10 minutes of downtime means big losses for Google

Twitter exploded this afternoon with cries of terror: Google was down. For about 10 minutes the internet (except for those who followed Google's advice and switched to Bing) screamed that their beloved search engine was dead. Was it delusional users? A perfect storm of browser errors? Or did Google really go down? We may never know, since there hasn't been any sign of a statement so far, other than promising a while back that Google Apps would be free from downtime (unless you count constantly recurring periods of 9 minutes, which Google doesn't).

RYP's Adam Thompson, however, decided to do a little number crunching and figure out how much money Google would lose if it went down universally for 10 minutes. Even though Thompson admits that the numbers are just 'ballpark estimates,' relying on two obviously incorrect assumptions, they're still pretty interesting.

Basically, Thompson says that if Google's revenue were to be divided equally through the year, regardless of time or date, and if the people who couldn't access Google didn't return later, then we would be able to determine how much money they would have lost in those 10 minutes of downtime.

In 2011, Google raked in just shy of $38 billion. Divide that by the 525,600 minutes in a year and you'll see that Google would make $72,380.95 per minute. If that's not a humbling sum, we don't know what is. Multiply that by 10, and Google would have lost... $725,000 in 10 minutes. Again, humbling, unless you're a very special person.

Is it wrong? Probably – no, definitely. But as Thompson said, it's in the ballpark.

Source: RYP

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

The Oatmeal counters FunnyJunk lawsuit with philanthropy

Next Story

Windows Phone app publishing times decline

18 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

dead.cell said,

Well that's extremely unlikely.


I think what he's trying to say that if they didn't return for *that* search - as in if they temporarily moved to Bing or Yahoo!/etc. until Google came back online (which, IMO, isn't that unlikely)

I don't think this "numbers analysis" is realistic.
I would think that Google makes money on more of a "salary" principle rather than this "minute by minute" theory.

I find it hard to believe that $750k was magically vaporized by them being down for a few minutes.

Astra.Xtreme said,
I don't think this "numbers analysis" is realistic.
I would think that Google makes money on more of a "salary" principle rather than this "minute by minute" theory.

I find it hard to believe that $750k was magically vaporized by them being down for a few minutes.

The Neowin author said that the number is DEFINITELY wrong.

What I'm wondering is why cover something when the main content of the story is incorrect?

andrewbares said,

The Neowin author said that the number is DEFINITELY wrong.

What I'm wondering is why cover something when the main content of the story is incorrect?

Why not cover it when its a good chance to bash google?

"Twitter exploded this afternoon with cries of terror: Google was down. For about 10 minutes the internet (except for those who followed Google's advice and switched to Bing) screamed that their beloved search engine was dead."

when? and where?

tanjiajun_34 said,
Weird is it really down? I don't see other tech news website reporting.... Or any trends on twitter...

Maybe it was an ISP block. It has happened with me: I couldn't access Google through my House ISP and through my cellphone (different ISP) I could.

Also, if it was really down, maybe was just the '.com' address.

Furthermore, these kind of things are normal, but sadly people do not understand this, and they've been raised to not believe that server downtimes happen.

remixedcat said,
Thought they had the world's best datacenters and super clouds !!!

They probably have.

It amazes me what is realistic and what people expect nowadays.