On Sat, 20 May 2006 03:35:19 +0100, Roy Schestowitz
>__/ [ Big Bill ] on Saturday 20 May 2006 02:31 \__
>> Article here. Only a littl'un.
>I haven't read the article, but...
>> I don't think Google is diversifying so much because it needs to,
>> rather you got all them PHDs in R&D somehow trying to justify their
>> Googley lifestyles, not wanting to give up them big Googlebucks. In
>> any industry you get one successful product which is great and works
>> fine and is immediately superseded by version after update as the R&D
>> and sales and marketing people need to bring out new things to keep
>> making their salaries. This is a consequence of an economy-based
>> society. No-one gets the product they want, the dynamic of the society
>> won't allow for it.
>The same arguments were used to explains eBay's use of their MBA's when they
>acquired PayPal and Skype. At Google, you have all these skilled people
>completing products and having plenty of code to re-use. Moreover, there is
>a chance to integrate one product with another. Let me try to find a
>suitable reference to what I once read...
>As you can see, this pretty much inspired my opinion above. To add, a
>business is said to always expand or diminish. It cannot stay static. If
>Google remain idle and cannot increase market share, they could soon find
>themselves going downwards, progressively.
Or they could improve their original core business of search. But that
would throw a lot of their staff on the scrap-heap and they don't want
to go there. Any day now we'll be seeing search with a
picture-in-picture facility and frame-by-frame. Facilities we haven't
asked for and don't need. All we want is a better search engine, what
they want to give us search filled with needless complexities.