Google will disappear in five years! Rejoice!
- Thread starter manny521
- Start date
MaxTucker
BANNED
- Aug 22, 2010
- 423
- 334
You almost hit the nail on the head. I am passionate about defending something but it is not Google. I am defending rational thinking and logic. Unfortunately you lack these two things so I feel the need to correct you. If you look back you will see that I have not defended Google. I have simply stated that the 'facts' you present have no bearing on Googles continued domination of the search market.
My problem with you Manny is that you lack logic and you lack any knowledge of economics. Yet you continue to post your half-assed theories. All I ask is that you try to understand something before you post about it. Is that too much to ask?
Estimated earning reports are just that, estimates. If I company does not meet it's estimate it does not mean it is in trouble. It simply means the estimates were off. I am not a fan of Googles policies, I think they do a lot of fucked up stuff. However, I am not some deluded person who reads a news report about a share price drop and thinks Google is actually hurting.
So take a second to read back on what I have said. I am not defending Google. I simply have a problem with your uneducated and baseless assumptions.
So let me put this in the simplest terms possible so you might be able to grasp it:
----- Me no defend Google. Me have problem wit you because you make dumb thread. Me have problem with you because you no understand what you speak about.
Does this make sense to you now?
Your grasping at straws. I work in an industry which requires me to read economic news daily. I now Caddie and Eric because I read their articles at least once per week. I call them Caddie and Eric because it is easier than typing Cadie Thompson and Eric Jackson. Why would I type their full names over and over? Maybe I should find out their middle names and type those too?
I can recite information about these people because I work in financial market and I read/watch Bloomberg, Reuters, CNBC and others daily.
Why should I be banned? Is it because I disagree with you and question your knowledge on a subject?
Also, I am in the UK whereas Cadie Marie Elaine Thompson and Erick Matthew Elias Jackson the 2nd are in America. You think what? I have lunch with these people daily?
Last edited:
BlueTurtle
BANNED
- Nov 30, 2011
- 699
- 1,333
Did you even take a look at who wrote this news report?
It is that dumb ass, ditzy, blonde sorry excuse for a reporter called Cadie Thompson. Cadie is not an economist, she is a tech blogger. She does not report news, she reports rumor. Here is another brilliant piece by Cadie.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/47674474/Facebook_Will_Disappear_in_5_to_8_Years_Analyst
Oh wait, it is almost exactly the same article posted four months ago but that time it was about Facebook. Maybe she has a template?
What is even worse is that she quotes Eric Jackson, another tech reporter. I am sure he doesn't have an agenda right? Well..... almost every article he writes about Apple is positive, he thinks they will buy Twitter soon and use it to destroy Facebook. Yet, almost every Google and Facebook article he writes is negative. Not exactly an unbiased opinion then?
Well none of this matters to you does it? As long as it's anti-Google you are ready to open wide and swallow.
What 90% of these 'bhw economic experts' who get all their information and "hot tips" from the web don't realize is that journalists/tv/media in general are not in the slightest bit interest in making you money. They're interested in writing news that gets readers and makes profit for the newspaper/show/magazine/site.
They think the people behind these articles are top economic experts who are doing everyone a public service by sharing their brilliant analysis on the future of the markets. It's really a joke. Most of these journalists have a basic understanding of economics at best. They're writing for the uneducated masses, so they really don't need much of an education in finance or economics to get readers.
I'm getting sick of seeing people quote garbage articles and then coming across as if they're some authority. I doubt most of these people even know the difference between gross profit and net profit let alone the reasoning behind why companies rise and fall. It's getting really annoying tbh. If people want to be gullible that's fine, but when they start hammering the forum with their "economic analysis" that comes from the latest "hot tip" from some journalist then it starts to get old.
Did you see that manny even asked if someone can get you banned? What a douche. You're one of the few people in here that knows what he's talking about when it comes to economics/finance.
I completely agree. This is the exact problem I have with manny + a few others too. Lack of knowledge, lack of reading comprehension yet they continue to post utter crock that lacks any sense or consistency and they do so with such a cocky/authoritative disposition.
Last edited:
Scritty
Elite Member
- May 1, 2010
- 3,019
- 4,707
Yes - Google may be gone (at least as such a major force) in 5 years - but it will have nothing to do with this article.
On the other hand they might not - but it will happen some day.
No business manages to keep a mononoply sized share of a panopoly market for ever. Never happened in the history of marketing - and Google certainly won't change that.
Scritty
On the other hand they might not - but it will happen some day.
No business manages to keep a mononoply sized share of a panopoly market for ever. Never happened in the history of marketing - and Google certainly won't change that.
Scritty
BlueTurtle
BANNED
- Nov 30, 2011
- 699
- 1,333
it doesn't really matter, seo will keep on living
Maybe, maybe not. Things do change.
Business will keep on living though.
Dr. Hulu Zu Fred
Newbie
- Oct 9, 2012
- 34
- 7
What a great expression, love it!!!!!!
But you all know nothing! N-Gage by Nokia will comeback and kill the whole internet. The Uber-net is just in development. Watch out!
futurestic06
Supreme Member
- Apr 16, 2011
- 1,204
- 149
LOL!
I don't think so. Because the giant company that controls the whole online system can't be disappear in just 5 years
I don't think so. Because the giant company that controls the whole online system can't be disappear in just 5 years
seveneleven
Power Member
- Sep 25, 2012
- 691
- 398
Unlikely dude
assphuck
Senior Member
- Feb 22, 2009
- 1,198
- 909
Google Search may shrink, but their presence in other areas will allow the company to continue growing.
The Secretary of Defense, Leon Panetta, has stated that the battlefield of the future will be in cyberspace. Google is positioning itself to be a big player in this arena. As the top data mining company in the world, with a presence on websites, computers, mobile phones and an expanding footprint in cars, Google could transition itself into a defense company that provides counter-terrorism and national security services directly to governments. While I know this thought might be too advanced for the mentality of some, you can look to Google's acquisitions and see their expanding presence in security related areas.
Google is also a sponsor at the National Cyber Security Alliance and Google is already alerting its users of targeted state sponsored cyber attacks.
Great post. Yes, I agree that the company is acquiring a lot of different interests to diversify their business in the event of their search engine eventually declining in popularity. They definitely have learned from yahoo's mistakes. They have obviously taken on a lot of smart business strategists because they (unfortunately) seem to have the right idea. Even though Google+ was a fail, it was right to at least try. Same with their mobile business, and their eventual foray into security.
Although, yes, I do hope that Google will fail. If I am a millionaire in 5 years, and Google is like Yahoo, then I will know there is a god
BlueTurtle
BANNED
- Nov 30, 2011
- 699
- 1,333
You must be a very rich man with your ability to predict the future of the markets.
Advanced? What you mean is people with sound reasoning abilities wouldn't make such a massive jump in logic that just because of a passing comment by the Secretary of Defense and the fact that Google has a lot of data they're going to become a defense company.
What expanding presence in security related areas? The anti virus company they bought? Yeah, they must be getting into national security! It won't have anything to do with detecting viruses on gmail. No, definitely not, that would be too obvious.
Gosh, yes, they're also a sponsor of an organization setup to keep people safe online. Definitely a sign they're getting into national security.
I'm sure all the other sponsors there are planning on making this magnificent leap to become a defense company for the coming cyber wars!
Oh, and don't forget Google alerting its users of potential hackers. That would have nothing to do with preventing its users from doing silly things with their passwords, nope. That's Google testing the water to see how effective it is at being a big defense company.
*puts tinfoil-hat on*
That's not why companies acquire other companies. It's not as a 'backup plan' in case the main business fails. They're acquiring those companies for their technologies. They also aren't buying up any security related things other than facial recognition and anti-virus. AV is for gmail and the facial recognition is because facial recognition is something that will play a big role on the internet in the coming years and Google likes any technology that will keep it ahead of the game.
Last edited:
assphuck
Senior Member
- Feb 22, 2009
- 1,198
- 909
BlueTurtle, you have proven yourself to be a moron in your other thread where you quoted a high school homework website for facts regarding monopolies. Then you further stated that antitrust laws have nothing to do with a monopoly. Now you want to jump into this shit? You are intellectually challenged to say the least. Beat it moron.
BlueTurtle
BANNED
- Nov 30, 2011
- 699
- 1,333
That's an excellent response. You've quite clearly shown that you don't have the ability to respond with reason. This is the second time your argument has been "you're too dumb to understand so I won't bother"
You also take what I say completely out of context.
We were discussing what a monopoly is because you were extremely confused. You thought/think a monopoly is when a company makes several acquisitions.
I corrected you and you then hit me with department of justice quotes.
I then explained the court ruling to you, as you were able to understand the statements made by the court, which is understandable as the average person does find it difficult to interpret legal text.
After my explanation you replied talking about antitrust. I said antitrust has nothing to do with the definition of a monopoly.
Antitrust are laws to prevent companies from being too competitive. They aren't directly related to a monopoly. A company that does't have a monopoly can still do plenty of things that are covered in the antitrust laws.
But really it's pointless to explain this to you, because quite simply, you don't understand.
People of low intelligence usually think they're very intelligent and in many cases think people who are of high intelligence are in fact dumb. The person of low intelligence finds it difficult to understand things, therefore they think the intelligent person is actually a 'dumbass', because in their head everything makes total sense.
Last edited:
- Mar 27, 2012
- 3,852
- 1,033
I think what really matters now is the top player which is Google.
Any other thing is secondary, if you want to wait till Google is outranked or beaten before taking action then you will grow old with nothing to show for it.
Rather than spread or carry rumors, i prefer to listen a novice talk about SEO in 2012.
Any other thing is secondary, if you want to wait till Google is outranked or beaten before taking action then you will grow old with nothing to show for it.
Rather than spread or carry rumors, i prefer to listen a novice talk about SEO in 2012.
I think it's matt cutts in disguise
BlueTurtle
BANNED
- Nov 30, 2011
- 699
- 1,333
That's because, as I stated above, people of low intelligence find it hard to understand the points of people with high intelligence.
In your world-view everything makes total sense and what I'm saying seems to be complete hog-wash.
There are quite a few others in this thread who have been watching and actually understand what I'm saying. They just choose not to get involved because they know it's futile. I like to hope that maybe if I explain it a certain way some of you will actually get it. *shrug*
assphuck
Senior Member
- Feb 22, 2009
- 1,198
- 909
The response is fitting for someone that tries to pass themselves off as an authority when they lack even the most basic knowledge of business. How could anyone take you seriously when you stated antitrust laws have nothing to do with a monopoly as you did here? Even in the Wikipedia link that YOU posted does link off to what antitrust laws are multiple times, but you failed to even read what you posted.
When someone states "Antitrust laws have nothing to do with a monopoly," I would not consider that dumb. I would consider that severely uninformed. And your desire to stick to your guns with being an authority on Google and big business is a display of immaturity and demonstrates the basis of your opinions are formed on emotion rather than factual data.