Google

[HFWR]

Originally Posted by twaddle

...have more money than they know what to do with. ...

Ding, ding, ding?

[fluffy]

I don't invest in individual stocks but being a techie I can't help liking these types of discussions. I mostly agree with twaddle. IMO Google cannot and won't try to enter the infrastructure market by providing proprietory consumer hardware and/or free universal wi-fi limited to or otherwise pushing their online apps. My reasoning:

1) Legal issues. Local ISPs will fight this just like they fight various municipalities' plans to provide free wi-fi "mesh". Also limiting internet access to only Google-approved sites seems at least as monopolistic as Microsoft's OS alleged "preference" for Microsoft products.

2) Net neutrality. I happen to think net neutrality is mostly a bogus cause but Google has been heavily campaigning for it for years and their entering the infrastructure market and cutting out non-Google sites/apps would be a complete 180 on the issue.

3) Bias against close/proprietory systems. This is something only techies will likely to fully appreciate but a techie-driven company with as deep Linux roots as Google is very unlikely to suddenly come out with a closed system. If anything, Google goes out of its way to provide easy access and integration to their online apps to outside parties (see Google APIs), even if there is no immediate obvious benefit to Google.

4) Cost of deployment/maintenance. Self-explanatory.

In general this strategy seems much more Microsoft-y than Google-y. Microsoft could provide a free wi-fi mesh that locks people into MSN and other Microsoft-approved sites and hosted versions of Office and whatever other apps for a small fee and/or targeted advertising. That would certainly be a huge blow to Google. And Microsoft actually has the money to pull it off. (I'm not saying they will or should, of course).

Google certainly may provide free wi-fi in some cities (San Fran) as part of their general effort to maintain and improve their good public image. But it would not be nationwide, would not include proprietory consumer hardware, and would not limit the sites that can be accessed.

What is likely to happen IMO as far as Google's online apps is that Google continues to improve their online apps, continue to improve/popularize their client-hosted software like the toolbar, and integrate the two more and more closely giving the user more and more incentive to start using them over Microsoft Office.

And of course Google will continue carrying on their hundreds of R&D projects which for them is like financing hundreds of startups. Most will amount to nothing but a few gems will pay off big like keyword-based ads did since their intro in, I think, 2000. Basically a sophisticated version of the 1000 monkeys on 1000 typewriters

[twaddle]

GOOG is a fun company to speculate about. Lots of money, and lots of smart people.

It's pretty clear that they want to get their apps on cell phones, but I just don't believe it would be much of a market opportunity for them.

Supposedly, they acquired the guy who founded Danger (Sidekick), so one rumor is that they're building their own cell-phone OS.

The 700MHz spectrum they say they want to bid on has no existing infrastructure. No cell sites. No wireless chips. No handsets. Nada.

So, yeah, the infrastructure costs would be huge. Much higher than some sort of WiFi deployment....

[Webzter]

Originally Posted by fluffy

Many good points

Well, in general, I agree with your points. However, I think any speculation that any of us could have would be wildly offbase from what will actually happen.

For example.

I was on an 'innovation' project at big consumer electronics company x... We were exploring a business model of working with ISPs to allow one consumer, say, Joe, to receive a WiMax (802.16) signal to his house. We would then flip it to an 802.11 signal. He would then be able to resell Internet connectivity to his neighbors... they would connect to his 802.11 signal and we would provision those neighbors (they were blocked at the router until we granted them access... sort of like many hotel or coffee shop systems).

If Joe wanted to offer the service for free, we might charge Joe a certain nominal fee per client per day. If Joe wanted to charge for the service, we would handle processing and settlement and take a percentage of the profits.

Expand that out to a city wanting to use that approach to offer free Internet service in their parks. Or, a coffee shop owner wanting a hotspot in a day.

bottom line, I don't see how they'd use it, but they have smarter people than me working there.

Of course, when you've got money like they do, maybe it's simpler than that. Better to own a part of the spectrum and not need it than to think you might need it and not be able to get it.

[theoldwizard]

Originally Posted by fluffy

IMO Google cannot and won't try to enter the infrastructure market by providing proprietory consumer hardware and/or free universal wi-fi limited to or otherwise pushing their online apps.

They don;t have to get in the infrastructure business, they will "let the other guy do it !"

Google, Sprint team up on WiMAX

The deal makes Google the exclusive provider for Web search on the portal and the preferred provider of Internet chat and e-mail. Google also will be providing mobile ads, along with its search results, and sharing the revenue with Sprint.

[theoldwizard]

Originally Posted by cute fuzzy bunny

And last time I checked, Google wasn't much of a software company. Its an advertiser.

If you still stand by this statement, perhaps you should read this

How to start on your road to riches with Google AdWords today

In my book, Google ia an "advertising service provider" with some pretty unique software tools !