Philosophy Mondays: Human-AI Collaboration
Today's Philosophy Monday is an important interlude. I want to reveal that I have not been writing the posts in this series entirely by myself. Instead I have been working with Claude, not just for the graphic illustrations, but also for the text. My method has been to write a rough draft and then ask Claude for improvement suggestions. I will expand this collaboration to other intelligences going forward, including open source models such as Llama and DeepSeek. I will also explore other moda...

Intent-based Collaboration Environments
AI Native IDEs for Code, Engineering, Science
Web3/Crypto: Why Bother?
One thing that keeps surprising me is how quite a few people see absolutely nothing redeeming in web3 (née crypto). Maybe this is their genuine belief. Maybe it is a reaction to the extreme boosterism of some proponents who present web3 as bringing about a libertarian nirvana. From early on I have tried to provide a more rounded perspective, pointing to both the good and the bad that can come from it as in my talks at the Blockstack Summits. Today, however, I want to attempt to provide a coge...
Philosophy Mondays: Human-AI Collaboration
Today's Philosophy Monday is an important interlude. I want to reveal that I have not been writing the posts in this series entirely by myself. Instead I have been working with Claude, not just for the graphic illustrations, but also for the text. My method has been to write a rough draft and then ask Claude for improvement suggestions. I will expand this collaboration to other intelligences going forward, including open source models such as Llama and DeepSeek. I will also explore other moda...

Intent-based Collaboration Environments
AI Native IDEs for Code, Engineering, Science
Web3/Crypto: Why Bother?
One thing that keeps surprising me is how quite a few people see absolutely nothing redeeming in web3 (née crypto). Maybe this is their genuine belief. Maybe it is a reaction to the extreme boosterism of some proponents who present web3 as bringing about a libertarian nirvana. From early on I have tried to provide a more rounded perspective, pointing to both the good and the bad that can come from it as in my talks at the Blockstack Summits. Today, however, I want to attempt to provide a coge...
>400 subscribers
>400 subscribers
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
On one hand I can understand Google’s aggressive interest in Groupon. Groupon appears to be one of the few companies that has cracked the code on making money from local businesses. Groupon’s revenues are rumored to be around $50 million per month, which is impressive. But there are at least two fundamental compatibility problems.
First, Groupon is a feet on the street business employing over 3,000 people globally. So at $600 million in annual revenues, that amounts to only $200,000 of annual revenue per employee. Google on the other hand does about $30B in revenues with around 25,000 employees, which works out to $1.2 million in annual revenue per employee and that’s including all the employees that work in Google businesses that produce no revenues at all. In other words, Google is a technology company and Groupon is a people company. Business Insider made this point when the acquisition rumor first surfaced.
Second, Groupon’s business model does not seem super defensible. People who want deals will generally go look for them. And businesses that want to offer deals will do so on any channel that will let them. This suggests that the price for connecting a deal searching consumer with a deal offering business should get driven down quickly and that ultimately this will be a performance based market. Deal aggregation or search (e.g., Yipit) would seem to be a better model and one that fits more naturally with Google’s DNA.
So if I were on Groupon’s board, I would definitely vote for hitting this bid. Conversely if I were on Google’s board, I would seriously question why management wants to do this. This seems to be a deal driven by the wrong reasons, which makes me even more nervous about who is at the wheel at Google.

On one hand I can understand Google’s aggressive interest in Groupon. Groupon appears to be one of the few companies that has cracked the code on making money from local businesses. Groupon’s revenues are rumored to be around $50 million per month, which is impressive. But there are at least two fundamental compatibility problems.
First, Groupon is a feet on the street business employing over 3,000 people globally. So at $600 million in annual revenues, that amounts to only $200,000 of annual revenue per employee. Google on the other hand does about $30B in revenues with around 25,000 employees, which works out to $1.2 million in annual revenue per employee and that’s including all the employees that work in Google businesses that produce no revenues at all. In other words, Google is a technology company and Groupon is a people company. Business Insider made this point when the acquisition rumor first surfaced.
Second, Groupon’s business model does not seem super defensible. People who want deals will generally go look for them. And businesses that want to offer deals will do so on any channel that will let them. This suggests that the price for connecting a deal searching consumer with a deal offering business should get driven down quickly and that ultimately this will be a performance based market. Deal aggregation or search (e.g., Yipit) would seem to be a better model and one that fits more naturally with Google’s DNA.
So if I were on Groupon’s board, I would definitely vote for hitting this bid. Conversely if I were on Google’s board, I would seriously question why management wants to do this. This seems to be a deal driven by the wrong reasons, which makes me even more nervous about who is at the wheel at Google.

No comments yet