September 27, 2019 Good morning. David Meyer here in Berlin, filling in for Alan.
Happy 21st birthday, Google! (The company was incorporated on September 4th rather than 27th, 1998, but today marks the anniversary of its eponymous search service going live.)
Google’s impact cannot be overstated; it utterly changed how we find and consume information. It is true that social media services have since partially shifted those mechanisms again, but Google remains embedded in our everyday lives, powering our navigation through both online and physical environments.
And yet, Google and parent Alphabet cannot rest on their laurels. They remain overly reliant on advertising revenues, and growth in that arena is slowing (though Google did reverse a downward trajectory in the second quarter.)
Antitrust authorities in Europe have already landed heavy blows on Google, and those in the U.S. are preparing to do the same. Meanwhile, Google’s handling of people’s sensitive personal data is being investigated by Irish authorities, who could force fundamental changes on how the entire advertising technology industry operates. Twenty-one years is a remarkable achievement, but serious headwinds loom.
Separately, as it’s Friday, time for some feedback—first, regarding Alan’s Wednesday post about the resignation of WeWork CEO Adam Neumann.
S.J. had this to say:
"First time I read about this dude, Adam Neumann, I immediately thought ‘how could smart people get duped by him?’ He's a character right out of that show Silicon Valley.”
But G.M. turned the blame back on Fortune:
"Excuse me, Alan, there's a lot of egg on your face with WeWork…By reporting straight…that SoftBank bought shares at a high valuation and then later bought more shares at an even higher valuation, you contributed significantly to this debacle….We were all witness to SoftBank employing a classic ‘pump and dump’ technique."
Alan replies: “To be fair, the Fortune team did a good job of poking the holes in the WeWork filing, here, here and here, among other places. But G.M.'s analysis of SoftBank's role is interesting, especially given reports of a ‘ratchet’ that protects SoftBank if the valuation falls.”
Meanwhile, H.B. took issue with my piece yesterday on Boris Johnson and the U.K.’s democratic mess:
“You excoriate BoJo, but no comment on Corbyn's refusal to hold an election or even a no confidence vote. Who is being undemocratic? Wouldn't the British people be better off with an election and a new parliament that has their mandate?”
The opposition’s refusal of the government’s preferred election timetable has been both tactical and the result of a plausible fear that Johnson could use the process to force a no-deal Brexit. They say they will green-light an election if he first makes sure no-deal can’t happen, as the law requires. I find that fair. But either way, polls suggest no party would emerge with a viable mandate for anything.
Enjoy your weekends. News below.
David Meyer
david.meyer@fortune.com
@superglaze
No comments:
Post a Comment