I read this week’s inane BusinessWeek cover story on Google as basically a love note from the investment banking industry to the search company. In essence we discover that VCs, bankers, et al., people who are used to being treated as sultans of swing, are treated like dirt by the kids at Google. And BusinessWeek partly revels in it, but mostly makes the “Google-scaring” case for why Google will eventually have to make some sizable fee-creating acquisitions — Look what happened to Yahoo! Look what happened to Doubleclick!
Maybe, but it won’t be because of the arguments that conclude this piece. The authors end with the bold claim that Google has some sizable holes in its product line, the sort of holes which could best be filled by M&A. Well, that caught my attention — so, what are they? Well:
For starters, Google has a long way to go to match the breadth, depth, and richness of Yahoo’s portal. Ditto a peer-to-peer marketplace along the lines of an eBay, as well as Microsoft-like software applications.
You have to be kidding me. Google needs to make acquisitions to create a portal? Or to mimic Microsoft? Or eBay? Oye, what madness passes out there for rational thinking.
obAside: My favorite stat in the piece? That Google’s largest acquisition ever comes out to the total of $102-million, which is what it paid for Applied Semantics back in 2003. While I knew Google hadn’t done anything large with its billion-dollar cash horde, I didn’t realize were still only barely cracking the $100-million mark.