
Google Will Eat Itself - signaler
http://www.googlewilleatitself.com/
======
camillomiller
The point many of you are probably missing here is that this is not a proof of
concept but a work of net/digital art, exhibited many times in the past (even
at transmediale 2008) but fixed in a defined moment in time (~2006).

I've been a student of one of the authors (Alessandro Ludovico) in 2008, at
the Academy of Fine Arts of Carrara (Italy).

~~~
sentenza
For all of those who speak German, there's an old episode of CRE [1] in which
Tim talks to Hans Bernhard and lizvlx from Austria. They were involved with
the project and elaborate a bit about its motivations.

[1] [http://cre.fm/cre132-ubermorgen-com](http://cre.fm/cre132-ubermorgen-com)

------
Aqueous
"Current Google Share Price : 495.01 USD"

This hasn't been updated since GOOG was a bit more than a third of what it is
now.

But if they actually own 819 shares that is almost a million dollars of stock
right now.

Edit:
[http://gwei.org/pages/google/legalletter1.html](http://gwei.org/pages/google/legalletter1.html)

~~~
Lerc
So has it been operating all this time since 2006?

Most interesting would be a graph of proportion of Google owned. Are they
gaining or losing ground toward their goal of getting it all. I could see them
gaining at an ever diminishing rate.

While this is probably fraud, it's preying on advertisers, which I'd be
prepared to allow provided it did the advertising industry permanent harm.

~~~
mcv
Why would it be fraud? It sounds to me like they're using their advertising
revenue to buy Google shares. What's wrong with that?

~~~
kreilly
"We generate money by serving Google text advertisments [sic] on a network of
hidden Websites."

They are not really ads that are viewable by consumers. Most likely bot
traffic.

~~~
smartician
Possibly related:

[http://www.behind-the-enemy-lines.com/2011/03/uncovering-
adv...](http://www.behind-the-enemy-lines.com/2011/03/uncovering-advertising-
fraud-scheme.html)

------
woah
FYI, in many European countries periods and commas in numbers are the reverse
of how we use them in English- 405.413,19 is actually 405,413.19

~~~
rplnt
As for the decimal mark (comma), it's most of the world really. This has
nothing to do with grouping in numbers. I find both types of thousands
separator (, or .) misleading, pointless and not nice at all. But maybe that's
because I grew up in a country that used neither of those.

~~~
hessenwolf
I have to deal with a lot of millions and billions in work (reinsurance).
Thousands separators are so essential to me!!

~~~
thanatropism
Don't you find exponent notation to be neater?

1E+03 = one thousand 1E+06 = one million 1E+09 = a thousand millions / an
american billion 1E+12 = an american trillion / an european billion

.. and that's as far as you need; the GDP of most countries is on the order of
1E+12 or 1E+13

~~~
infruset
wait wait wait, a billion means two different things in Europe and America?
I'm from Europe and I always used 1 billion to say 10^9. I hardly see how I
would not have noticed figures being so different in say, news articles from
America and Britain.

~~~
hessenwolf
When I was growing up in Ireland, a billion was a million million in Britain
and Ireland. Now, we have adopted the American thousand million. In Germany
and Italy, a thousand million is a Milliard, and a billion is a trillion.

~~~
rplnt
Slovak and Czech have it same as Germany/Italy.

------
YZF
I thought the share class structuring of Google was such that you can never
own Google by buying its publicly traded shares?

~~~
vesinisa
Can someone then explain to a layman, why Google shares even have any value?
What good is a share, if it's voting power in controlling the company is
practically void? Google has never paid any dividend either. Are all the stock
investors just speculating that GOOG will pay dividend in the future? Or is it
possible that Class B shares will loose their special voting rights at some
point so that Class A become instrumental in controlling the company?

~~~
yetanotherphd
It's extremely simple:

The only real value a share has is dividends, and dividend-like things (like
share buybacks, the whole company being taken private, etc.).

In theory (and practice) the price of a stock is the expected value of the
time-discounted sum of its future dividends.

So yes, people are precisely buying GOOG stock because they believe that at
some point in the future, they will pay dividends. Google do, after all, have
to do something with all their money one day.

Voting is also not very important. In some cases it might be needed to keep
the board/executives in line, but for an individual shareholder, the right to
vote is of no importance.

~~~
lutusp
> The only real value a share has is dividends, and dividend-like things (like
> share buybacks, the whole company being taken private, etc.).

This omits the value of the share itself, as a commodity on the open market.
If your claim were true, people would refuse to invest in shares that don't
pay dividends.

The primary reason to invest in shares is that they they might grow along with
the (a) market as a whole, and (b) the company that issued the shares.
Dividends are frosting.

> So yes, people are precisely buying GOOG stock because they believe that at
> some point in the future, they will pay dividends.

With all respect, do you really want to be pontificating about something you
know nothing about? There are plenty of companies that don't pay dividends at
all, never have, and yet have many loyal investors, for the best of reasons --
the company is growing along with the value of its stock. Instead of paying
dividends, many companies put corporate profits directly back into company
expenses, with the expectation that this will grow the company and its stock.
And the investors agree.

~~~
yetanotherphd
You are correct about the empirical facts (there exist some companies don't
currently pay dividends), but theory is needed to understand that if those
company's never paid dividends, they would be worthless.

The fundamental principal is that of the transversality condition, also called
the "no ponzi" condition, which states that assets must eventually deliver. If
a company pays no dividends _forever_ then the value of its stock is only
based on what people are willing to pay in the future, forming a self-
reinforcing ponzi-like system. It is generally assumed (I can think of many
good reasons for this, like the finiteness of the universe) that such
violations of the transversality condition don't occur.

Therefore the value of a share is the expected value of all future dividends.
I suspect you also didn't read my post carefully and missed my qualification
of "dividend-like" things. E.g. a company might start small, grow, stagnate
and be bought by a private equity firm and split into parts that are sold off.
At that point, the company has effectively delivered dividends to the private
equity firm.

>With all respect, do you really want to be pontificating about something you
know nothing about?

Your smugness is unwarranted and reflects badly on your character. I suggest
you read some books on economics and try to be a better person.

~~~
lutusp
> You are correct about the empirical facts (there exist some companies don't
> currently pay dividends), but theory is needed to understand that if those
> company's never paid dividends, they would be worthless.

But since that is absolutely false, I only need to point out the many
companies that don't pay dividends and yet are widely accepted as investments.
Here is a list of companies that do not pay dividends:

[http://finance.yahoo.com/news/biggest-companies-dont-pay-
div...](http://finance.yahoo.com/news/biggest-companies-dont-pay-
dividends-180000561.html)

Note the presence of Google, Amazon and Yahoo on the list -- companies that
you have just claimed are worthless investments.

Companies that serve a stable market and that aren't growing any more, will in
most cases pay dividends in order to hold onto investors. They take corporate
profits and divide them among the shareholders -- that's what "dividend"
means.

Companies that are growing, like most modern technology companies, often don't
pay dividends. They don't because they need the corporate profits to grow the
company.

Many modern high-tech companies do not pay dividends. The stockholders fully
understand the reason why (the company is still growing), and those stocks are
very attractive to investors because they are growing along with their
companies.

> Therefore the value of a share is the expected value of all future
> dividends.

No, it is _the expected value of future growth_ , regardless of the source
(growth and dividends). For God's sake, stop arguing about something about
which you know precisely nothing.

\----------------------------------------------------

[http://trendshare.org/how-to-invest/why-do-some-companies-
no...](http://trendshare.org/how-to-invest/why-do-some-companies-not-pay-
dividends)

Quote: "a company that plans to grow much larger might reinvest its profits
back into the company so that it's worth more in the near future. You often
see this in technology stocks, where acquiring more customers or increasing
the value of each customer will hopefully produce even more revenue in the
future—and more profits.

A company might also acquire other companies. This is similar to investing in
the company. You can see this happen in very large companies, where it's
cheaper and easier to buy an established but smaller company than it is to
start a new line of business.

Finally, a company might buy back shares of its stock and retire them, so that
every remaining share owns a larger piece of the company and thus becomes more
valuable. This strategy makes a lot of sense when the price of the company's
stock is artificially low.

In one sense, these strategies have one thing in common: they're all intended
to make the company itself intrinsically more valuable, whether by expanding
the customer base and product offering, by providing opportunities to enter
new markets or capture more of an existing market, or by increasing demand and
thus raising the price of the stock itself.

A company which can do this is worth more than gold; a company with a solid
business that grows and generates more cash every year is a great company to
own. Instead of financing its growth (or operations) through debt, it's free
to build up its own equity."

\----------------------------------------------------

> Your smugness is unwarranted and reflects badly on your character. I suggest
> you read some books on economics and try to be a better person.

You need to go out and acquire an education. You cannot locate a defense for
your beliefs, you have no idea to whom you are speaking, how I made my
fortune, and you are certainly not in a position to lecture anyone about
equities.

~~~
yetanotherphd
>I only need to point out the many companies that don't pay dividends and yet
are widely accepted as investments.

Your logical error is in assuming that if a company that pays no dividends now
is considered a good investment, then that must mean that investors don't care
if that company never pays dividends. On the contrary, investors don't care if
Google pays dividends _now_ , because every dollar Google doesn't pay as a
dividend gets reinvested in the company, or at least kept as cash, which
enables them to pay more dividends in the _future_.

If Google simply kept that money forever, that would make it into some weird
ponzi scheme that the world has never seen before (and we would have to wait
until the end of time to find out). Back in the real world, companies
typically do, as your yourself imply, eventually stop growing and start paying
dividends.

>you have no idea to whom you are speaking, how I made my fortune, and you are
certainly not in a position to lecture anyone about equities.

No one gives a shit about your fortune. I'm done with this, but next time try
reading what you are replying to carefully, instead of just blasting out
facts.

~~~
lutusp
> Your logical error is in assuming that if a company that pays no dividends
> now is considered a good investment, then that must mean that investors
> don't care if that company never pays dividends.

That is not a logical error, it is an uncontroversial fact. In point of fact,
investors DO NOT CARE whether a company pays dividends, as long as their
capital grows. Do you really think people who invest in Berkshire Hathaway are
stupid or misguided? And will you people PLEASE do some reading and stop
arguing from a position of ignorance?

> ... investors don't care if Google pays dividends now ...

That's right, and investors also don't care whether Berkshire Hathaway never
pays dividends, because it's a very attractive investment, and it has never
paid a dividend. If Google's growth curve should flatten, they'll have to pay
a dividend. But your claim was that a stock that didn't pay dividends was
worthless. It's embarrassingly false.

\-------------------------------------------------------

Link: [http://seekingalpha.com/article/1939371-no-dividend-
stocks-c...](http://seekingalpha.com/article/1939371-no-dividend-stocks-
crushing-the-market-top-list)

Quote: "Having delivered an average of one-third of stock returns since, (it
was more than 50% in the '70s and 14% for the '90s) the case for dividends is
clear. But there is no free lunch here. In periods of economic and market
growth, _dividend payers typically trail the performance of non-payers._ Like
now. According to S&P Dow Jones Indices, for the 12 months through November
dividend payers in the S&P 500 delivered a 39.6% total return. No need to
apologize for that. But _the non-dividend payers clocked in with a 46.4% total
return._

Ranking the entire S&P 500 by 12-month price gains, _seven of the top 10 are
dividend holdouts_ , led by Netflix (NFLX) which has quadrupled in price this
year. The others: Micron Technology (MU), E*TRADE (ETFC). Genworth Financial
(GNW), Yahoo! Inc. (YHOO), Celgene (CELG) and Boston Scientific (BSX), all of
which have at least doubled in price over the past 12 months."

\----------------------------------------------------

Which part of this is in any way confusing?

> I'm done with this,

I'll say you are. But your ignorance remains in full bloom.

> but next time try reading what you are replying to carefully, instead of
> just blasting out facts.

"Don't confuse me with the facts when I'm on a rant." Sadly noted.

~~~
Punoxysm
If Larry Page, Sergey Brin and Eric Schmidt announced tomorrow that they would
do everything in their power to prevent GOOG from EVER paying dividends,
buying back stock, or selling to another company, then that would be
catastrophic for the share price, correct? This is a step beyond simply being
disinterested in dividends and buybacks in the near term, but you seem to be
confusing the two.

Anyone who purchased shares at that point would be doing so because of one of
the following 1) They believe that Page, Brin and Schmidt will change their
minds 2) They believe that control will be wrested away from Page, Brin and
Schmidt by more buyback/dividend friendly management 3) They believe that
other people will still buy for reasons 1,2, or 3. This is classic Keynes
Beauty Contest investing.

GOOG could still grow its revenues, but if it is guaranteed to never pay a
dividend or buy back stock (Berkshire Hathaway doesn't pay dividends but
Buffett has said he would definitely pursue share buybacks under certain
conditions) or sell its assets, then there is no way to get cash out of GOOG
except by trading with other beauty contest investors. The only thing left to
anchor GOOG stock value to Google the company is the possibility of
bankruptcy.

So yetanotherphd is 100% correct. It's not impossible for people to trade as
if there's no connection between a company's future dividends/buybacks/asset
sales and its stock price. But that's how you end up buying tulip bulbs for
their weight in gold.

------
nostromo
This reminds me of stock buy-back programs.

The company, using company revenues, to buy the company.

Although now I understand them, when I first heard of them I immediately
thought it would lead to a stack overflow...

~~~
thatthatis
If you find this amusing, you should read the book "devil take the hindmost,"
particularly the section on the south sea bubble.

Tldr: in the south sea bubble it did eventually lead to a stackoverflow

~~~
dllthomas
How did buy-backs figure in that?

------
Springtime
Appears this was created as an art/media installation by Ubermorgen in 2005
[1] that ran for a few years. Some believe it was a hoax [2], although it may
have just been a brief but curious experiment.

[1]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ubermorgen#Life_and_career](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ubermorgen#Life_and_career)

[2] [http://linearfix.tumblr.com/post/21838753641/is-google-
will-...](http://linearfix.tumblr.com/post/21838753641/is-google-will-eat-
itself-a-hoax)

------
karangoeluw

        <!--Fireworks 8 Dreamweaver 8 target.  Created Sun Dec 11 16:07:50 GMT+0100 ( ) 2005-->

------
yetanotherphd
Nonsense by people who don't understand free market economics and therefore
choose to ridicule it.

Calling themselves artists (as another pointed out) shields them from the
criticism they would receive if they clearly stated their point of view.

------
jojopotato
Neat idea, but it looks like the site was last updated in 2005/6.

~~~
blueblob
Yeah, that background is awful.

~~~
illumen
Fashion is so 2001.

------
noname123
For every impression/click payout that the clandestine "GTTP" network garners,
Google the company will also have earned some profits off advertisers which'll
be transferred to Google's bank account or used to build more infrastructure.

However, suppose GTTP compromise a significant or even 100% of GOOG's total ad
payout; there are three possible scenarios:

a) if Adwords is operating at a loss (a la PS3, unlikely), the shares of GTTP
will decrease massively, thereby depressing the shares of GOOG. However if
GOOG wants to facilitate the transfer of the company of GTTP, it'd continue to
operate at extreme loss by transferring more money to GTTP via Adwords loss
until the shares goes down minimally $0.001 on OTC market (a la LEH). Then
GTTP can acquire a worthless asset.

b) Adwords is generating a net profit more than the payout to GTTP. Net profit
not in terms of net income but in the sense that the profit/intangible
valuation of Google's use of revenue from GTTP's generated ads to build out
infrastructure and human resources. GTTP's activity will then boost the shares
of GOOG, given that GTTP generate a fixed amount of money for GOOG; using
discount cashflow model, that means whatever GTTP's income cannot outpace the
GTTP-GOOG Adwords unit's constantly rising valuation. (Think of this using a
shareholder's dividend to cannibalize the company; or using a child's
allowance to buy his/her parent).

c) Adwords is generating a net profit but less than the payout to GTTP.
Basically a company distributing the bulk of its net profit to shareholders as
dividend than using it to reinvest in R&D/infrastructure. In practice, GTTP's
internal shareholders would likely revolt given GOOG's business model of
growth (vs. say sleepier industries such as utility). But let's suppose say
for the sake of the argument, that GTTP shareholders are agreement to
cannibalize GOOG, they can do it! Given that the accumulated annual income
generated by GTTP outpaces the market valuation of GOOG. (Think of WhatsApp
founders cash out of 16B of FB stock or Mark Cuban with Broadcast.com at the
height of YHOO's valuation, and the valuation of GOOG or FB decrease enough
and/or they kept siphoning income to buy the company at a later time.)

------
coreymgilmore
This is a pretty genius idea. Use Google to buy Google stock. With the current
share price, buying shares isn't exactly cheap. But collecting cash from their
service is an effective way to reap the benefits of corporate growth in
another way.

Similarly: buying Tesla (TSLA) stock when it was cheap because you couldn't
afford the Model S....and now you can afford it.

That being said, it would seem that there would need to be a rather large
network of sites and AdSense links to earn enough money to buy a share.
Reminds me of the cost-benefit ratio of mining bitcoin.

~~~
dictum
I can't find it now, but I remember seeing a picture around the time AAPL was
rising fast (~2011-2012) that showed how much money you'd have if you had
bought the equivalent amount of Apple stock that a given Mac cost when
released.

So, if you had bought $2000 of AAPL instead of a snazzy Macbook Pro, you'd
have X now.

~~~
_nedR
[http://abstrusegoose.com/264](http://abstrusegoose.com/264)

------
Thirdegree
"202.345.117 Years until GWEI fully owns Google."

So close!

~~~
jusben1369
It seems based on that web design we could probably strike 6 - 8 years off the
wait. But agree still a fair way to go.

------
pa_toulou
This is quite old and has been defunct for years now. It is a collaboration
between Ubermorgen and Paolo Cirio & Alessandro Ludovico

For Ubermorgen it was part of a trilogy[1] of art/hacks displayed in art
galleries with amazon noir [2] and the sound of ebay [3].

For Paolo Cirio & Alessandro Ludovico it was part of The Hacking Monopolism
Trilogy[4] with the same amazon noir and face to facebook[4] stealing a
million facebook accounts and auto-populating a dating website with them [5].
They have more info and pics about gwei [6].

[1]:
[http://www.ubermorgen.com/EKMRZ_Trilogy/](http://www.ubermorgen.com/EKMRZ_Trilogy/)

[2]: [http://www.amazon-noir.com/](http://www.amazon-noir.com/)

[3]: [http://www.sound-of-ebay.com/](http://www.sound-of-ebay.com/)

[4]: [http://www.face-to-facebook.net/hacking-monopolism-
trilogy.p...](http://www.face-to-facebook.net/hacking-monopolism-trilogy.php)

[5]: [http://www.face-to-facebook.net/](http://www.face-to-facebook.net/)

[6]: [http://www.face-to-facebook.net/gwei.php](http://www.face-to-
facebook.net/gwei.php)

------
mcintyre1994
Given how long it's been since this was last updated, I wonder if they're
still having any success. It seems Google are probably getting better at fraud
handling quicker than they can innovate their fraud - and close to 10 years
seems like Google would have a huge advantage by now.

------
rgj
Reminds me of the Ren & Stimpy episode where Stimpy enters his own belly
button and disappears.

------
DigitalSea
This is actually a pretty genius idea, but as pointed out by others this site
looks old (evident by the design and inaccurate stock price). I also think the
way Google shares work is that you can never truly own a meaningful share of
Google via public shares.

~~~
terhechte
It is really old, I think the first time that I saw it was in mid 2001

~~~
laureny
I doubt it, Google went public in 2004.

------
LukeB_UK
So they were committing fraud to try and kill Google?

------
Buge
I don't get it. They're paying for the servers for their websites and the
content on the websites. They could just as easily keep the money from the
ads. So essentially they're just buying the shares out of pocket.

------
ivv
Theoretically, isn't it the case that the more successful they are in
generating clicks, the more successful Google becomes, pushing the share piece
higher and further out of their reach?

------
TomMoses
Google Will Eat Itself is part of a trilogy:
[http://paolocirio.net/work/hacking-monopolism-
trilogy/hackin...](http://paolocirio.net/work/hacking-monopolism-
trilogy/hacking-monopolism-trilogy.php)

Those guys hacked also Amazon and Facebook, actually there is much more behind
that. Those Italians are crazy and geniuses.

------
TomMoses
Google Will Eat Self is part of a trilogy:
[http://paolocirio.net/work/hacking-monopolism-
trilogy/hackin...](http://paolocirio.net/work/hacking-monopolism-
trilogy/hacking-monopolism-trilogy.php)

Those guys hacked also Amazon and Facebook, actually there is much more behind
that. Those Italians are crazy and geniuses.

------
pdkl95
"No return, no make amends Is this the future or this is how it will end?"

/everything's cool

~~~
markmassie
I see what you did there.

[http://www.lyrics.net/lyric/29594334](http://www.lyrics.net/lyric/29594334)

------
level09
They missed one important point though, hidden network of websites needs to
run on servers, and servers cost money. more traffic means scaling and even
higher costs.

------
fiatjaf
A public-traded company is not the same as a public company. Larry Page and
Sergey Brin can still hold all of their stocks and stay at the control of
Google.

------
tqi
"We deconstruct the new global advertisment mechanisms"

The ad supported model isn't ideal, but if these guys have a better idea I'm
all ears.

------
marincounty
I'm waiting for duckcuckgo to get some money. If Duckduckgo gets a little bit
better--I will just use google's free Api's.

------
lclarkmichalek
Woo click fraud!

~~~
gcb0
which is incredible easy to do and very hard to prosecute... so guess what is
the life blood of the industry

~~~
fiatjaf
If it is so easy why there aren't still millions of people doing it? Why there
are still robbers on the streets?

~~~
hobs
Plenty of people are doing click fraud. It takes some effort, its not just
push button receive ill gotten gains, but it works. It is just not nearly as
lucrative as other methods of driving illegitimate traffic nowadays, because
most people dont do pay per click.

I dont have a spam website to push, but I know people who were making anywhere
from 1-3k a month based on exploiting different advertising rings looking for
traffic. Usually they would setup a campaign with an advertiser and wash dirty
traffic that they were buying through the advertiser's site, paying
1/10-1/20th of the cost of each conversion or click, and most of the time
those would just be botnet operations anyway, they didn't care.

It usually doesnt last long per identity, but those are a dime a dozen.

------
Bud
Now, let's stop telling Google it's going to eat itself. You're going to give
it a googleplex.

------
govilk
It seems like the same situation when Porsche kept buying Volkswagen shares
till 2009 and in the end losses.

------
HillOBeans
So, in essence, they have worked out a way to be paid in stock shares instead
of currency?

------
rhapsodyv
Sorry, but I couldn't stay in this site for more than 10 seconds.. My eyes
hurt..

------
sharemywin
I didn't think a majority of Google preferred stock stock is for sale?

------
yc-kjh
something unexpected will happen long before 202 million years from now.

------
omni_
That background is incredibly distracting.

------
hellbreakslose
has anyone around this project realized that every time you click google adds
google is getting money for it as well? and obviously their revenue is 80%
while they give you 20% for each click... with that said, no sir google won't
eat itself your just making google richer.

------
lhgaghl
I was listening to this song while reading the page, goes good with the
flashing background:
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RBb8e7G4dBk](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RBb8e7G4dBk)

