this guy is an idiot. the whole point of other products, 20% time, diversification, etc. are to not only create other cash cows but allow tolerance for a product's growth/earnings to slow down. ever hear of "don't put all your eggs in one basket"?
the simple fact is, when you have a cash cow, you got extremely lucky. it's really hard to duplicate that so you do your best to support it and keep it going by creating an ecosystem around it and expanding it wherever you can. see: gmail, google webmaster tools, MS SQL server and friends, and so forth.
his real gripe seems to be, though he may not realize it, that companies aren't operated as short-running events that generate a burst of money for shareholders and then fizzle out and die. he doesn't seem to like the long-haul approach that has kept e.g. MS in business for 30 years.
"the simple fact is, when you have a cash cow, you got extremely lucky"
And here we have yet another comment purporting to argue against the article, and inadvertently proving it's main thesis.
Google should give the profits back to shareholders instead of trying to duplicate or continue what you yourself agree was success that was "extremely lucky".
The author isn't expecting lightning to strike twice at Google, and thinks they should put the money back in the marketplace where it can be spent wisely.
when you have a cash cow you can either take the money and run, or reinvest and try to milk it for all it's worth. sometimes the former is the best idea, sometimes the latter works out well. MS, google, apple, facebook, etc. are all examples of the latter. which completely goes against the premise of the article -- google wouldn't be google if they didn't have a wide breadth of products and would have likely gotten bought out if their only concern was a quick return on investment money.
the simple fact is, when you have a cash cow, you got extremely lucky. it's really hard to duplicate that so you do your best to support it and keep it going by creating an ecosystem around it and expanding it wherever you can. see: gmail, google webmaster tools, MS SQL server and friends, and so forth.
his real gripe seems to be, though he may not realize it, that companies aren't operated as short-running events that generate a burst of money for shareholders and then fizzle out and die. he doesn't seem to like the long-haul approach that has kept e.g. MS in business for 30 years.