Oprah takes us on a tour of what it’s like to what at Googleplex, the company headquarters of Google. If you thought your company had perks, you’re wrong. Googleplex is outfitted with gyms, on-site doctors, dry cleaners, free laundry rooms, two swimming pools, a sand volleyball court, and nearly a dozen cafeterias that charge nothing for the food!
It’s a no-brainer why Fortune magazine just named Google the #1 place to work in the United States. This final quote in the video sums the experience of working at Google:
“I love working at Google. It’s the next best thing to probably not working at all.”

Google will make a significant push toward integrating results from a variety of its search engines in an attempt to deliver as relevant and comprehensive a result set as possible to search queries.

Although Google and its competitors have been moving in this direction for years, Google’s announcement on Wednesday is its clearest and most concrete statement of direction yet regarding its efforts in this area. The announcement was made by Marissa Mayer, Google’s vice president of search products and user experience, at an event in the company’s headquarters in Mountain View, California.

http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,131929-c,google/article.html

WASHINGTON–With the Internet poised to be the “epicenter” of the 2008 elections, Google is contemplating how best to keep candidate information readily accessible without allowing the Web to transform into a giant tabloid.

One major question the company faces is how to “provide a platform for free expression without exacerbating the ugliness,” Elliot Schrage, the company’s vice president of global communications, said at the annual Politics Online Conference here Thursday afternoon.

Schrage pointed to what he called a “disturbing” video posted by a YouTube user that featured the late son of presidential hopeful John Edwards. He said the company, after much contemplation, ultimately decided it was not in a position to remove it.

“We are redefining boundaries when it comes to the personal lives of candidates and their families,” Schrage said in his conference keynote speech at George Washington University. “We all have to be more vigilant about protecting the truth.”

As more and more candidates and voters use the Web as a soapbox, the public-relations chief acknowledged that the search giant is left in an awkward place. He said he believes that “self-policing” is the best way to prevent online mudslinging.

“We’re not in the business of assessing truth or falsity,” he said in response to an audience member’s follow-up question. “That’s not a path we want to take, or we think is appropriate, or our users would expect.”

Schrage was also quick to point out the unprecedented democratizing benefits he believes the Web has brought to candidates and voters. He said the Internet has led to easier interaction between politicians and constituents, greater accountability for politicians who make missteps and a broader fundraising base.

Google hopes to promote that exchange by creating a special sales team to handle ad requests from political campaigns. It has also invited all of the 2008 presidential candidates to journey to the Googleplex to “talk tech and policy and maybe even grab lunch,” Schrage said.

If the candidates agree to it, Google hopes to film some of the visit and put the videos they produce online, he added. YouTube recently launched a site called YouChoose ‘08 that provides an official platform for the presidential candidates to post videos.

Other concerns range from so-called Google bombing–that is, manipulating search rankings to render artificial results–to what Schrage deemed the very real possibility of political spyware planting itself on unsuspecting users’ computers.

For the company that likes to say its mission is organizing the world’s information, it will remain a challenge to give voters the information they need without overwhelming them, Schrage said.

“I defy anyone here to search for ‘Hillary 2008′ and read all the results without passing out,” he quipped, adding: “not because of the content, mind you, but because of the volume.”

PALO ALTO, Calif.–While many investors have knocked Microsoft for not moving as quickly as Google, Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer suggested that his chief rival may be trying to grow too fast.

Microsoft took nearly three decades to grow to 75,000 people, while Google has become a very large company in a fraction of that time.

“They are trying to double in a year,” Ballmer told a crowd of Stanford Graduate School of Business students on Thursday. “That’s insane in my opinion.”

But, he added, “it doesn’t mean they won’t do it well.”

There are advantages to the deliberate management structure that Microsoft has put in place, he said, adding that he isn’t sure anyone has proven “that a random collection of people doing their own thing” has created value. Among Google’s perks, the company is widely known for letting its engineers devote 20 percent of their work time to pet projects.

As in the past, he characterized Google as a one-trick pony, playing down the company’s efforts beyond search.

“They do a lot of cute things,” Ballmer said, to huge laughs from the business students.

“We do a lot of cute things too,” he said. “We have a robotics effort.”

Although not in the audience for Ballmer’s chat, Google CEO Eric Schmidt happened to be not far away, eating lunch at the business school cafeteria as Ballmer’s chat began. Schmidt teaches a class at Stanford’s business school.

At Stanford and schools throughout the country, Google and Microsoft have emerged as each other’s fiercest rivals for talent. Ballmer, who attended one year of the two year Stanford Business School program, makes fairly regular stops here, having in 2005.

Ballmer said there are basically four stages in business: coming up with an idea, getting it to critical mass, milking it financially and then finding a new idea.

“Google is in the part of the cycle where they are milking,” Ballmer said, acknowledging that’s a fun stage. “That was the ’90s for us…or I would say the ’80s and ’90s.”

Excerpts from a note published by Citigroup analysts Mark Mahaney and Jason Brueschke released yesterday:

Head of Google (GOOG) in China said that Google is open to using M&A in China as a way to grow its talent base, technology and portfolio.

Our reading of GOOG’s M&A history to date and its strategy is that the most likely M&A candidates in China would be small technology/R&D shops or unique localized applications. That said, there are several potential candidates that might offer distinct advantages in terms of increased user bases or expanded Web traffic.

We think Google is likely looking for companies with unique technology skills sets or companies that can help Google localize its offerings for the China market.

If Google were to depart from its practice of making primarily technology-based acquisitions, it is interesting to consider who, among publicly-listed Chinese Internet/Media companies, Google might consider acquiring:

Baidu.com Inc (BIDU): The Obvious Choice. The issues are likely to be: (1) Management resistance – Baidu founder Robin Li is the obvious person to run the China operations were such a deal to happen, but Google has hired two talented people to run its operations already; (2) Government resistance – While it is a generally held view that the Chinese government is reluctant to allow Sina (SINA) to be acquired, it is unclear if the Chinese government feels the same way about Baidu and the Search market. Our view is that a takeover of Baidu would meet significant government resistance; (3) Google needs Baidu more than Baidu needs Google – Baidu is the leader and appears to be pulling away from Google in China. As a result, there are fewer reasons for Baidu to sell, in our view. Nevertheless, Google already owns a small percentage of Baidu, purchased when Baidu was a private company, so a deal is not out of the question. Near-term, we expect Google to choose to compete with Baidu, rather than trying to take control of Baidu.

Sina (SINA): The Best Fit. Sina has tremendous Internet traffic that continues to grow. Google could benefit from this traffic. Moreover, Sina’s search engine has basically failed, meaning Sina is not likely to effectively monetize its traffic on its own via CPC Search anytime during the next several years, in our view. A deal would thus benefit each party significantly, and they could be natural allies similar to AOL and Google in the U.S. However, the Chinese government would likely prohibit Google taking a controlling stake in Sina. As a result, we believe the most likely result would be for Sina and Google to reach an agreement whereby Sina uses Google’s search engine to monetize its traffic in exchange for most of the revenues — perhaps 90%+ of the search revenues. It is possible that a small equity stake by Google – say 9.99%, which would not trigger the Sina poison pill – could cement the deal without being vetoed by Beijing. However, in our view, such an equity stake is not necessary for such a Sina-Google strategic partnership.

51job (JOBS): Leader in Online Classified Job Market. 51job would bring Google access to the dominant player in the online job market in China. While 70% of 51job’s revenues are print based, its online business and traffic is still the strongest in China, in our view. The #2 player, ChinaHR, is already controlled by Monster Worldwide, and hence is not available. 51job investors recently sold a 15% stake to Japan’s Recruit, with the option to take this stake to 40% over the next three years, which could make 51job a less attractive target for Google (unless an accommodation with Recruit could be reached).

Sohu (SOHU): Strong Assets, But Not Likely. Sohu would be an attractive fit for Google, as its seven properties have traffic levels on par with Sina and Baidu. However, Sohu has a strong search effort fully under way, and Sohu has been publicly quoted as saying it believes Google will ultimately fail in China. With a controlling shareholder/founder determined to beat both Baidu and Google, Sohu seems an unlikely seller, in our view. Finally, Sohu likely faces similar government approval issues as Sina would.

Online Gaming Companies: NetEase (NTES) a Possibility, But Not Likely. While NetEase has significant traffic, much of it is youth-focused due to the company’s strength in online gaming. If Google were to acquire a gaming company, NetEase would be the one, in our view. Shanda and, especially, The9 are more pure-gaming plays and thus likely to be less desirable to Google, in our view.

Wireless VAS Players: Tom Online (TOMO). Like NetEase in Gaming, only one player makes any sense in the WVAS sector: Tom Online. The largest player in this space, Tom excels at monetizing traffic via mobile phones. However, Tom actually is weak in terms of traffic compared to the Portals, and needs to grow its own traffic and brand ahead of full-scale 3G launch in China, in our estimation. Such a deal would add little to meet Google’s most pressing needs, in our view.

What Google Should do in ‘06
by Mark Evans at 03:55PM (EST) on January 1, 2006 | Permanent Link | Cosmos
There was no doubt 2005 was yet another eventful year for Google, highlighted by its stock roaring through $400 and the $1-billion investment in AOL for a 5% equity stake. That said, I’m looking for even bigger things from Google in 2006. With $7-billion of cash, Google has the potential to do more than hire more engineers and continue its ambitious campaign to corner the market on the biggest brains (Vinton Cerf, Louis Monier, Kai-Fu Lee, etc.) in the high-tech world. Google has a lot more to offer than launching new services such as Google Talk and Google Maps - not to suggest they aren’t cool and useful. In terms of services, I’d like to see Google get serious about its portal with some more bells and whistles and seamless integration between its applications. It would be the ultimate mash-up to see Blogger, Google News, Maps, RSS Reader, Talk, Picasa and search thrown together in one place. Google should also take a serious look at offering a browser (a.k.a. the GBrowser). As the Web-based applications company, it makes little sense not to control the browser, which is becoming the Web’s operating system. So far, it appears Google is content to work behind the scenes to support Firefox but there’s nothing wrong with giving Firefox a helping hand and developing your own browser. (By the way, Google owns the domain gbrowser.com) I’d also like to see Google get more ambitous about video/television - whether it’s acquiring Tivo or working with content providers to deliver free and fee-based video streams and downloads. Apple’s deals with ABC and NBC are just the tip of the video-on-demand iceberg, and Google could be a key player in the market’s growth. It would be good to see Google enlighten us on its Internet access plans. Instead of strategic tidbits (i.e. a proposal to build a Wi-Fi network in San Francisco and the sponsorship of a Wi-Fi system in New York), I want to see Google come clean on why it has been buying tons of dark fiber. Is it going into the access business or creating simply a network and data centre plan to reduce its telecom costs while beefing up its services? What’s interesting about all of these “suggestions” is do not require a lot of money. This gives Google the opportunity to move forward on a lot of different front and still have the cash to make a major acquisition. Maybe Google should take a harder run at AOL. Maybe it should buy a wholesale telecom carrier with lots of high-capacity pipe to carry all of those Google packets. Maybe Google should buy Knight-Ridder and turn the newspaper industry upside down. While few or none of these ideas seem to fit the modus operandi of Larry Page and Sergey Brin, I’d still like to see something really dramatic from Google in 2006.
For a look at what Google did in 2005, BetaNews has an extensive review.

In the 1990s, we loved to tally up the number of Microsoft millionaires. Now, it’s Google’s turn. The New York Times cites estimates that there are 1,000 Google employees whose stock grants and options are worth more than $5 million. So there are more than 1,000 Google millionaires, including Google’s former masseuse, Bonnie Brown.

And anyone who joined a year ago is worth, on average, $276,000. But that’s not as crazy as The New York Times citing that 1,000 out of the 16,000 Google employees are worth more than $5 million. At the current price of $662/share, those stock grants and options are sure paying off!