*Much provocative food for thought from +Jason Calacanis's post: *Google is going to win everything."*

(My commentary in [ ] brackets.)

"...Facts:
1. No company has as many smart people as Google.

[But they are (self-)selected smart by Google's hiring processes to skew in a particular engineering direction that CAN make them "dumb" (=less smart) in more social, humanistic, and philosophical terms...]

2. No company is as ambitious as Google.

3. No company is working on as many hard problems as Google.

4. No company makes as many big bets as Google.

5. No company is willing to make as many crazy acquisitions as Google.

6. No company has more data than Google. [maybe let's give them a lot less of that data down the road... :) ]

7. Few companies understand how to play the government better than Google.

8. No company has more global influence than Google.

9. No company is as ruthlessly efficient as Google.

10. Only one CEO is more ambitious than Google’s Larry Page.

Google is going to win everything.

...In truth, the 10 ‘facts’ I’ve outlined above are not mine; these are the opinions I’ve collected over the past year asking intelligent folks, ‘So what do you think about Google?’

... I haven’t found anyone who disagrees with these 10 facts – do you? The executives in technology, media, finance, journalism and government that I spend time with... have formed the general consensus above.

They’re in awe of Google’s performance since Larry Page took over. They’ve never seen anything like it in the history of not only technology, but humanity. In this piece, I’m going to explore the following:

a) What are Google’s most ambitious projects?

b) What our world will look like in 10 and 20 years if Page & Co. execute at (just) their current level

c) What the ramifications are for startups, investors, the media, journalism, government, education, privacy, freedom and humanity
...
Google is a Black Swan because Google has been redesigned by Larry to be ruthlessly efficient with an unlimited supply of data, money and talent. More important than that is Larry’s benchmark for success: moon shots and 10x ideas. 

If you work for Larry and are not thinking 10x, don’t expect to keep your job for very long. That insanity-by-design is creating a one-upmanship that hasn’t been seen in the history of mankind. 
...
a) What are Google’s most ambitious projects?

a1. Free Internet Everywhere for Every Human for Life

It could not be clearer: Google will make connectivity ‘air.’ Google Fiber to every home in every city – well underway. I’ve written about this before (see: Google Fiber is a takeover plan: http://goo.gl/TDhoCO). 
...

a2. Data, Machine Learning & Quantum Computing
...
a3. Wearable & Implantable Computing
...
a4. Venture Capital, Funding & Currency
...
a5. Media 
...
YouTube is signing the NFL, and Chromecast is going to be free. The YouTube ads you see now (you know, the targeted ones you can skip) will become the standard on the digital version of the NFL. 

Google can easily outbid ESPN and HBO for content, and with the compensation of CEOs at traditional media companies based on short-term results, Page has a massive advantage. You see, Page already has more money than he needs, and he’s legacy-driven. The best a cynic can say is he’s “equity-driven,” and that puts him at a massive advantage over Bob Iger at Disney/ ESPN. Larry can take a 10-year view, while Bob has to take a 10-week view.

Page could literally buy the rights to every major sport, make them free on YouTube, Android and Chrome, stream them over the global Google network and let you pay to take the ads out with Google Coins. He could do this for a decade without putting a dent into Google profitability. 

Why hasn’t Google done this? Simple. They don’t want to trigger antitrust alarms. So, they’ll start with the digital rights to the NFL, then they’ll buy DIRECTV and unbundle channels by letting your DVR/set-top box connect to YouTube subscriptions (all legal today!). 

By the time the government figures any of this out, Google will have the love of the Senators and Congress members’ kids and there’ll be no way to pry the awesomeness from people’s hands. Boiling frogs, baby. Boiling frogs.

a8. Transportation
...
Summary of part one: Google’s founders have no interest in giving dividends or doing stock buybacks. They have control of the company and more money than can be spent in 1,000 lifetimes, so they are playing for legacy. 200 years from now, few will know that Google started as a search engine. They’ll probably think of it as the company that cured cancer, made the internet free for humanity and built self-driving cars.

Tim Cook is busy meeting with Carl Icahn and launching the 5c – an iPhone that’s $99 cheaper but still has a massive margin – providing more money to buy back shares.

Microsoft added a two-level kickstand to the Surface 2, and Facebook will have figured out how to trick you into clicking on native ads on your smartphone. The only person Larry Page can’t catch is Elon Musk at this point, and I’m fairly convinced the lead investor in the Mars mission will be Google and then some other, you know, nation states.
...
Questions:

I. I outlined eight areas Google is being wildly aggressive – which ones did I miss?

II. What could stop Google at this point?

III. How should startups view Google, Google Ventures and Page’s ambition?

IV. What will Google’s stock & enterprise value be in 10 years?

V. What will Google be remembered for in 100 years?

VI. Where does my argument breakdown?

VII. How should the government look at – or deal with – Google’s ambition?

VIII. Net, Net, Net, is this good or bad for society?

IX. What question didn’t I ask that I should have?
"---

#google #bigdata   #googlewinseverything   /cc +Alexander Becker +Alex Grossman +Gideon Rosenblatt +Gregory Esau +Rennie Allen +David Wood +Eli Fennell +Steve Faktor +Cindy Brown +Kee Hinckley +John Furrier +George Station +Tadeusz Szewczyk +John Blossom 
Shared publiclyView activity