Looks like Indeed sold in 2012, for 1 billion. I would bet it would've sold for much much more if they sold it later (at peak "unicorn" hype), but this is easy to say in hindsight.

And perhaps, in six months with Google Jobs Search eating up market share, it would have sold for much less. Seizing a 1 billion USD exit opportunity seems like a more than acceptable outcome.

Heh, especially considering they only took 1 round of VC years after bootstrapping. I wouldn't be surprised if they still owned 80% of it at exit.

Google has said numerous times they don't want to get involved in any further steps of the job applicant process more than they are with this search tool.

Which makes sense, because this is the step in the funnel where they can make the highest margins. There is incredibly strong user intent, and their existing ads product can plug in nicely.

That combined means advertisers (read: companies trying to hire) could find a lot of value in using this over other options, and that could mean a large revenue opportunity for Google.

But neither -- really -- are Indeed. Indeed are (sort of) only an aggregator.

True, however, Google is facing more and more pressure from regulators for favoring their own services in search. The EU is expected to drop a massive penalty in the next month or two for Google favoring their own shopping services over others, and surely implement new restrictions on how they can conduct themselves in this regard.

Meanwhile, Amazon bans Chromecast from its store and promotes their Fire stick, yet they don't get hit with anything.

This is a commonly misunderstood issue, because of Google's superior PR. Amazon banned Chromecast in response to Google's refusal to allow Amazon products like the Kindle Fire from using Google services like Chromecast, without agreeing to the illegal requirement of bundling competing products like Play Books, which Amazon obviously doesn't want to load on their Kindles.

Google behaved anticompetitively, Amazon responded in turn, but unfortunately, very few people are aware of the former.

(And yes, Google's anticompetitive behavior regarding Android apps and services is subject to another, separate EU antitrust investigation than the one mentioned above, which is still ongoing.)

This is an incomplete answer. Google Play Services are required on all OEM Android devices running supported Android distributions. Google wasn't behaving in any untoward way, but the result was Amazon's refusal as you describe.

Imho, it's perfectly reasonable for Google to include Play Services as a requirement to OEMs running managed Android (as opposed to custom compiled flavors based on AOSP). Don't you agree?

Ah, you forget how incomplete your answer is. It controls not just the Android devices with Play Services, but restricts all Androids (and SDKs based on Android) that the company releases, including strict "compatibility" requirements, which include branding, pre-installed applications, etc.

Google's agreement for this is in fact, illegal anticompetitive tying (or bundling, if you prefer). Requiring that in order to support Chromecast, Amazon must include Google Play Books is a very questionable requirement legally, especially considering the other highly dominant apps they require, like Google Search, Google Maps, and Google Chrome. In almost every civilized country, it's illegal for a company to use one monopoly to expand it's reach into another market. (Like to use these bundling requirements to encroach on the Kindle ebook market.)

If, as you suggest, however, it's perfectly reasonable to require all this of Amazon in exchange for Kindle support, isn't it perfectly reasonable for Amazon to decide not to sell hardware not compatible with their products?

>Amazon banned Chromecast in response to Google's refusal to allow Amazon products like the Kindle Fire from using Google services like Chromecast,

Can you please cite where you got this information from?

Amazon will continue to sell streaming media devices that compete with its Fire TV and Fire Stick, including the Roku, Microsoft Xbox and Sony PlayStation -- all of which allow customers to stream Prime videos. In an emailed statement, Amazon called all of those devices "excellent choices."

"Over the last three years, Prime Video has become an important part of Prime," the statement says. "It's important that the streaming media players we sell interact well with Prime Video in order to avoid customer confusion."

http://money.cnn.com/2015/10/01/technology/amazon-bans-apple...

Combined this with Google's relatively secret (but well known to you, oh avid reader of my comments here) Mobile Applications Distribution Agreement (or MADA) which places heavy requirements on what Android devices can be if they have Google Play Services, like forbidding so-called "incompatible forks".

I mean, bitmapbrother, it only makes sense that Amazon only sells products compatible with their own products. The Apple Store doesn't sell chargers for the Galaxy S8! That would be madness. If Google wants their products sold on Amazon, they should feel free to loosen up their license restrictions to permit compatibility.

I asked for a citation for your claim and all you've done it present a theory with no evidence to back it up.

Also, Amazon is free to use Google Services providing their devices pass the CTS. In fact, their rumored Ice phones will use GMS.

Google didn't allow Amazon's devices which are just tablets (since their phone failed) to interact with Chromecast, no?

Source ? Never heard this.

Can't find it right now, hopefully i do before i'm not allowed to respond anymore.

I look forward to the US absolutely destroying EU companies, the few that exist, with massive fines and penalties in retaliation :)

Really, you look forward to? What makes this that personal to you? You are somehow afflicted if Google is indeed fined and regulated? "The few that exist" what is that supposed to mean? That operate in US? I believe it's more than "few".

Well I work at Google. And a significant portion of my compensation is in RSUs.

And I am not a fan of the EU's approach to regulation, economically they are already failing and I predict that it only gets worse.

Free markets win every time.

I agree that EU has too many bureaucrats inviting new ways to regulate things. Sadly it seems that it's the only way countries inside EU are going to have more uniform (and sane) laws.

Without really no knowledge of the Google ruling in my opinion it seems that it's a flick to show Google that there is a line that it can't cross. Maybe Google in all of its superiority has become too arrogant, who knows.

And free markets work only if they are fairly regulated. If there was no penalty from abusing your monopoly you think companies wouldn't do it? I think even Google wouldn't be all the goody-goody with its business practices if we'd let its actions go unchecked. Granted Google seems better than most.

> Free markets win every time.

Unless they result in a monopoly, which has arguably happened in the case of Google. Users only want to use one place to search, Google is currently dominant and the problem seems solved well enough that no newcomers are likely to succeed in the future.

Now Google is using its monopoly on search to move into a new segment (shopping) with an unfair advantage.

Free markets? Sounds interesting.

How are the markets (spheres of influence) of USA, EU, and China different?

What makes one of these markets more free than the others?

EU makes money by fining American companies. If you take that away, how else can they make money?

    > to the US absolutely destroying EU
    > companies, the few that exist

Of the Fortune Global 500, the US has 134, the EU single market has 110, and China 103. So ... good luck with that?

This would only be possible if EU companies were violating US laws or regulations. Given that EU laws and regulations are typically more restrictive than those in the US and EU companies are already required to comply with them, it seems less likely that an EU company would be fined by the US than a US company fined by the EU.

And I, as a consumer, hope that the opposite happens. The lack of regulation in the US may be great for corporations but it's definitely not for consumers. When it comes to things like privacy, most of the features I get from US companies seem to be a result of EU regulations.

Note: I live and work in the US for a major US company. I just prefer to have consumer rights than a minor bump to my stock portfolio value.