Google, Inc

I. Summary of the Case

Google is situated in Mountain View, California. Since its Initial Public Offer, the Company has managed to launch a flurry of products.

II. What were the key factors behind Google's early success?

The Google's cofounders perfected in an innovative search engine. This act contributed to the early success of the Company.

III. Do you expect the search business to become more concentrated (i.e., dominated by fewer firms)? Is search a winner-take-all business?

I expect the search business to become more concentrated. I may say that this industry is a winner-take-all business.

IV. In renewing its deal with AOL, could Google afford to pay AOL more than 100% of the revenue generated from AOL searches? How did Microsoft's maximum affordable bid for AOL's search traffic compare to Google's?

Initially, it was apparent that the Company had the monetary capabilities of paying greater than one hundred percent (100%) of the income produced from AOL. 

V. In addition to enhancing its core search businesses, should Google also branch out into new arenas? Which of the following would you recommend: 1) building a full-fledged portal like Yahoo!'s; 2) targeting Microsoft's desktop software hegemony; and/or 3) becoming an e-commerce intermediary like eBay?

Google should branch out into new arenas.

VI. Do you view Google's distinctive governance structure, corporate culture, and organizational processes as strengths or potential limitations

I view Google's distinctive governance structure, corporate culture, and organizational processes as strengths.

Summary of the Case

Google is situated in Mountain View, California. It was founded in 1999 and finished its Initial Public Offer (IPO) in August 2004. Since its Initial Public Offer, the Company has managed to launch a flurry of products. These products include Gmail, Google Maps and Google finance. Other products include Google Docs, google Calendar, and Google Checkout. In January, 2010, the firm launched Nexus One mobile device. The purchase of You Tube and Double Click widened the Company's presence on online video and also on display advertising. As Google expanded, the cofounders (Larry Page and Sergey Brin), sought an experienced manager so as to assist manage the firm. In March 2001, Eric Scmidt joined the Company as the Chief Executive Officer. Since its inception, the Company has adopted a distinctive governance structure and corporate values. Additionally, it adopted outstanding approaches for managing innovation. As the Company expanded, it experienced a sequence of grievances from promoters, clients and others. The Company's consequent growth took it past web search and into content hosting, communication applications and more. In September of the year two thousand and eight (2008), it launched the 1^st beta chrome web browser. Its main competitors include Yahoo, Microsoft, ebay and Amazon (Harvard Business School, 2010).

What were the key factors behind Google's early success?

The Google's cofounders perfected in an innovative search engine. This act contributed to the early success of the Company. They could turn the keyword spam predicament within the web into a chance via resolving it. Old search engines relied heavily on tallying of keywords. However, Larry Page and Sergey Brin formed dependable searches. They formed the searches via the sum of websites that linked to the page. This enabled them to weigh the search result significance. Second, the Company centered on the user. This characteristic fascinated many people. This is attributed to the fact that the white search page was relatively easy. Besides, the characteristic colorful logo led to trouble-free and fast searches. Third, the Company delivered search results which were desired by many people. As a result, the users trusted the Company. Fourth, the Company's sponsored links were pertinent to the sought keywords. Thus, they turned out to be valuable to the users. Fifth, the sponsored links text was relatively easy.  As a result, they didn't decelerate page loads. Additionally, they permitted an enhanced search experience. Last, the firm implemented an effectual monetizing paid search scheme. Initially, the cofounders implemented the "cost per intuition scheme". This scheme made money in spite of whether users clicked on it (Slide share, 2010).

Do you expect the search business to become more concentrated (i.e., dominated by fewer firms)? Is search a winner-take-all business?

I expect the search business to become more concentrated. I attribute this to the fact that Google has apparently dominated the search business. On the other hand, Yahoo may anticipate preserving the market share. It can only achieve this by providing editorial content in which a number of customers may perhaps be 'duped' into examining. Second, the industry is dominated by few firms (Google, Yahoo and Microsoft). Google is the unquestionable leader. It is followed by Yahoo and Microsoft MSN. Other stakeholders in the industry have scarce market shares. These firms are at the moment experiencing strong rivalry. Thus there is a high chance that the dominant Companies shall 1 day amalgamate. Moreover, there is a chance that these firms will merge and purchase smaller Companies. Last, it is crystal clear that Google is the leader of the Search industry. As result, it makes many people to believe that the firm demonstrates adequately the condition of the market.

I may say that this industry is a winner-take-all business. Google is a perfect example to verify this reality. Google's case demonstrates that it's not possible to come within this market. The firm was established prior to the commencement of the explosion of the internet sphere. At the moment, any internet site that isn't oriented on Google is expected to be subjected to looming death. It is apparent that majority of internet customer go via an internet web search with the aim of reaching internet websites. Besides, most of the users use Google.

In renewing its deal with AOL, could Google afford to pay AOL more than 100% of the revenue generated from AOL searches? How did Microsoft's maximum affordable bid for AOL's search traffic compare to Google's?

Initially, it was apparent that the Company had the monetary capabilities of paying greater than one hundred percent (100%) of the income produced from AOL.  This initiative was anticipated to be lucrative on both medium and continuing schedule. The amount of money paid by Google so as to obtain five percent of AOL furnishes us with facts on what it could symbolize. In the year two thousand and four (2004), AOL symbolized ten per cent of incomes of the search engine. In the year two thousand and five (2005), the input of AOL in the earnings of Google was extremely high. This barred Google's opponents to turn out to be influential.

Microsoft's maximum bid was not accurately known. However, it is apparent that Google's offer for AOL was extremely intriguing. Microsoft desired to form a partnership with AOL. On the other hand, Google desired to strengthen the prevailing joint venture. Microsoft would have benefited more from the partnership as compared to Google. It was a perfect chance for Microsoft to become the leader of the industry. AOL had the option of shifting from Google to Microsoft. Nonetheless, this changeover would have turned out to be lethal for AOL. The prevailing joint venture between Google and AOL was a strong indication that AOL would have agreed to Google's offer.

In addition to enhancing its core search businesses, should Google also branch out into new arenas? Which of the following would you recommend: 1) building a full-fledged portal like Yahoo!'s; 2) targeting Microsoft's desktop software hegemony; and/or 3) becoming an e-commerce intermediary like eBay?

Google should branch out into new arenas. This will enable the firm to expand its business. It is apparent that Google is the industry leader. Therefore, it should utilize this opportunity well and recommend on its novel products. Google has already developed products such as Gmail and personalization aspects on its home page. In addition, the firm is in a partnership with AOL. Thus, I will not recommend the building of a fully-fledged portal like Yahoo's. I attribute this to the fact that the firm has already commenced the procedure of reaching this objective. Second, I will not recommend Google to target Microsoft's desktop hegemony. This confront would have been extremely tricky. The firm has already commenced to form its desktop. However, it has to exert much effort so that the created desktop matches that of Microsoft. Last, I will recommend Google to become an e-commerce intermediary such as eBay. This is due to the fact that the majority of eBay clients go via Google in order to gain entry to a certain sell. At this juncture, it is crystal clear that Google should launce its own e-commerce site.

Do you view Google's distinctive governance structure, corporate culture, and organizational processes as strengths or potential limitations? Note: Concentrate analysis also taking into consideration the topic of Internet Strategy.

Its governance structure is extremely unique in comparison to that of its main opponents such as Yahoo and Microsoft. The Company is administered by the cofounders and the Chief Executive Officer. This structure permits increased viewpoints. This facilitates the restoration of confidence of its investors and clients. Additionally, this structure permits the varying equilibrium of authority inside the direction of the firm. Therefore, I view Google's governance structure as strengths. As far as the corporate structure of the firm is concerned, the firm promotes a spirit of togetherness. Thus, I view the firm's corporate structure as strengths. On the other hand the organizational processes of the firm have differentiated it from its opponents since its inception. This has contributed to its dominance in the industry. Thus, I view Google's organizational processes as strengths (Got Essays, 2010).