tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18157064.post5015919709337663358..comments2024-03-18T02:14:57.204-07:00Comments on Google Operating System: Google Pays $3.1 Billion for DoubleClickAlex Chituhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02618542750965508582noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18157064.post-24985725209670308592007-04-17T10:45:00.000-07:002007-04-17T10:45:00.000-07:00I think doubleclick revenues will increase when th...I think doubleclick revenues will increase when the google domain is used. Everyone who knows how filters doubleclick domains, but who's gonna give up there "Google Habit"? Here come the ads....Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18157064.post-86079352571645440842007-04-14T09:06:00.000-07:002007-04-14T09:06:00.000-07:00I agree with L33tminion. To allow DoubleClick to ...I agree with L33tminion. To allow DoubleClick to fall into the hands of Microsoft would only further induce the evil of what's already a sinister entity.<BR/><BR/>I've loved Google for quite a while now, and I'd like to think that the purchase of DoubleClick was only a means of fighting the evil. Afterall, if you buy a company (no matter what the cost) you are then entitled to do with it what you wish. And, so far, Google has only done good things with their investments.<BR/><BR/>Perhaps, it's ultimately going to keep Microsoft from growing and convert all of DoubleClick's customers to Google; and at the same time allow Google to culminate those advertisers into a more unobtrusive web presence!Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12107008973257956114noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18157064.post-25858691917625549312007-04-14T06:51:00.000-07:002007-04-14T06:51:00.000-07:00I don't think this was a bad move for Google. It ...I don't think this was a bad move for Google. It seems like a defensive play. Buying DoubleClick doesn't seem like it would help Google much (especially if they are still determined to "do no evil"). But it's a lot better for them to pay the cash to buy it than allow it to fall into the hands of Microsoft.L33tminionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06072892843237363419noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18157064.post-29407094803349036232007-04-14T02:02:00.000-07:002007-04-14T02:02:00.000-07:00Here goes google's good reputation.Good job...Here goes google's good reputation.<BR/>Good job...Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05046550020403536343noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18157064.post-25175856638766774702007-04-13T21:41:00.000-07:002007-04-13T21:41:00.000-07:00should read, "end user."should read, "end user."sidemousehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03041696910766956732noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18157064.post-27571449298513027562007-04-13T21:38:00.000-07:002007-04-13T21:38:00.000-07:00The official Google blog posted this FAQ which rea...The official Google blog posted <A HREF="http://216.239.57.110/blog_resources/DC_FAQ.pdf" REL="nofollow">this FAQ</A> which reads a little like a bottle of smoke, for instance, it doesn't once mention the fact that DoubleClick <I>is</I> evil. Hopefully they will address this obvious fact in their casual, humorous, and knowing way in the days to come.<BR/><BR/>It does attend to the end usual occasionally.sidemousehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03041696910766956732noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18157064.post-22797969936194891882007-04-13T16:44:00.000-07:002007-04-13T16:44:00.000-07:00Some headlines:The Cookie KingDoubleClick has serv...Some headlines:<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://condor.wordpress.com/2007/04/13/the-cookie-king/" REL="nofollow">The Cookie King</A><BR/>DoubleClick has served more cookies then Nabisco and Keabler combined and now they have sold all those valuable crumbs of information about you and me to Google for $3.1 billion in cold cash. Google says they're not evil, but DoubleClick certainly is.<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://weblog.infoworld.com/techwatch/archives/011305.html" REL="nofollow">Google-DoubleClick: Dangerous monopoly?</A><BR/>I smell monopoly here, one that could be disastrous for many Web site publishers --and ultimately bad for Web consumers as well. Here's the danger: Google already knows a tremendous amount about the traffic it sends to individual Web sites -- where it comes from, what people are looking for, even some basic demographics. With DoubleClick in the fold, they will also know what ads are being served on any given page. That gives Google unprecedented insight into publishers' business. <BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://valleywag.com/tech/breaking/google-acquires-doubleclick-for-31bn-252298.php" REL="nofollow" TITLE="Google acquires Doubleclick for $3.1bn">Google acquires Doubleclick for $3.1bn</A><BR/>Doubleclick handles the logistics of display advertising for more sites than any other provider of ad "serving" -- and Google has the largest network of advertisers. Together, they'll be able to do for banner ads what Google's Adwords program has achieved for text link advertising.<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://gigaom.com/2007/04/13/google-buys-doubleclick/" REL="nofollow">Giga Om</A><BR/>Google just bought Double Click for $3.1 billion, news which wasn’t received too well by the stock market - shares are trading down a buck-and-change a share. The all-cash deal is almost twice what Google paid for YouTube, the New York Times reports. The amount Google spent is shade under Google’s revenues in the fourth quarter of 2006 ($3.21 billion) and what the company earned in entire 2006.Alex Chituhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02618542750965508582noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18157064.post-72095532170795191622007-04-13T15:40:00.000-07:002007-04-13T15:40:00.000-07:00Yawn! More advertising for me to block from google...Yawn! More advertising for me to block from google.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com