Analyst firm BIA/Kelsey has projected that by 2015 there will be more local searches coming from smartphones than PCs in the US.
Google’s revenues rose to $10.65 billion in the first quarter of 2012, resulting in net income of $2.89 billion, or $8.75 per share, the company announced after market close today. The revenue number represents a 24% increase over the year-ago period. Additionally, the board of directors proposed the creation of a new class of non-voting shares — to be distributed as a dividend to all current shareholders — effectively resulting in an two for one stock split.
“We had a very strong quarter,” said CEO Larry Page on a conference call with press and analysts, “Since becoming CEO again, I have pushed hard to focus on the big bets.”
Page described the creation of a new class of stock as enabling the founders to keep corporate decision-making amongst a small group, allowing the company to continue to take a longer-term view on the business. Though Page and Sergey Brin, in a 2012 founders’ letter, say they know some won’t be happy about the decision, “…after careful consideration with our board of directors, we have decided that maintaining this founder-led approach is in the best interests of Google, our shareholders and our users. Having the flexibility to use stock without diluting our structure will help ensure we are set up for success for decades to come.”
The decision begs speculation about what Google may be planning to do with its stock — acquisitions, perhaps? — that it wants to do without granting voting rights. But, in the letter, the founders address this, saying: “we don’t have an unusually big acquisition planned, in case you were wondering.”
Recently released reports by Efficient Frontier, RKG and Covario give insight into how paid search did in the last quarter, and predict what spending might look like for the rest of the year to come.
- John Battelle, Search, Plus Your World, As Long As It’s Our World
Once again, Google steps in a pile of doodoo with its maladroit efforts in trying to absorb the social web. Unwilling to simply index things and offer them up as search results, Google wants to ‘socialize’ search. What this means is that search is just another battlefield for Google to fight the war for the future against Facebook, Twitter, etc.
On one hand, you have to admit that Google faces a new world, one that is increasingly social, and the search company has to get in there. But this is not the way to do it.
I continue to be amazed that Google doesn’t look at its email and calendar apps as a good place to build social, instead of dicking around with search.(via stoweboyd)
You aren’t the only one using search engines to diagnose your symptoms when you get sick (or have a bout of hypochondria). The Wolters Kluwer Health survey asked members of the American Medical Association a simple question: “How often would you use the following sources [professional journals, colleagues, medical reference books, search engines, etc.] to gain information used to diagnose, treat and care for patients?” It turns out that only professional journals and colleagues outrank search engines, and 46 percent of physicians cite Google and its ilk as frequent sources of information.
» via The Atlantic
I wonder how true these numbers are… If we are adding the factor that it is e g perceived as “unprofessional” to google something and therefore most likely is biasing the answers, the reference to professional journals are probably lower and googling and “medical/drug sales reps” remarkably higher.
Another aspect is that google very often hold references to both professional journals and blogs of colleagues. And colleagues might have acquired their knowledge from surfing the web…
But even without these adjustments the number are really interesting and a consequence of this is that patients and physicians probably should google their symptoms together rather then separate of each other…