

Google's Earnings Soar - cwan
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703699204575017451974056226.html

======
w1ntermute
Google search link to access the full article:
<http://www.google.com/search?q=Googles+Earnings+Soar>

------
joe_the_user
Did Google have a statement that said _anything_ different than the original
statement?

The WSJ said _"it would like to continue doing business in China, a week after
it said it may pull out of the country due to a sweeping cyber attack"_

Google originally said: _"We have decided we are no longer willing to continue
censoring our results on Google.cn, and so over the next few weeks we will be
discussing with the Chinese government the basis on which we could operate an
unfiltered search engine within the law, if at all. We recognize that this may
well mean having to shut down Google.cn, and potentially our offices in
China."_

They never said they didn't want to be in China, they just said weren't going
to keep censoring and this might lead to them being ejected. They can be
perfectly consistent and say they _want_ to continue working in China. The
question is whether they expressed any willingness to change their policy.

So what's up? Is Google spinning things or is the WSJ spinning things or what?

~~~
codexon
People on HN and everywhere else are the ones that are spinning things in
their own head.

I wrote the same thing you did the day the news broke out on HN. People
thought that I was wrong, and that Google was going to withdraw voluntarily.
They downvoted me to around -5 before some of the more rational people bounced
it back up.

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1050881>

~~~
joe_the_user
I don't think you're writing the same thing as I am now.

The WSJ gives a rather different message than Google originally did. I don't
believe that's in the mind of HN.

I would like to know if the WSJ has any concrete information to justify this
different message.

I read your original post and I disagree. Google was definitely _saying_ they
would take an action (refusing to censor their search results) which would
_probably_ result in their withdrawal from China. Whether they meant it or
whether they would stick to that position is a different question. But you
were wrong then about Google's _statement_ and you're wrong now if you're
still defending your previous claim.

The only thing I've read Google saying, all along, is _"we don't_ want _to
leave but we'll probably be_ forced _to leave"_. It's a bit subtle but it's
the way every large corporation approaches kinds of situations.

------
RyanMcGreal
> To continue reading, subscribe now.

Nah, I'm good.

------
symesc
And down 4.5% in after-hours trading.

I love the market. Every day is like George Costanza's do-the-opposite day.

~~~
Eliezer
<http://lesswrong.com/lw/yv/markets_are_antiinductive/>

~~~
praptak
It seems that it is just impossible to write about markets without getting
into things like: "If, historically, real estate prices have always gone up,
they will keep rising until they can go down." (actual quote from the linked
article.)

------
grandalf
This is because Google had write downs in previous years that kept profits
small.

This is mostly a boon for the IRS.

------
izend
If you remove the acquisitions revenue was actually below Q4 2008 revenue,
exponential growth where are thou?

