13 Dec 2002 | Bill Brown said...

Personally, I think this one is big. Bigger than big. This is one long-term mofo of an idea.

It's like MySimon.com without any limitation on merchants and no paid placement. It's like online shopping's search engine. And it's in beta.

If they expose this to the Google API, any site could become a comparison shopping site. Plus, they've registered Froogle.com so I could see this becoming a totally separate site, not just a tab in Google.

Oh yeah, first post.

13 Dec 2002 | JF said...

Google is set to IPO next year. You going to get in?

13 Dec 2002 | pecky said...

I would love to, but getting in on an IPO is a rich man's playground. Unless you have a couple hundred grand laying around, you will be watching from the sidelines.

13 Dec 2002 | Darrel said...

What a great name.

13 Dec 2002 | Ry said...

Google going public? It's the gatekeeper of the Internet, how would corporate, money-driven management fit into the very altruistic entity that we all know? Will Google become a self-serving home to homogenize the Internet, giving preference to some sites over others?

13 Dec 2002 | JB said...

Will Google become a self-serving home to homogenize the Internet, giving preference to some sites over others?

Absolutely.

15 Dec 2002 | James said...

I really don't want google to go public. The pressure to grow bloated and serve the all mighty dollar instead of the customer (with money being a byproduct). Course there is always alltheweb.com.

15 Dec 2002 | Darrel said...

A dot com IPO? Isn't that, like, *so* 1999?

What are there current revenue streams? Advertising and that search appliance? Consulting?

16 Dec 2002 | Thumper said...

James,

What makes you think Google's current investors aren't every bit as demanding that Google make money as the public market will be? What do you think will change when the company adds investors that isn't happening now? You really think this is a not-for-profit venture? And how is this necessarily bad?

16 Dec 2002 | alisha said...

There are lots of public for-profits that make tremendous efforts to be responsible and true to thier values. I can imagine Google will be one of them. Theyve had success by doing it different than the others and I doubt theyll abandon that strategy.

"What do you think will change when the company adds investors that isn't happening now?"
---
A lot could change because theyll have to please the investors and that will go against some current policies. It all depends on what deal they strike with the investors. As powerful as theyve become, Im sure theyll be able to call most of thier own shots when they sign. I for one, would love to see it happen: a for-profit, public company with a big heart, making lots of money. *sigh*

16 Dec 2002 | Bill Brown said...

http://www.37signals.com/svn/archives/000011.php?10#comments

16 Dec 2002 | Bill Brown said...

D'oh, wrong clipboard!

What I meant to say was:

The difference between having public and private investors is that of proximity. Private investors are much closer to your business and probably won't sue you at the slightest provocation. Plus, you can't get people buying one share so they can sue you because your Board isn't diverse enough.

16 Dec 2002 | Dave said...

Im a little irked this didn't show up in labs.google.com (note: a *little*. I understand why it didn't). Google puts some cool stuff there to look at...

16 Dec 2002 | James said...

Bill, exactly my point!

Private investors are much closer to the process, the people, and the customer.

Allowing anyone with the money to buy a piece on a tip from some stock trader and getting a say (even a very small one) doesn't strike me as the best idea. Of course Google needs to make money and they are doing so. I fail to see any benefits to the USER if Google goes public (other then more money for research and dev). Maybe its just because I'm so happy with Google the way it is.