google way" I think I'd be down to try a Google Chat Client or a Google Group.
or... (Score:2)
or, it would kill off the best search engine around thus far.
VC Push Companies to Go Public (Score:5, Informative)
in a world looking for a savior (Score:2)
to answer the first, NO LEGITIMATE REASON. speaking as an entrepreneur, one of the greatest rewards of owning a (i like to think for myself as well) successful business is the control over one's own life that accompanies the independence of private ownership. when you go public, you must answer to the market as a whole and your major investors one a time to justify your business
Keep your damn hands off of my Google! (Score:2)
If the company goes public (or should I say "goes
And all so some investors who aren't tired of the pump-n-dump can try to make a few bucks.
Jay (=
(who longs for the good old days wh
Other reasons to remain private (Score:5, Interesting)
In a strong market, employees will see more potential upside to their stock, and will be willing to trade a great culture for riches. But today, Googlers are happy with a job, ecstatic with the free meals, and are willing to bank on the currency being valuable (maybe even worth more) later.
Going private (Score:3, Informative)
It's entirely possible that the founders might take on debt and go private. Interest rates are so low right now that's a very real option.
As for "rejuvenating the market", Google just isn't very big. After all, it's almost fully automated.
Any story that quotes a "financial analyst" as an anonymous source is probably bogus. They're not insiders here; they can speak publicly. The ones who like being on Squawk Box are best ignored, of course.
We have years of depression ahead. Years. The market is still way overvalued. P/E ratios are still far too high. See the chart I put on Downside. [downside.com] for July 22, 2002. The bubble still hasn't fully deflated. Stocks have another 40% or so to fall to get back to normal P/E levels.
Look at Japan, where the stock market has been in the tank for a decade now. That's happening to the US. The peak was three years ago, after all.
Why the rush to IPO (Score:2)
Consider the purpose of an IPO - in exchange for selling off part of the company, you get a temporary influx of capital.
Unless you NEED capital, why do this?
If you need capital, you can incur debt to get it. When you pay off the debt, you OWN your company.
The only reason I see to IPO is for the company founders to make a quick buck off the IPO. Once they have done this, there is little incentive for them to stick around.
Consider it like this: I just bought a
A company shouldn't go public until it needs to (Score:5, Insightful)
I suspect Google does not need the money from equity financing. If they can fund all their business with cash from their ongoing operations and don't need equity financing for future growth opportunities, why would they want to go public? (other than greed) An IPO would be pretty much a cash grab at this point, not a useful strategy for growing the business.
Google looks like it is a well run company but I don't really think it's clear that its future growth prospects are such that I'd be willing to purchase its stock. No, I think Google would be much better served by keeping their current path and focusing on developing their business. The company clearly has a great product, they have improved it steadily, and have done well by being focused on that. The growth expectations of equity investors could only hurt that focus at this point.
The market (Score:2)
I can remember a day when you invested in a company and let them do what they needed to stay afloat. Financial accountability? A company didn't USED to have to be financially accountable to shareholders, they could just take their money other places if they didn't like how things were going.
IANAMA (I am not a market analyst) so someone tell me when exactly shareholders took over corporate america...I'd
Hope They Stay Private (Score:5, Insightful)
When it was a private company no-one had to sell anything until it was ready. We went from being R&D led to being sales led. We used to have great products. Now quality is suffering because of the drive to get everything out in time to make those sales figures look good. It can't and won't last. A successful company has been driven into the ground by the money men.
Bob
And no, I can't tell you who I work for
Anal...ysts (Score:4, Insightful)
Then again, many analysts are the same self-serving fucking morons who assisted the Dot-Bomb Economy.
And that is why we still burn petrol (Score:3, Insightful)
Phrased differently: "The NYP suggests that doing research to make a better product isn't financially sound for a publicly traded company."
Or: "Companies investing in their future are seen as worthless by investors."
Myopic MBAs with their heads in the sand kissing someone's ass are why Bell Labs got gutted. They are why US colleges stamp out more and more lawyers and fewer and fewer engineers. They are why not-CDs exist, why ReplayTV is out of business, and why it's illegal in Michigan to provide internet access to a school lab through a cable modem with 1 IP.
Would you ever hear the following in a boardroom meeting?
"Let's phase out our coal-fired plants and replace them with solar."
"But sir, that would cost $100 billion!"
"Who the fuck cares? We'll spend that in the next 10 years buying coal anyway - might as well buy solar panels instead."
And won't you ever hear that? Back to the chickenshit MBAs. There's an enormous fusion reactor in our backyard that hits us with over 6.5 billion watts of energy per square mile and the MBAs would rather spend endless effort securing regulatory approval for another coal-fired plant or nuclear reactor than spend their money buying up plots of the cheapest land they can find in the middle of sunny Nevada.
I've strayed a bit, so I'll sum up my point here. The same thinking that suggests Google abandon improving their product so they'll make more money is why we still burn things to make steam to run generators, why we have no base on the moon and barely have one in orbit, and why we're willing to spend $200 billion (yup, you heard that right) to bomb the shit out of some poor country unfortunate enough to be situated on top of a sea of hydrocarbon ooze.
*takes breath* *steps off soapbox*
They are using Linux (Score:2)
Re:rumor mill (Score:2)