Google Inc.

1. Company History

1.1. Paid Listing

1.1.1. 1999 – C-P-I (Cost-per-impression)

1.1.2. 2002 – C-P-C (Cost-Per-Click)

1.1.3. 2002 - C-T-P (Click-Through-Rate)

1.1.4. 2002

1.1.4.1. Launch Froogle

1.1.5. 2003

1.1.5.1. Launch “contextual” paid listing (AdSense)

1.1.6. 2005

1.1.6.1. Launch Google map

1.2. Factor Affecting listing paid

1.2.1. Coverage rate

1.2.2. Click through rate

1.2.3. Average CPC

1.2.4. Revenue Splits

2. Pressure On the Core Business

2.1. Advertisers

2.1.1. Advertisers worried about facing charges for clicks either didn’t occur at all or lacked appropriate user interest.

2.2. Advertise complaints that their ads were appearing on the sites they did not approve.

2.3. Online Publishers

2.3.1. Online publisher complained that Google use their content impermissibly.

2.3.2. Google required the sites to allow their content to be used in Google Places if they want to remain in Google Search, though Google ended that requirement under regulatory scrutiny.

2.4. Users

2.4.1. The privacy of user details problem

2.4.1.1. Google collected user’s full search histories, including all details of user searches and the search results that users clicked.

2.4.1.2. This search and browsing history sensitive because it potentially revealing all user manners

3. Improve search & advertisement

3.1. Engineer constainly fine-tuned search algorithm

3.2. Jan 2004 -Launch personalized search

3.2.1. Order result by analyzing user prio search and clicks. Inclusing search history (user past search)

3.2.2. Work in team of 3 – 5 per group

3.3. Expanded effort to attract more ads

3.3.1. Google sought to reach small and medium size business almost everywhere

3.4. Improve advertizer features

3.4.1. Offer free software

3.5. 2 reason google superior performance

3.5.1. Improve on Overture’s policy or ranking paid listing according to bid also consider listing relevance

3.5.2. Google paid listing netwok had attract 2 or 3 times as many advertiser as Overture’s

3.6. Chronology

3.6.1. 2007

3.6.1.1. -$3.1 billion acquisition of Double-Click for incresing strenght in placing display advertisement

3.6.2. 2009

3.6.2.1. Plan to build an AdExchange to expand its role in placing display advertisement

3.6.3. 2014

3.6.3.1. Double-Click and AdExchange become top market place for displa advertisement

4. New Business

4.1. 1.Hosting : Video & Book

4.1.1. Youtube / copyright based / unauthorize video post to google server without permission from the right holders

4.1.2. Book / digital version (hosting & search) / automatic book scanner , “ fair-use” , no copyright infrigment / court found it did not harm the copyright owner.

4.2. 2.Communation app

4.2.1. Gmail-2004-1gb space / ymail and hotmail 2-4 MB

4.2.2. Real time and voice communication- Gchat and using gmail interface

4.3. 3. mobile and tablet

4.3.1. 2005

4.3.1.1. Android Inc.

4.3.2. 2007

4.3.2.1. launch Open Handset Alliance

4.3.2.2. Core OS open source

4.3.2.3. Lower device course

4.3.2.4. Application reach features

4.3.3. 2010

4.3.3.1. Nexus One by HTC markerted by it own site

4.3.3.2. Google to lenovo but discomfurt from direct computation from their key OS supplier

4.3.4. 2014

4.3.4.1. No longer made or sold its own phones.To select mobile product directly to consumer

4.4. 4.Productivity Application

4.4.1. “Cloud”

4.4.1.1. Server support and easy upgrade

4.4.1.2. New challenges :

4.4.1.2.1. Required fast internet connection

4.4.1.2.2. Made privacy issue more salient

4.4.2. Cloud application

4.4.2.1. Gmail , Google+ , Picasa , Calander

4.4.3. Cloud based

4.4.3.1. Compete with windows platform

4.4.3.2. Google docs to Miscrosoft Office

4.5. 5. Others

4.5.1. Chrome web browser

5. Organization

5.1. Management

5.1.1. President

5.1.1.1. Larry Page

5.1.1.2. Sergey Brin

5.1.2. CEO

5.1.2.1. Eric Schmidt

5.2. Advantage of Dual class equity on Google

5.2.1. Allows company to take risk on long term project

5.2.2. Maintain control of the majority votes

5.2.3. Fend off hostile take over

5.2.4. Tend to immune from the termination of board

5.2.5. Fend off low values bid on shares

5.2.6. Company able to pursue personal priorities

5.3. Managing Innovation

5.3.1. Uses 70/20/10 rules

5.3.1.1. 10% On new business

5.3.1.2. 20% on extended project

5.3.1.3. 70% on business core

5.4. Governance Structure

5.4.1. Dual class Equity

5.5. Cooperate value

5.5.1. Don’t Be Evil

5.5.2. Technology Matters

5.5.3. Cooperate value

6. Google Statement's of Philosophy

6.1. Focus on user all else will follow

6.2. It's best to do one thing really, really well

6.3. Fast is better than slow

6.4. Democracy on the web works

6.5. You dont need to be at your desk to need an answer

6.6. You can make money without doing evil

6.7. There's always more information out there

6.8. The need for informations across all borders

6.9. You can be serious without a suit

6.10. Great just isn't enough

7. Make Worker more effective

7.1. Hire by Committee

7.2. Cater to their every need

7.3. Pack them in

7.4. Make coordination easy

7.5. Eat your own dog food

7.6. Encourage creativity

7.7. Strive to reach consensus

7.8. Don't be evil

7.9. Data driven decision

7.10. Communicate effectively

8. Public Policy & Competition

8.1. Opened Washington Office

8.1.1. 2008

8.1.1.1. Watch over public policy questions of concern to Google

8.2. Favored Government Policies

8.2.1. User could access Google services

8.3. Endorsed Network Neurality Rules

8.3.1. Prevent ISPs from levying surchsrges

8.3.2. E.g.: Charging company to make its site load more quickly

8.4. Federal Communication Comission(FCC)

8.4.1. 2007

8.4.1.1. Consumers permitted to use the newly-available wireless spectrum with whatever devices, services and apps they chose

8.5. Google Market Share

8.5.1. 2009

8.5.1.1. Share exceed 90% search queries in France, Germany, Spain, Switzerland and UK and passed 65% in us

8.5.2. Google argued that "competition is one click away", consumers could switch to other search engines

8.6. Google Competition Position

8.6.1. Feb 2008

8.6.1.1. After Microsoft's unsuccessful $44.6 billion bid to acquire Yahoo!, Google place its advertisements with Yahoo! search results

8.6.2. U.S. department of Justice - It would file an antitrust lawsuit to block such placements and the parties abandoned the transaction

8.6.3. But concerns remained. E.g.: Christine Varney, assistant attorney general for antitrust at Department of Justice, had remarked about Google's "monopoly in Internet online advertising" and its "gathering market power"

8.7. Regulatory Intervention had been Limited

8.7.1. 2014

8.7.1.1. US Federal Trade Commission(FTC) - investigated Google at length but did not file competition case

8.7.1.2. FTC ended its investigation after Google agreed to license certain patents to other firms

8.7.1.3. European Commission investigation seem poised to require larger changes - Google providing competitors with a designated portion of certain search results pages'

8.7.1.4. The details agreement had proven controversial

8.7.1.5. Competitors questioned the fees

8.7.1.6. Various companies and politicians questioned whether the settlement would assure competiton

9. What Should Google Do Next?

9.1. Stay focused on current Google distinctive competence

9.1.1. developing superior search

9.1.2. monitize through target advertising

9.2. Branch into new areas

9.2.1. expand into a full portal like Yahoo! or MSN

9.3. Continue challenge Microsoft prevalence on the PC desktop

10. Selected Competitors

10.1. Microsoft

10.1.1. May 2009

10.1.1.1. Bing - Integrated presentation of detailed data

10.1.2. 2008 - 2013

10.1.2.1. Bing offered cash-back feature

10.1.2.2. Launched Bing with an $80 million advertising campaign

10.1.2.3. Advertisers bought placements through Microsoft's AdCenter

10.1.3. July 2009

10.1.3.1. Microsoft and Yahoo! began negotiation that would place Microsoft ads on Yahoo! result pages

10.1.4. Windows Azure let developers run apps on Microsoft hosted platforms, while Microsof Office add web apps through web browser

10.1.5. Most cloud-based apps were run on public clouds

10.1.6. Promised let companies install certain web apps on their own server, improving privacy and security

10.2. Yahoo!

10.2.1. 1997

10.2.1.1. Turned down offer to acquire Google for only $1 million

10.2.2. 2014

10.2.2.1. Continued compete head-to-head with Google in search and paid listings

10.2.3. Had offerings in categories that Google was notably absent

10.3. eBay

10.3.1. Customers shop product visit eBay to find qualified seller, or find vendors through Google

10.3.2. eBay's PayPal services faced competition from Google Checkout

10.3.3. 2013

10.3.3.1. eBay economists questioned whether Google AdWords advertising worked as well as reports seemed to indicate

10.3.3.2. Google staff questioned the study's findings and results

10.3.3.3. eBay suffered sharp drop in algorithmic search traffic from Google, while some attributed to a penalty by Google

10.4. Apple

10.4.1. 2007

10.4.1.1. Launch iPhone - promise of molie computing through flexible devices

10.4.2. 2014

10.4.2.1. Retained more than 40% market share among U.S. smartphone users

10.4.3. Many app developers continued write mobile apps for Apple iOS first or in some instances only for iOS

10.4.4. September 2012

10.4.4.1. Release of iOS 6 - removed Google Maps and substituted with Apple Maps

10.4.5. December 2012

10.4.5.1. Google provide replacement for users to install if they so chose

10.5. Amazon

10.5.1. Initially sold only its own inventory

10.5.2. 1999

10.5.2.1. Let third-party sellers sell alongside Amazon

10.5.2.2. Third-party sellers helped Amazon expand into selling almost anything

10.5.3. 1996

10.5.3.1. Amazon's Associates program let interested web sites promote products on Amazon for fee up to 8.5%

10.5.4. August 2014

10.5.4.1. Amazon proposed to broaden its advertising network

10.6. Others

10.6.1. From Hulu(online video) to New York Times(news) and Facebook(communications, picture, hosting and apps platform)

10.6.2. August 2005

10.6.2.1. French president Jacques Chirac announced loan program for development of a Franco-German multimedia search engine