__/ [ 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 fine and is immediately superseded by version after update as the R&D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.
Roy S. Schestowitz | "Error, no keyboard - press F1 to continue"
http://Schestowitz.com | Free as in Free Beer ¦ PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
3:30am up 22 days 10:27, 11 users, load average: 1.35, 1.58, 1.31
http://iuron.com - semantic engine to gather information