Alphabet Announces Second Quarter 2018 Results [pdf]
abc.xyz
abc.xyz
Even more amazing is that it's actually accelerating:
Q2 2018 vs. 2017 +26%
Q2 2017 vs. 2016 +21%
Q2 2016 vs. 2015 +21%
Q2 2015 vs. 2014 +11%
Q2 2014 vs. 2013 +21%
Q2 2013 vs. 2012 +11%
I don't think I've ever seen this with another big company.
Truly astounding.
A quick search, using these terms: digital ad spend surpasses tv, shows multiple sources confirm my belief.
Disappointing to see the "other bets" still at a paltry $145M and losses are growing faster. Also no mentioned whatsoever of cloud performance. Employee count up 15% but < NI growth. (does anyone know if this includes temporary staffing for things like streetview drivers?)
Wow, that was a big fine though.
And Google Cloud Next '18 from tomorrow, so surely few announcements to come.
What's so disingenuous about that?
Also, SaaS is part of cloud[0].
People to whom this demarcation of revenue matter, don't care about how topline results are published as long as there is data on the finer points as well (which MSFT does publish).
Also, I just looked at the latest earnings to confirm my last point and they include Office365 figures not in "Intelligent Cloud" but in "Productivity and Business Processes" so what are you all on about?
> SEGMENT INFORMATION
> Productivity and Business Processes
> Revenue increased $1.1 billion or 13%, including a favorable foreign currency impact of 3%.
> Office Commercial revenue increased $598 million or 10%, driven by Office 365 commercial revenue growth, mainly due to growth in subscribers and average revenue per user, offset in part by lower revenue from products licensed on-premises, reflecting a continued shift to Office 365 commercial.
However if you combine the whole package, from sales, product, after sales services, etc. Microsoft is so far ahead of AWS, and Google doesn't know anything about human interaction / Sales.
(disclaimer: I worked at AWS from 2008 to 2014).
Then saying "the top competitor" is useful to the small number of people who don't.
I understand the reasoning, and frankly agree with it. It's just funny. I don't remember banks, post-crisis, breaking their numbers out so overtly. Usually it was "less one-time charges" or something similarly circuitous.
The growth in fines will likely continue, given their sheer size and the GDPR. YouTube's continued movement away from being a "dumb pipe" and towards a curatorial role may also become a point of regulatory concern.
It's best, IMO, to think of it as the BIG10 NCAA division, the name only represents a subset of its membership.
So the answer would be both.
This might or might not represent cash coming through the door in this quarter, but it represents that there is an agreement for cash and goods/services to change hands.
Operating income:
Money left over after you subtract the costs of operating the business and making the sale. In a manufacturing firm, for example, you would subtract the cost of the materials in the goods sold. For Google they are deducting things like the running costs of data centres and wages for staff.
Operating margin:
You can think of this as raw profitability. Given the things management has direct, somewhat immediate control over, how good is the company at taking in more money than they spend?
Net income:
Take the Operating Income and then subtract taxes, interest payments, depreciation of assets and the like. These are all expenses, but not expenses directly connected to current activities.
In the rest of the figures they give metrics that are intended to help analysts understand the dynamics of the business that lead to the financials. So for example they showed how different categories contribute to the bottom line. They also show headcount, which can be seen as a leading signal of intention and ability to grow the business. That operating income has grown even with a very large headcount growth is impressive.
----
I am not a lawyer, accountant or financial advisor, don't rely on this as professional or investment advice.
I think that it’s pretty obvious and needless. What’s the consequence of not having a disclaimer? Internet has a lot of noise and it is the responsibility of the reader. I never understood why people have to say this.
Same goes for “I am not a Doctor”.
Are there any legal ramifications to:
A) Comment has legal terminology and kind of sounds like legal advice but has no disclaimer.
B) What if someone falsefully claims they’re a Lawyer and puts out a comment on the internet?
I am bothered by this since the dawn of the internet and never understood it.
People need reminding.
Since I dropped out, I am doubly not a lawyer.
Small clarification, this is sales recognized. For example, if your customer signs a 2 year service agreement at the start of a quarter, the revenue reported that quarter should be 1/8th of the total contract amount (assuming you are recognizing revenue at a flat rate).
For those following along, spending some time with an introductory financial accounting book or textbook is a very useful way to understand a lot of business behaviour. I took a 101-level accounting course during my computer science degree and it has proved to be a very useful thing to have learned about.
If you're interested in the finance behind software companies, highly recommend following Tren Griffin:
Given the increased scrutiny and the regulatory headwinds I think the with fines is probably a more accurate number. If you want to split it you could call it stagnant.
They are hiring a lot of people, but from from I've heard and seen the hiring standards have been reduced from what they used to be. A lot of the spending is to make Wall Street think they have something beyond search but it is still the cash cow the keeps it going...
That exact logic/approach is why we're seeing larger are larger fines, EU basically saying 'shape up, you can't ignore us.'
But I find for both of those fines the stated reason from the EU very hard to believe. Does anyone miss "shopping comparison sites" ? I sure as hell don't ...
And the android search choice ? Really ? None of the other search engines support google assistant, and that's the only searching I do on android. Presumably that would never work without close collaboration between all search engines, and ... that's just not going to happen. Nor does iPhone allow you to switch search providers (nor, for that matter, does the redmi or even the amazon phone), so ... hmmm ... both of these "anti competitive actions" are really the norm in the marketplace. If firefox starts coming with an actually good "mozilla assistant" (Mozique ? heh), then perhaps we can start talking about this.
Why would the fine be annual? Fines aren't a tax you pay so you can continuously break the law. I would imagine if Google doesn't remedy the specific behaviors the EU has issues with, the EU will move on to more severe sanctions.
I believe this is done because the appeals process is not yet final. As to whether they "found it necessary," it may be a requirement, or to frame expectations into future quarters when inevitably these numbers finally persist or reverse.
They aren't tax deductible for US purposes so you are taxed on pre-fine income.
Google and Facebook are the only two businesses that prosper on ads, while your local newspapers, specialized websites, and journalism in general are dying.
Tracking Google Maps journeys, YouTube, Google Analytics across most of the web, a major portion of global email communications, Hangouts, Google Drive, etc, the list goes on and on.
Immensely valuable data that is able to predict trends and behaviour of both businesses and people in many instances
> Please don't use Hacker News primarily for political or ideological battle. This destroys intellectual curiosity, so we ban accounts that do it.
If you poke through my comments, you'll find we share antipathy for Facebook and, to a less degree, Google. That antipathy, however, is an opinion. Not a fact. Neither Facebook nor Google are monopolies by any common definition.
Their business models disagree with our values. But a lot of Americans do as well. Your comments forego the debate necessary to establish agreement, and in that respect I think they are inflammatory. (As well as unproductive towards our common cause of convincing people these companies should be regarded with more caution.)
Put another way, monopoly companies have a large market share, but not all companies with a large market share are monopolies.
The FTC explains their view of what is a monopoly.
If google is not a monopsony they are certainly very close. This is reflected in the margins of online publishers vs those of google. If you want to publish content online, you have to do it on googles terms.
This degree of market power over the flow of information frankly makes me pretty uncomfortable.