aapl and nflx had stock split among others. I don't think they have such a thing like goog\googl (dual tickers). May be it is solely choice of the founders?

GOOG was already a traded ticker so that never had any voting rights? or it got changed after the split?

Yes, the split was unusually structured to ensure that Larry & Sergey maintained majority voting rights.

http://techcrunch.com/2014/04/03/google-is-splitting-its-sto...

A usual split just issues additional shares of the same class. The google split is unusual, because the new shares are in a new class which has no voting rights. The tickers were changed as of the split.

This is strange. I thought the new ticker would appeal less attractive to investors as it does not have any voting rights but it is more expensive than the old ticker. Does it have to do anything with volume of shares for that ticker?

Thanks to everyone for responding so kindly and quickly to my queries.

No voting rights is less attractive, but insiders hold another class of shares with ten votes per share, so that the insiders have a majority on all normal[1] votes, so the common stock voting doesn't really matter, and is not like to matter soon.

[1] some elections may have statutory requirements that a majority of each stock class vote in favor, such as tender offers, etc.

The voting rights moved from the old goog to the new googl. Voting shares do cost more now. But voting shares don't matter, Page Bring Schmidt hold a majority of votes via a third class of stock.

Hint: they are very highly correlated fundamentally.