看了幾家的分析，這邊貼一下
首先是MMDays的
/***********************************************************************************
看到這個消息，相信很多懷抱著矽谷創業夢的創業家們，心中既是振奮又是忌妒。Google花了大約兩倍於併購YouTube的錢：31.8億美金，在今天宣布正式併購DoubleClick這一家公司！以現在的匯率換算過來，大約是1049.4億台幣！好啦，那個「小小的零頭」49.4億台幣我們就別管它了(雖然這個零頭已經是無名小站被併購的七倍價錢)，姑且就稱這次併購為千億併購吧！
為什麼Google會砸下將近於購併YouTube時兩倍的錢來買這家公司？這就要從網路廣告說起了，現在的網路廣告分為兩大類，一是付費搜尋廣告 (paid search advertising)；二是展示廣告(display advertising，不知道這樣翻成中文合不合適，有錯還麻煩讀者們指正)。paid search advertising是Google的主力，Google的主要廣告方法很清楚，99%是來自於根據搜尋的結果，把相關的廣告餵給使用者，這就是AdWords。另外AdSense等 等根據網頁內容動態產生廣告的方式，都是Google的主要廣告方式。相對於此，display advertising就是Yahoo!的地盤，包括了banner、video、flash廣告等等大家會在網頁上看到的那種較為大型的廣告。很明顯， Google幾乎完全沒有這方面的廣告，這一類廣告的主要功用跟AdWords或是AdSense不同，不只是在於促使使用者立刻點擊然後算收益，更大的 功用是在於以更豐富的呈現手法來達到推銷品牌的目的。
Google會賺到這麼多的錢，靠的是長尾理論(Long Tail)， Google從無數的使用者和小廣告商身上每個人收集一點點的點擊和廣告費用，聚合起來的結果就是幾十億美金的進帳。另一方面，Yahoo!的收入主要就 來自於那種大型的橫幅廣告，與Google相當不同。所以Google在paid search advertising以外，其實沒有太多的市場。而DoubleClick這一家公司，恰恰好就是做這種display advertising的佼佼者，DoubleClick不僅和幾乎所有的線上出版商有合作，幫他們代理廣告，還和網路上所有廣告代理商其中超過一半有合 作關係。Google為什麼要搶下這家公司，應該已經很明顯了吧。Google搶進display advertising之後，不僅僅是直接拿下一大塊自己原本沒有的市場，之後再將自家強大的人工智慧結合這些廣告，推出相關性更高的display ads。DoubleClick的CEO Rosenblatt自己也說了，這塊市場的潛力甚至不比paid search advertising小。(線上廣告的市場大約是195億美元，而paid search advertising佔了約40%。而Google佔了這40%的三分之二以上，市場總佔有率可以見下圖。來源：eMarketer)
Microsoft和Yahoo!，在這次大併購之後又更加落後一大步了。從上圖來看，Yahoo!的市佔率本來已經停滯不前，而微軟則是節節下滑，現在甚至已經被AOL超越。Yahoo!最近的Panama計畫， 好不容易給了華爾街的那群人一些希望，讓Yahoo!的股價目前比起去年已經上漲了20%以上。現在Google的這則消息相信又投下了一個大號震撼彈。 另外這次併購對於Google而言最重要的就是卡住Microsoft，徹底把微軟屏除在搜尋市場之外，微軟深知DoubleClick在線上廣告市場的 重要地位，同時比爾蓋茲也很清楚DoubleClick的主力市場跟Google的主力市場在網路廣告這一塊廣大的土地上近乎互補，一但 DoubleClick被Google搶走，微軟想要在網路廣告上找到自己的一片天，就無異是緣木求魚，所以之前就一直和Google拼命在搶 DoubleClick，想要靠DoubleClick扭轉自己在網路世界的頹勢。如果今天是Yahoo!想要搶DoubleClick這家公司，也許微 軟還不會這麼緊張，因為Yahoo!也是做線上的banner廣告出身的，相對於Google而言，與DoubleClick的業務還算較為類似。
我相信這次的併購，絕對是讓Yahoo!更加坐立難安：Google又向前跨了一大步，準備要進軍Yahoo!的主力市場了。而搶輸的微軟啊，難道除了MSN Messenger之外，我們真的要跟你在網路世界中說掰掰了嗎？
**********************************************************************************/
這個評述算是中文界相當完整的了～但是相信有用過adwords都會知道，它提供的服務相當多元，絕不只一般看到的純文字而已，DoubleClick有一些厲害的專利～所以大家都想搶！XD
而這則新聞也更證實了好多年前的一篇文章
http://www.kottke.org/03/02/google-is-not-a-search-company
"
Google is not a search company
"
商周
http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/apr2007/tc20070414_675511.htm
The Street
http://www.thestreet.com/_tscrss/newsanalysis/technet/10350365.html
Market Watch
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/story.aspx?guid=%7B688258ED%2DF4A5%2D43C4%2D9975%2DB312C7FEF516%7D&dist=rss
CNN Money
http://money.cnn.com/2007/04/13/technology/google_doubleclick/index.htm?section=money_topstories
Google真是一家恐怖的公司～
再附上當家老大schmidt的訪問吧！
/***********************************************************************************
On March 23 I spent an hour interviewing Google CEO Eric Schmidt in a cramped conference room 50 feet from his even more cramped office. (It's so small that if you spread your arms you can almost touch both walls.) We talked about everything from Google's competition with Microsoft and its partnership with Apple to all those data centers it is building.
- Fred Vogelstein
WIRED: When you joined Google it was just a search engine. Now it's redefining the way the world thinks about computing. Explain.
ERIC SCHMIDT: It's pretty clear that there's an architectural shift going on. These occur every 10 or 20 years. The previous architecture was a proprietary network with PC clients called client-server computing. With this new architecture you're always online; every device can see every application; and the applications are stored in the cloud. It means that your servers are professionally managed, so you can actually have a weekend and not spend all your time trying to manage your servers. It's like having banks manage your money rather than you managing your money. And the networks have become secure, and the computers have become fast enough that this is mechanically possible - it actually works.
The other thing that's interesting is that the new architecture brings in other voices. The earlier model was pretty proprietary. The protocols, which were typically Microsoft-based, didn't allow for other (interface) choices very well. Now, with the Internet protocols you can pretty much plug in your own interpretation of how email should work and your own interpretation of how voice over IP should work.
This point about anyone being able to enter the market is a big deal. Photo sharing, social networks, all of them have this property. And what's interesting is that Google, although we're one of the companies, we're, by far, not the only company that's doing this. Yahoo is an example of a company like this. eBay is a company like this. Amazon is a company like this. And each of the companies I've named makes money in a different way.
Right.
We have talked about this network, or the cloud computing model for years, but we were beholden to the old software selling model - the one where the salesperson is making a million-dollar sale. I used to be in this business [when I was at Novell and Sun]. That model doesn't scale for Internet users. You just can't get that kind of money out of the average citizen. So the new model allows you to have free services with advertising. And this targeted advertising thing is a really, really big deal.
Isn't it more likely that we'll have a hybrid model - with some applications in the cloud and others on the desktop?
It depends. There is not a middle ground when it comes to protocols. In order for this vision (of cloud computing) to work, the protocols have to be open. They can't be proprietary. Everyone has to have access to them. So that's a clear, binary answer.
With respect to the user experience, which I think is your real question, a hybrid works depending on how it's architected. It makes sense, for example, to have graphics computing close to the end user because that's where your frame buffer is and your computation is. Games are a good example because it's very, very hard to imagine games that are network resident only. They're so highly interactive.
Right.
But it's perfectly possible to have most of the other computing being done on the server, so that's an example of a hybrid model. If it's something (like a video or a document or a spreadsheet) where there's relatively few changes (to the file), you can put it on a service (in the cloud) and then you can cache it locally.
All these features don't exist yet, though.
True. Google docs and spreadsheets don't work if you're on an airplane. But it's a technical problem that is going to get solved. Eventually you will be able to work on a plane as if you are connected and, then when you get reconnected to the Internet, your computer will just synchronize with the cloud.
Here's another way of saying this - and these are not my words. People call this an Internet operating system. And by "this" I don't mean Google, I mean the sum of this vision. And if you think about it as an Internet operating system, the Internet operating system will have to have all of the normal features of the older versions of operating systems. It will have to have security, it will have to have caching, it will have to have replication, and it will have to have performance.
Why is it taking so long?
Well, one answer is that the systems they're replacing are very complicated, and people have very high standards for interactive services. So everything has to work; all the features have to be there; and they have to never break. We used to think that the enterprise was the hardest customer to satisfy, but we were wrong. It turns out, consumers are harder than the enterprise because the consumer will not give you a second chance.
And by the way, I would argue that we in the industry forgot this. We became as a group - certainly I did - consumed with the complexity of the systems that we were building for powerful corporations, and we forgot that there's a much larger market around consumers for simple solutions.
Online calendars are the perfect example of this. Sharing a calendar in the older (client server) model was hard. Now it's easy because the model says the calendars are stored on professional servers, and they are visible everywhere you want them to be. Making this happen reliably and securely is complicated and technical, but it is ultimately justified by delivering on a very simple concept.
When you joined Google it was just a search engine. It has grown into much more. How should we think about Google today?
One is as an advertising system. Another one is as this end-user system (the search, email, and other applications Google delivers to users through an Internet browser). A third way to think of Google is as a giant supercomputer. And then a fourth way is to think of Google as a social phenomenon involving the company, the people, the brand, the mission, the values - all that kind of stuff.
How powerful is the supercomputer?
There's never been anything like it, so we don't know how to express it. We build our own data centers, and we do a lot of the work ourselves because the commercial solutions do not have high enough performance.
What do you mean you do a lot of the work yourself?
Well, essentially, we do all of the software. So the computers that we're running start off with Linux as the base, but after that it's really custom software to move all the data around. The Web services, all the identity management, all of the database activities, all of the indexing, all the searching, all the ranking, all that kind of stuff in the cloud we do ourselves. This is a great core competency of the company.
And we have not only data centers, but we have fiber that interconnect those data centers, and connect to the ISPs. At Google, speed is critical. And part of the way we get that speed is with that fiber.
How many data centers are there?
I don't actually know.
Are we talking about a half dozen? A dozen? Or are we talking about dozens?
I think my overall description would be in the dozens. There are a few very large ones, some of which have been leaked to the press. But in a year or two the very large ones will be the small ones because the growth rate is such that we keep building even larger ones, and that's where a lot of the capital spending in the company is going.
Why do you have to control your own fiber to connect the data centers?
One of the neat things about the bubble is that people built all of this fiber that is now essentially free. What's funny about our fiber leasing and purchasing is that people are always assuming that we have some master plan involving telecommunications when, in fact, if you think about it as just solving the supercomputer problem, we just want the thing to be faster.
***********************************************************************************/
留言