[HN Gopher] Alphabet Announces First Quarter 2022 Results
___________________________________________________________________
Alphabet Announces First Quarter 2022 Results
Author : kgwgk
Score : 96 points
Date : 2022-04-26 20:03 UTC (2 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (abc.xyz)
(TXT) w3m dump (abc.xyz)
| tequila_shot wrote:
| Harbinger of the upcoming FB first quarter results.
| [deleted]
| galogon wrote:
| Why is Apple's market cap so much higher than Microsoft and
| Alphabet?
|
| -Google: Search and YouTube are essential in everyone's lives.
|
| -Microsoft, the entire business world depend on their apps and
| services. The world wouldn't run without Azure, Windows and
| Office.
|
| Their businesses are bulletproof. Apple on the other hand is
| completely dependant on China and you never know when a supplier
| drops the ball somewhere in the chain.
| akmarinov wrote:
| Do people still use Office? Google docs gets you 99% of the way
| there. Haven't touched Office in a decade.
| dzonga wrote:
| Google docs get you 99% there. But Microsoft's moat is in the
| 1%. e.g Finance and other niche stuff where the programming
| language is Excel.
| zarzavat wrote:
| Google docs gets you 99% of the way there so long as you are
| doing a simple task, like a simple data table or a simple
| letter. For simple tasks it's very user friendly and
| efficient. But it lacks features to do anything more
| complicated than that.
| unsignednoop wrote:
| It's funny you should say that because I was joking with
| someone the other day about google workspaces "the only
| thing google docs needs is a decent editor (vim)," but in
| seriousness, if you are referring to vbscript or macros
| then you are missing the market that google is aiming at.
| gpt5 wrote:
| Like what? (Honest question)
| rstupek wrote:
| Yes a lot of people still use Office, especially Excel
| nabaraz wrote:
| AAPL generates 100B of income while MSFT 71B and GOOGL 76B.
| rcMgD2BwE72F wrote:
| >Microsoft, the entire business world depend on their apps and
| services. The world wouldn't run without Azure, Windows and
| Office.
|
| Funnily, no one at the office (a dozen colleagues, in a
| European software editing company) and in my family uses any
| Microsoft service - except for LinkedIn, Github and npm.
| colinmhayes wrote:
| Every fortune 500 company I've interacted with has a contract
| for microsoft's productivity suite. As they continue down the
| "github is the entire productivity suite for developers" that
| will only continue. The lock in they've got provides
| incredible value, and IMO is the main reason azure is even
| kind of successful.
| leokennis wrote:
| Might it be because everyone and their mum have an iPhone and
| iPad and the profit margin on that hardware alone on that scale
| are super high?
| qiskit wrote:
| > Why is Apple's market cap so much higher than Microsoft and
| Alphabet?
|
| Because Apple brings in more revenue than Google ( 50% more )
| and MSFT ( 100% more ) and they bring in more income than
| google and msft.
|
| > Their businesses are bulletproof.
|
| Apple has people tied to their entire stack ( hardware, OS,
| apps, store, etc ). I'd say apple's business is more
| bulletproof than google or microsoft.
|
| > Apple on the other hand is completely dependant on China and
| you never know when a supplier drops the ball somewhere in the
| chain.
|
| They are tied to the largest economy in the world? An economy
| that is set to double or triple the size of the US economy in
| the next few decades?
|
| It's amazing what Apple has done. Nobody 20 years ago would
| have predicted they'd make $200 billion more in revenue than
| microsoft.
| [deleted]
| CabSauce wrote:
| Apple hardware is 40+% profit.
| 01100011 wrote:
| Which is amazing to me. I always figure HW companies are at a
| disadvantage. If I write a piece of SW I pay for the NRE once
| and then more or less make free money on the continuing
| sales. If I sell HW I have to pay for NRE and then materials,
| production, logistics, etc for each unit sold. Pure software
| can scale really well if you don't need to customize it for
| each user.
| colinmhayes wrote:
| Well Apple's trick is that their hardware is the only way
| to access their software, so they don't need to rely on a
| hardware advantage to keep their margins, because while
| some people are buying the hardware, most are buying access
| to the software.
| gpt5 wrote:
| For the Mac lineup, it's hard to say that their software
| is the reason people buy their laptops (it's not that Mac
| OS is bad, just that it's a small difference in the
| overall experience in the grand scheme, in if anything,
| is more limited than windows in term of apps/games
| support)
| tmsh wrote:
| They capture a lot of slices of: mobile.
|
| More words: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0QbG1wOQw8g.
| newshorts wrote:
| The real harbinger here is ad spend. Can't all be TikTok
| disruption, what we are seeing (IMO) is an indication of broad
| market slowdown.
|
| Companies cut ad spend first.
| colinmhayes wrote:
| Ad revenue up 23% YoY
| [deleted]
| baskethead wrote:
| With supply chain issues, there's no point in advertising goods
| that you can't sell, so it makes sense.
| donsupreme wrote:
| I fear for Meta tomorrow
| gpt5 wrote:
| Meta is already trading at a much lower P/E than Google, so
| it's fair to say that it's priced in.
| productceo wrote:
| Google Cloud Platform is losing less money!
| rubiquity wrote:
| Google is obviously still a very strong business but in terms of
| stock price performance all that matters right now is forward
| guidance. Meta signaled last quarter that their macro outlook was
| that ad spend was going to decline. That seems plausible,
| especially for ads targeted at consumers who are getting hit by
| inflation. Google might be plateauing and all the stock buybacks
| in the world might not help even at the current multiples that
| are much more appealing than 6 months ago. We shall see.
| baskethead wrote:
| The reason why forward guidance matters is because of
| valuations. Google PE is over 20 as of close of day. Entire S&P
| 500 PE is 15 and even that is traditionally high. If Google's
| PE reverts to the S&P500, you're talking a 20% cut just from
| here. Forward guidance and consistent growth is what mutual
| funds will pay a premium for. Lots of companies have a ton of
| room to drop if PE ratios drop.
| riku_iki wrote:
| > Entire S&P 500 PE is 15
|
| Google demonstrates steady 25% y/y grows for 20 years
| already, most of SP500 probably doesn't.
| colinmhayes wrote:
| Which is why guidance matters... Most companies are just
| expected to grow barely faster than inflation, which isn't
| too hard. But companies with high PE are expected to grow
| much faster. It's not this quarters revenue that matters,
| but future ones. Guidance is about future quarters. Sour
| guidance means you're no longer a rocketing tech company.
| HFguy wrote:
| FWIW, sp500 forward pe more like 18
| jsnell wrote:
| > all that matters right now is forward guidance
|
| Have they ever offered guidance? I thought they didn't do it
| basically as a matter of policy. So it seems hard to believe
| that it's what matters.
| rubiquity wrote:
| You are right, they don't. Whether Google gives it or not,
| the market will try and figure it out on its own. In this
| environment that could be bad for Google.
| riku_iki wrote:
| > Google might be plateauing
|
| Revenue increased by 23% y/y.
|
| Google revenue increased by 24% y/y in Q1 2012.
|
| Looks like it is plateauing for decade already.
| rubiquity wrote:
| Fair point but 2022 and 2012 are very different environments.
| chollida1 wrote:
| Numbers:
|
| - Q1 EPS $24.63 Est 25.71
|
| - Q1 Add Rev $54.66B, Est $54.14B
|
| - Q1 Cloud Loss of $931M, still not sure how they can't compete
| with Azure and Amazon here? This is a slight improvement YoY.
| Though cloud revenue was up 43%
|
| - Q1 Services Rev of 61.47B
|
| - Q1 Other Bets lost $1.16B
|
| - Q1 Other Bets Rev $440M
|
| - Q1 Re $68.01, Est $67.98
|
| - looks like they are reporting a loss(1.2B) this quarter, which
| is a big swing YoY where they made a profit of 4.9B
|
| - youtube Add Rev 6.9B, bit of a miss here, TikTok is starting to
| affect google growth finally, they already have affected Meta's
| add revenue, maybe related also to iPhone privacy changes?
|
| - Authorized to buyback up to $70B in shares, that's a large
| number and indicates someone at google thinks rev is slowing
| down, see TikTok
|
| Misc:
|
| - shares down slightly, but negligible.
|
| - numbers for Q1 shouldn't be affected by Russia but next quarter
| will be interesting
|
| - want to see how their US vs rest numbers work out as that
| should indicate where they'll hold cash and therefor where
| they'll look for take over targets next.
|
| - specifically for their cloud offering, sooner or later they'll
| get it working
|
| - note to watch Meta as alot of people will use GOOG advertising
| numbers as a proxy for how screwed META will be with the iPhone
| privacy changes going forward.
| paulryanrogers wrote:
| "Add Rev" as in advertising revenue?
| davidbarker wrote:
| Anecdotally, I spend a reasonable amount of time on YouTube
| (perhaps an hour per day), and recently (6-12 months) the
| frequency of ads has noticeably increased.
|
| It's so notable that I can't help but think overall watch time
| has flattened but they're desperate to continue increasing
| revenue. Although at some point they're likely to go into a
| downward spiral where they annoy too many users. I'm not there
| yet, but I'm on the trajectory.
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| It pushed me to read more and use NewPipe. If they block
| NewPipe or youtube-dl I'm done. More time to read. I was fine
| with a few ads and now it just feels insulting.
| mabbo wrote:
| I would bet real money that YouTube has created very accurate
| estimates of how many ads they can show each user before
| they'll reduce their consumption, and automatically adjust
| the number of ads accordingly.
|
| Thus leaving us all permanently annoyed by the number of ads,
| but not quite enough to leave.
| KptMarchewa wrote:
| I think it's heavily weighed by type of device, more than
| an user. I pretty much never get ads at mobile, but get
| them all the time on TV - both via app on smart TV, and
| PS5.
| dekhn wrote:
| ad fatigue is a feature column, this is just learned
| directly as part of training watch next and ads serving.
| ceeplusplus wrote:
| I've noticed that the first ad is often unskippable and the
| second ad will be 5-second skippable for me. I wonder if
| you exit YouTube when you see the 2nd ad if the ad system
| will learn to give you less ads?
| ImprovedSilence wrote:
| Probably. What drove me away more than ads is that I can't
| find any good content that is less than 20min long. The
| "algorithm" feeds me shit that, yes I'm interested in, but
| is longer than a sitcom! (and drove creators to optimize
| for longer format,I know) I realize this is by design and
| blah blah engagement blah blah ad revenue etc. but I yearn
| for the days of good interesting shit where I could queue
| up 10 vids and it doesn't take me a month to burn through
| it all.... I want an option to tell suggestions to keep it
| between 3-8min long content!!!
| tmaly wrote:
| As a creator it takes a ton of time to do editing on
| something 15 min vs 2 min. I would much rather created a
| series of 2 min videos.
| newsclues wrote:
| As a person I have silos of interests and ideal content
| desires.
|
| Sometimes I want to watch long podcasts about war and
| other times I want 30 second puppy videos and I don't
| understand why I can't have algorithms for both silos
| without separate accounts.
| mabbo wrote:
| This is why I love LockPickingLawyer. Generally never
| more than 3 minutes long. Yet by confining himself to
| such short videos, he has to maximize the time used.
| tempnow987 wrote:
| For a while it was comical because there was some 10
| minute magic threshold, and so many videos danced around
| and around to get to that 10 min mark. I agree through, I
| HATE it, I've started always trying to find written
| articles and reviews to shortcut this misery.
|
| TikTok is capitalizing on this too - going to be much
| easier to digest a ton of tiktok then a ton of long
| meandering youtube videos.
| onlyrealcuzzo wrote:
| If you use YouTube regularly and you have some music
| subscription, I'm not sure why anyone wouldn't just buy
| YouTube+ or whatever it's called that gives you free
| streaming music + no ads on YouTube.
|
| I bought it right when it came out just to not have ads on
| YouTube. Then when you got free streaming music included,
| it was impossible to turn down.
|
| The plus side is that YouTube music recommendations seem to
| be quite good.
| bawolff wrote:
| The problem is that youtube doesn't have effective
| competition in its niche, so most people don't have
| anywhere to go (tiktok and tv overlap a bit, but for lots
| of content types they dont)
| majormajor wrote:
| Non-video content is also a Youtube competitor in many
| genres/content types. Usually the ads for it are way less
| annoying, too!
| subpixel wrote:
| I just pay to remove them. It's pricey, but there is
| fabulous stuff on youtube I find no place else, and
| something for the whole family to boot.
| hnburnsy wrote:
| You can remove the ads but not the fluff content that
| pads the videos to make them longer. How about a
| subscription for concise and direct content?
| majormajor wrote:
| This is one of those fun things that you might shoot
| yourself into the foot by trying to estimate.
|
| Piss a user off once and you may have a much harder chance
| of bringing them back. Sure, you can use the fact you drove
| away user X in your model for how much to annoy user Y, but
| that doesn't un-piss-off user X. Sooner or later, there
| might be a significant number of users X!
|
| For instance, I've specifically avoided "real TV" cable
| packages _even when I can get them for cheaper than
| streaming TV_ because my use case (sports playoffs and
| such) is on and off, and Comcast et al have successfully
| trained me that it 's extremely unpleasant to cancel wired
| cable TV, so I'd rather pay more for something less
| obnoxious.
|
| It's easy to be both "data driven" and foolishly short-
| sighted.
| bombcar wrote:
| The ads have increased and the number of different ones have
| decreased; either they have less purchasers for ads for my
| demographic or something's going weird.
|
| I only need so many ads for "current SAAS desperation".
| davidbarker wrote:
| Now you mention it, I've noticed the same. It feels like
| 80% of the ads I see are for HelloFresh, Monday.com, or
| Grammarly.
| [deleted]
| guyzero wrote:
| Businesses with high long-term customer value and high
| customer acquisition costs will always dominate these sorts
| of transactional ad channels.
| progre wrote:
| For me, I think the type of ads have shifted a little bit
| too. Less German cars and carbonated sugar drinks (big
| brand ads) and more Home Shopping Channel type ads. And Get
| Rich Quick While Working From Home-testimonials.
| pkaye wrote:
| I bet it will be more random ads in the future as
| restriction are put on targeted advertising and blocking
| of cookies.
| ss108 wrote:
| That's what the algorithm thinks you are now
| na85 wrote:
| I haven't watched an ad on YouTube in years. The day they
| finally block clients like NewPipe will be the last day I
| watch YouTube.
| 0000011111 wrote:
| Pro tip. For YouTube use FireFox and Ublock Origin to block
| the adds.
| MetallicCloud wrote:
| Do you need to set that up somehow? I use Firefox and UB
| Origin, and I get lots of ads.
| brian_herman wrote:
| I would refresh your firefox and reinstall the extention.
| bennysomething wrote:
| I'm on Android and have done no extra config other than
| use Firefox and install ublock add-on. I get nearly zero
| ads. Plus I think there's an add-on that allows you to
| continue listening with screen locked.
| brian_herman wrote:
| no it is automatic there is no setup.
| vgeek wrote:
| Make sure to update and enable more of the custom
| blocklists in uBo if you are still getting ads.
| brian_herman wrote:
| also works on chrome and edge chrome with ublock origin.
| outoftheabyss wrote:
| and on safari using the Wipr extension from the Mac app
| store
| brian_herman wrote:
| oo i need to check this one out is it for ipad also?
| mrkramer wrote:
| Yea it works but I wonder when they will slowly start to
| deter uBlock because they are losing hundreds of millions
| of dollars on both Google and YouTube.
| kd913 wrote:
| Chrome/Edge Chromium actively prevent cname uncloaking.
|
| Effectively a nerfed version of ublock origin.
|
| Nevermind the manifest v3 changes being introduced very
| soon which dramatically limits the capabilities of ublock
| origin to some limited sub-100k static filters.
|
| For reference I have a block list of 800k filters +
| dynamic filtering on Firefox.
|
| If you want to have a sane version of the web, switch to
| Firefox.
| Laremere wrote:
| Alternatively, if you want to kill advertisement based
| culture, Youtube premium costs $12/month. At an hour of
| watching a day, that's only $0.40/per hour. Bonus: The
| channels you watch on Youtube make way more from prenium
| viewers and are less beholden to being advertiser friendly.
| [deleted]
| deckard1 wrote:
| Youtube is hoping their premium model becomes as
| ubiquitous as Amazon Prime. At which point, ads will
| start appearing in their service. Because there is a
| captive market. A similar thing happened to cable TV and
| even Netflix is heading that way. You'll also never
| escape in-content advertising. Subway and KFC ads
| appearing in Korean dramas, etc. Content providers are
| going to maximize their revenue as long as they don't
| shed subscribers. Once enough people are paying for
| premium, the danger of inserting ads will vanish. Because
| everyone has premium and everyone else is inserting ads.
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| Does that block ads that the YouTubers put right in their
| videos?
| ternaryoperator wrote:
| YouTube Premium has been a great investment. I watch
| hours-long concerts without any interruptions now. And I
| can download the videos, which is another big benefit.
| bromuro wrote:
| No worries, I bet they will put ads for subscribers too,
| citing "loss of users" as a reason.
| reducesuffering wrote:
| It's almost certain. They will follow the Netflix model.
| Plan right now is $12/month. It will soon be $15, then
| $20. Because they care about their price-conscious
| customers, they will then offer a $12/month subsidized
| plan with ads. How nice of them to offer us the choice.
| brendoelfrendo wrote:
| That would be a great way to get me to both stop paying
| for their service AND start blocking ads. I'd just send
| $10/month to my preferred creators' Patreons instead, or
| something. I already put up with their frankly terrible
| music service because it comes bundled with ad-free
| YouTube; I'd probably be better off.
|
| I realize I could do this now and it's probably better
| for the creators overall, but knowing that everyone I
| watch gets a little something, whether I subscribe to
| them or not, is nice.
| jhallenworld wrote:
| I pay this to get rid of Google's inserted ads, but it's
| getting hurt by too many in-video sponsorship ads. I
| would pay for a mode where the content creator gets more
| money in exchange for automatically skipping their
| sponsorship ad.
|
| The like/subscribe/become a Patreon is also annoying, but
| not as bad as actual ads.
| npunt wrote:
| Nothing can be said to be certain except death, taxes,
| and advertising.
| Nadya wrote:
| Depending on the popularity of the content you consume
| you can use https://sponsor.ajay.app/ which is a
| crowdsourced way of skipping the in-video sponsorship
| ads. I've had it work for some relatively obscure
| channels and it reliably works for most any popular/large
| channels as well.
|
| I have a zero-tolerance ad policy. If there isn't a way
| for me to reliably skip ads I will stop consuming the
| content. I'm willing to pay but all too often you end up
| paying for an ad-free experience and eventually ads get
| re-introduced anyway or the ads take on another form.
|
| Pardon the language but fuck advertisements. If it isn't
| a dry, boring information-based ad I don't care for it. I
| have no tolerance for the emotional manipulation and
| psychological warfare committed by modern advertisements.
| I'm sick of seeing [attractive people enjoying time spent
| together while <using/eating/drinking> <product> during a
| <meal/activity/social gathering>] or [commercial designed
| to make you laugh or smile so you associate being happy
| at some level with <product>]. I was sick of those
| commercials 20 years ago because they're all the same and
| I'm even more sick of them now that I'm old enough to see
| how they're designed to be manipulative.
| pvarangot wrote:
| The only two channels I watch that have in-video
| sponsorship use the TOC feature and the sponsorship is
| marked as a different section so it's super easy to skip.
| I don't want to name them in case that's not allowed,
| because I enjoy that they provide that feature a lot...
| specially because one of them is for kinda controversial
| content and the sponsors are usually not related to the
| content at all.
| [deleted]
| bawolff wrote:
| As much as i hate ad culture, i also hate the pay-to-
| make-product-not-suck model. It makes me feel
| manipulated.
| eljimmy wrote:
| I recently cancelled my Spotify subscription and switched to
| Youtube Music. Costs a couple $ more each month but has the
| added benefit of no more ads when I watch videos too!
| verdverm wrote:
| I haven't seen an ad on YT for years for this very same
| reason. I'm curious about the breakdown for YT revenues for
| ads vs subs
| biztos wrote:
| YouTube Premium is easily the best value for money of all my
| subscriptions. Even when I'm in Asia and I get helpful
| warnings that "ads may appear in this location" I never see
| any ads.
|
| As a bonus, in theory the creators get a cut, though I have
| no idea what it is. My clickthrough rate after years of
| watching YouTube is 0% so this seems like an improvement for
| them.
| tommoor wrote:
| VPN to Mexico or Turkey and then login to YouTube and
| subscribe to premium to remove ads for like $4/mo. Best money
| you'll ever spend
| baskethead wrote:
| When I worked at Yahoo at the turn of the century, whenever
| earnings were too low on our property, we would pump up the
| number of ads on our pages. It's a very common and might be a
| good way to see if an ad-based company like Google or Meta is
| close to missing earnings. And for the record, I noticed the
| increase in ads as well, at least 2 full ads without ability
| to skip per viewing.
| LegitShady wrote:
| purely conjecture but i think once you watch a certain amount
| of youtube per day they purposely pump up the ads for you so
| that youre incentivized to buy a premium membership.
| bamboozled wrote:
| Since YouTube removed the downvote count I've stopped relying
| on it for information. It's now too hard to know if what time
| watching is legit without it.
|
| It might be misguided but it's how I feel.
| aimor wrote:
| This is my experience too. I can't escape YouTube ads on my
| TV's app (shame on me) and I'm at the annoyance breaking
| point because of the recent increase.
|
| Short term this just means using something other than the TV
| app. But long term (5-15 years -_- ) I think content is going
| to be hosted places other than YouTube. Maybe wishful
| thinking, but right now if I had a YouTube link and a
| PeerTube link to the same content I'd send my friends to
| PeerTube instance.
| patwolf wrote:
| I've also noticed they've added ads after a video ends, even
| when autoplay is off. Annoying, but it makes sense to show
| ads while browsing for the next video to watch.
| redmen wrote:
| shares down negligible? It's down 6% after hours, and was down
| 4% intraday which took no wind out of the sails.
| arberx wrote:
| lol I was going to say...
| bufferoverflow wrote:
| > _Authorized to buyback up to $70B in shares, that 's a large
| number and indicates someone at google thinks rev is slowing
| down, see TikTok_
|
| Isn't it the opposite? It means Google thinks their stock will
| be undervalued, and they want to buy it back?
| christophilus wrote:
| Depends on whether you have good capital allocators at the
| top. Most companies don't, really.
| rabidonrails wrote:
| Althought 70B is a large number and based on the anti-trust
| lens that GOOG is under I wonder if they think this is a
| better way to return money to the shareholders than
| inviting DOJ scrutiny.
| kvathupo wrote:
| Tempted to sell at a loss, as opposed to waiting for the split
| at this point
| dntrkv wrote:
| Why would you possibly sell at this time? It's a solid
| quarter given the circumstances.
| midasuni wrote:
| If you own 10 at 2000 or it splits 10:1 and you own 100 at
| 200, what difference does the split make?
|
| (Obviously you can buy and sell smaller units but aside from
| that)
| rubiquity wrote:
| Retail traders that started "investing" in the last two
| years have been trained to believe that stock splits means
| a bunch of money will pile in because the price looks
| cheaper. Obviously there has never been a correlation there
| and even less so now with the wide availability of
| fractional shares.
| seaman1921 wrote:
| maybe you should get off the high horse and do some
| research as to the factors that could lead the stock
| price goes up during splits - not going to list it here
| due to your condescending tone
| whymauri wrote:
| Recent research in behavioral econ actually supports that
| a lower price on the ticker leads to more retail investor
| buy-in. I forget who, but it was a Yale professor who
| wrote a paper on this in the 2010s -- she gave a talk at
| D.E. Shaw back when I was an undergrad visiting for a
| summer program.
|
| I guess all I want to say is that it's more nuanced than
| 'obvious' and is probably an active debate right now for
| economists, but I wouldn't know more exact details.
| heleninboodler wrote:
| > Retail traders that started "investing" in the last two
| years have been trained to believe that stock splits
| means a bunch of money will pile in because the price
| looks cheaper
|
| I have heard this exact thing debated since the late
| 80's, so I'm not sure what the last two years has to do
| with it. The fact is, whether there's a real effect there
| or not depends less on the precise math of the situation
| and a whole lot of behavioral and psychological factors.
| Splits goosing the stock price is a real thing that
| happens. It may be entirely self-perpetuating crowd-mind
| BS but it does still happen.
| adabyron wrote:
| Retail has easier access to options & day trading now
| than in the 80's.
|
| Stock split results in much cheaper options, which many
| retail day traders seem to prefer.
|
| I might argue that a stock split to a cheaper price would
| increase your volatility due to the above. Though TSLA's
| current price might disagree with me as I think it's one
| of the most traded & is by no means cheap for options
| trading.
| mupuff1234 wrote:
| I heard it might also mean that it can then be added to
| the dow index which might trigger some automatic buying?
| rubiquity wrote:
| I'd expect that to be negligible because the size of
| funds Google is already part of (QQQ, VTI, SPY, etc.
| etc.) are orders of magnitude larger than ETFs that track
| the Dow (DIA is the only one that comes to mind).
|
| The Dow itself is a bit of gimmick in that its value is
| the sum of all the prices of the stocks in the index.
| Meaning if Google joins at $120 but kicks out a stock
| that was $300 then the Dow would go down 180 points.
| joshuamorton wrote:
| It also allows options trading by retail investors
| (options are traded in 100 share tranches, which for GOOG
| or AMZN right now means your minimum option trade is on
| an underlying value of ~$250K, meaning a 5-10% swing
| is... significant.). Splits make options trading more
| accessible to retail investors by dropping the minimum
| risk 10-20x which also might cause a natural demand
| increase.
|
| > Obviously there has never been a correlation there and
| even less so now with the wide availability of fractional
| shares.
|
| Splits have historically caused price bumps, so I think
| this isn't true.
| jeffbee wrote:
| Lower share prices will increase demand from small
| accounts. Today there are many accounts that can't afford
| to rationally hold even 1 share of GOOG.
| kikoreis wrote:
| But don't fractional shares eliminate this limitation?
| heleninboodler wrote:
| As pointed out elsewhere, options trading deals in lots
| of 100 shares, so the table stakes are very high for GOOG
| options right now. A split will open that up to many more
| traders. But also, even though they're not exactly
| exotic, not every brokerage account lets you trade
| fractional shares still. Mine don't, for example.
| vlovich123 wrote:
| If you can increase demand for a finite supply, the price
| increases. The bet on a stock split is that the existing
| price was a psychological barrier for retail investors and
| thus the split will bring in more retail investors.
| ghaff wrote:
| It _shouldn 't_. But historically there was a lot of
| research that said that it did--admittedly many from a time
| when buying fractional shares was harder/costlier.
| BaseballPhysics wrote:
| So, there is one notable way in which splits can have a
| practical impact on trading: options (and credit to Matt
| Levine for mentioning this recently). Options trading is
| still limited to blocks of 100. A split reduces the cost
| of those contracts.
|
| I do wonder, with the relatively recent availability of
| fractional share ownership, if the effect of splits will
| be more muted in the future as retail is no longer
| limited to whole share purchases. But who knows, there's
| also a psychological aspect to this that's hard to
| account for.
| ghaff wrote:
| My finance classes are at least partly a few decades out
| of date :-)
|
| Another reason that I recall is that (presumably) if a
| company does a split, it indicates that management is
| confident in the future--and a reverse split presumably
| indicates the opposite.
|
| >I do wonder, with the relatively recent availability of
| fractional share ownership, if the effect of splits will
| be more muted in the future
|
| Certainly, we've seen share prices of a fair number of
| companies recently that would have been considered well
| out of "normal" ranges historically.
| redmen wrote:
| Another: brings in more retail traders who base their
| decisions on the price of the stock
| colinmhayes wrote:
| They lost 6 billion on their equities compared to last years
| quarter. If you ignore that, which seems valid as it's fluky,
| they had a great quarter. Went from $13 billion in profit to
| $17.5. Would like to see more growth in youtube and GCP, but
| that's is nowhere near a facebook/netflix event.
| christophilus wrote:
| The fact that US companies have to count unrealized gains /
| losses on their income statement is just absurd.
| devonbleak wrote:
| Means no (or at least fewer) surprises when it becomes
| realized. In the context of the scandals of the past it
| makes sense.
| christophilus wrote:
| It makes sense to report them; just not as earnings or
| losses. It makes reasoning about earnings more annoying.
| I now have to subtract that out to determine how things
| are faring, as quarter-to-quarter, and even yearly-to-
| yearly moves in equities are largely noise.
| pkaye wrote:
| Is it different in EU?
| tempnow987 wrote:
| Does Add = Ad?
| dijit wrote:
| > still not sure how they can't compete with Azure and Amazon
| here?
|
| People go AWS because it's the default, easy to hire people who
| know it, AWS are willing to throw credits at you if you're in
| the US and once you're on the platform it's a serious effort to
| get off due to weird lock-ins.
|
| Azure has its niche in the windows market, a lot of smaller
| orgs are going AzureAD as a replacement (or in addition to) a
| normal on-prem AD solution, once you're on the platform it's
| easy to just use more of it and consume existing contracts.
|
| It helps immeasurably that if you're running windows workloads
| they "happen" to be reasonably priced, as opposed to other
| cloud providers.
|
| It's a shame, because google cloud is definitely my favourite
| of the public clouds, I hope it doesn't go anywhere and I'd be
| extremely happy to go back to it after using AWS for a while
| now.
| simsla wrote:
| I'd challenge that. Used to work with AWS, now with GCP.
|
| - They both throw credits at companies. - Services are
| similar. - Prices are similar, although Google sometimes has
| silly costs for "enabling" a service/API. - GCP dashboard is
| snappier. - AWS has good support.
|
| I'd wager the quality of support is the main differentiator.
| deanCommie wrote:
| IMO:
|
| * AWS makes the best 0th impression (the whole "nobody gets
| fired for choosing AWS" and as you said you can justify it
| based on absolutely no knowledge of it's details just purely
| on reputation)
|
| * Google makes the best 1st impression, by the virtue of it's
| beautiful consistency of behaviour, SDK standardization,
| clean billing models, and overall cross-platform cohesion. It
| just seems like you can learn GCP faster at first.
|
| * But AWS makes the best 2nd and subsequent impressions, as
| you realize consistency and clarity lacks the depth of AWS,
| or the true productivity gains by native services - native
| services Google has mostly rejected in favour of doubling
| down on it's K8S offering as a differentiator. While GCP can
| seem faster to learn, in practice building on AWS is actually
| faster and you can go build new full applications from
| scratch that you're happy operating in production quicker.
| [deleted]
| jljljl wrote:
| > - looks like they are reporting a loss(1.2B) this quarter,
| which is a big swing YoY where they made a profit of 4.9B
|
| You are looking at Other Expenses/Gains. The bottom line net
| income was 16,436 vs 17,930 LY -- so still a Net Profit, but
| down 8% YoY
| aliston wrote:
| If you look deeper, though, the biggest difference is
| actually in "other income" which itself was primarily driven
| by gain/loss in securities. In other words, the entire
| difference in net income this quarter is really a result of
| the markets tanking over the past few months. Google's
| operations are as profitable as ever.
| colinmhayes wrote:
| Google's net income is up 35% if you ignore the equity
| numbers. Not only is Google as profitable as ever, it's
| quite a bit more profitable than it has been. I fully
| expect GOOG to open up tomorrow, maybe even climb higher
| than today's open.
| jsnell wrote:
| That doesn't sound right. The operating income grew from
| 16.4B to 20.1B. That's 21%, not 35%?
| colinmhayes wrote:
| I'm counting net income less gains from equities. $13
| billion last year to $17.5 here. You're right though,
| probably should've just looked at change in operating
| income which is still a strong 21%.
| richardwhiuk wrote:
| > - looks like they are reporting a loss(1.2B) this quarter,
| which is a big swing YoY where they made a profit of 4.9B
|
| I don't see this in the statement?
| gniv wrote:
| As others have said, this is just loss form investments, due
| to the general market correction. If you want to see it in
| the press release, look for "Other income" in the press
| release (the most interesting part is on page 9).
| bryanrasmussen wrote:
| didn't Google announce a year or two ago that Cloud had 5 years
| to make a certain amount or it was gone?
| dekhn wrote:
| no. that was a tabloid claim based on iffy data. Cloud's main
| products (compute, storage, databases, load balancers, etc)
| aren't going anywhere.
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| Does Google dogfood cloud? Or is it compartmentalized from
| internal service infra?
| dekhn wrote:
| You can do some stuff on cloud; for example, for a few
| minor projects where we needed to make some web pages, we
| used GCP. However, it wasn't well integrated with
| internal, it was effectively just a web site like any
| other.
|
| I believe there had been multiple waves of attempting to
| get people to move to cloud, but at the time, there was
| no coherent strategy to move large parts of the tech
| stack to cloud. Unfortunately with any sufficiently
| complex production service that runs in borg, untangling
| the web of dependencies is usually too hard.
|
| Other things work great in the cloud; if I was a Google
| Researcher working on public data and publishing papers,
| I'd intentionally use Google Cloud (with access to VMs,
| CPUs, and GPUs, but not any internal data like the web
| page crawls) with Jax, Keras, TF, etc.
| cmrdporcupine wrote:
| Both.
|
| In reality almost all of Google is hosted on Borg. But I
| worked briefly on a project that was heavily interlinked
| between the two. I believe there's been more efforts to
| move things into GCP.
| dijit wrote:
| Afaik even "google cloud" itself runs atop Borg.
| jeffbee wrote:
| Where else would it run?
|
| G runs lots of small things on cloud but a company that
| is willing to fund 0.1% global efficiency efforts is
| never going to sacrifice far larger efficiency
| regressions just for the aesthetic pleasure of dogfooding
| cloud for major services like websearch.
| user3939382 wrote:
| The political corner of YouTube that I spend the most time on
| probably isn't even on their radar, but it's gotten to the
| point where almost every channel I subscribe to often mentions
| their out of band content on Rumble, Rokfin, Substack, etc
| because YouTube has been demonetizing left and right.
| bmarquez wrote:
| Oh yeah some creators are afraid of demonetizing (even though
| they're non-political, they're afraid the algorithm might
| accidently trigger on them) so they'll tell their viewers
| about their backup Odysee or Rumble page.
|
| It turns out there are fewer ads on their backup pages so I
| tend to watch there instead on YouTube.
| gigatexal wrote:
| What's this 1.2B loss you speak of? I don't follow
| rtall wrote:
| leokennis wrote:
| Regarding GCP my gut feeling is Google is way too unpredictable
| and quick to cancel products to seriously attract big
| enterprises.
|
| Anecdotally their Google Workspace offering however almost
| seems to be the default for smaller business that are not IT
| oriented or have a separate IT department.
| EnKopVand wrote:
| It has a lot more to do with how bad they are at selling IT
| to enterprises in my experience from the European public
| sector, which is now a very large Azure and AWS market.
|
| We went with Azure because it was the sort of "obvious"
| direction for a non-tech enterprise organisation that was
| already heavily windowsy and using office365, but what
| Microsoft and Amazon sell to enterprises is support. AWS
| didn't start out so well here in Europe, which is what gave
| Azure the chance to catch up, but once Amazon caught on, they
| became more compliant with European legislation than
| Microsoft is. Things like guaranteeing that every employee
| that comes near your data is an European citizen, is one area
| where AWS is still better than Azure, but basically what they
| do that Google doesn't, is that they listen and adopt to the
| needs of the trillion dollar industry.
|
| When Teams rolled out as a new feature in Enterprise 365, as
| available to everyone, our techies called Seattle (I can't
| spell redmund) and a few days later it was possible to not
| have it auto-available for everyone. When we had issues with
| Google education, and Google education was actually Google's
| best attempt at being supportive of enterprise, we had to
| talk with a chatbot and eventually had to physically drive to
| Google Denmark to annoy someone to get real support because
| our sales rep was on vacation.
|
| I'm not sure if you know this, but a major part of selling IT
| to enterprise is to sell the CTOs the ability to say "yes,
| email is down, but our guys are working directly with the
| people at Amazon/Microsoft headquarters and they are calling
| us with updates every 30 minutes." or "yes our servers are in
| Ireland, but some of our best techies have gone and
| physically inspected them with the EY consultants and our DPO
| firm and it was completely GDPR compliant", and all the other
| stuff you get to do when you make the companies billions.
| pkaye wrote:
| That is interesting about Google support because a while
| back I had some issues with my Google home devices so I was
| browsing their help guides and a popup asked if I need to
| speak with technical support. One click and 30s later
| someone was one line and spent 30m fixing my device issue.
| Not bad for something I spend $100 on.
| owlninja wrote:
| > Authorized to buyback up to $70B in shares, that's a large
| number and indicates someone at google thinks rev is slowing
| down, see TikTok
|
| Good for shareholders?
| colinmhayes wrote:
| The big number to me, Gain (loss) on equity securities,
| 2021:4,837 2022:(1,070)
|
| I don't think their equity gains/losses have anything to do
| with future business outlook, so ignoring this $6 billion loss
| YOY I'd say this was a fantastic quarter for them. They could
| show more in some of their non search sectors, but excluding
| that equity number went fro. $13 billion in profit to $17.5 for
| a 35% gain.
| mupuff1234 wrote:
| > that's a large number and indicates someone at google thinks
| rev is slowing down
|
| I thought buybacks were supposed to show a sign of trust in the
| company and that they believe the stock is "cheap"?
| vannevar wrote:
| Yes, seems like a bad move to buy stock if you expect it to
| go down.
| bombcar wrote:
| Buybacks are submarine dividends, it means the company
| doesn't know what to do with the money to grow so they're
| giving it back to the shareholders.
| Mikeb85 wrote:
| Buybacks and dividends are literally the way public markets
| are supposed to work. Raising capital without ever giving
| it back = a ponzi scheme.
|
| Anyhow buybacks are a way to give money back to investors
| while making each remaining share more valuable.
| trenning wrote:
| An aside comment I wanted to say thanks for doing these posts
| after earnings announcements. It's been a while since you've
| done one and I always appreciate seeing them.
| baskethead wrote:
| > - shares down slightly, but negligible.
|
| As of right now, shares are down $120, after being down $80
| during the trading session so it's pretty huge.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-04-26 23:00 UTC)