I think you misread the quote. 88% of the non-US revenue going through Google Ireland doesn't in any way imply 88% of the total Google revenue being non-US.
Bing results are total garbage outside the US at the moment, so it's no surprise that their share would be low. And likewise it makes sense for MS to concentrate on reaching a critical mass in a single market first, and only worry about the rest of the world later.
I don't think that's what the Bloomberg article meant. They're talking about how Google funnels 88% of its non-US revenue (which totals $12.5B) through its Dublin subsidiary to reduce their tax burden.
"They're talking about how Google funnels 88% of its non-US revenue (which totals $12.5B) through its Dublin subsidiary to reduce their tax burden."
Please stop using the phrase "tax burden". It's loaded language and not-so-subtly encourages a biased interpretation. It would be like saying "tax opportunity"; i.e., "an opportunity to pay tax".
> It's important to note that Google made 88% of it's revenue outside of the US in 2009.
I don't think that's accurate. I read that article as saying that 88% of the $12.5 billion it made outside the US was booked in Dublin. Not that 88% of their revenue is from outside the US.
Comments
It's important to note that Google made 88% of it's revenue outside of the US in 2009.
Here's is a paragraph describing how Google legally dodges tax:
"The Dublin subsidiary sells advertising globally and was credited by Google with 88 percent of its $12.5 billion in non-U.S. sales in 2009."
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-10-21/google-2-4-rate-sho...
So it seems a bit silly to focus solely on US searches. These are global markets we are talking about.
EDIT: link
I think you misread the quote. 88% of the non-US revenue going through Google Ireland doesn't in any way imply 88% of the total Google revenue being non-US.
Bing results are total garbage outside the US at the moment, so it's no surprise that their share would be low. And likewise it makes sense for MS to concentrate on reaching a critical mass in a single market first, and only worry about the rest of the world later.
Indeed. Thanks.
I don't think that's what the Bloomberg article meant. They're talking about how Google funnels 88% of its non-US revenue (which totals $12.5B) through its Dublin subsidiary to reduce their tax burden.
Their total 2009 revenue was much higher, $23.6B (URL: http://investor.google.com/earnings/2009/Q4_google_earnings....) making non-US revenue a pretty big chunk at 53%.
"They're talking about how Google funnels 88% of its non-US revenue (which totals $12.5B) through its Dublin subsidiary to reduce their tax burden."
Please stop using the phrase "tax burden". It's loaded language and not-so-subtly encourages a biased interpretation. It would be like saying "tax opportunity"; i.e., "an opportunity to pay tax".
> It's important to note that Google made 88% of it's revenue outside of the US in 2009.
I don't think that's accurate. I read that article as saying that 88% of the $12.5 billion it made outside the US was booked in Dublin. Not that 88% of their revenue is from outside the US.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Irish_Arrangement
This is just how revenue is collected, no? I believe the Irish subsidiary must have a lot of american clients.