For all the news about and from Google this week (including its purchase of Reqwireless, a Web browser and e-mail software start-up in Waterloo, Ont.), the most "spectacular" is Caris & Co. analyst Mark Stahlman's thesis that Google shares could be worth $2000. It sounds eerily-like a technique a little-known Henry Blodget used at CIBC Oppenheimer when he put a $400 target price on Amazon, which eventually led to a big job at Merrill Lynch. Stahlman's $2000 implied share price is based on the belief Google could eventually have revenue of $100-billion a year - compared with $9-billion this year based on the company having 1% of the $10-trillion digital services market. (now worth $2-trillion) "In our opinion, Google will not be limited by the size of today's advertising market and is likely to expand into next-generation financial services and healthcare, among other digital services opportunities considerably larger than typically recognized," Stahlman said in his report, which upgrades Google to a "1*/buy" from a "2*/buy". Stahlman's report puts the spotlight on what appears to be a game of one-upmanship among analysts covering Google. Given the company's popularity and growth, it no longer appears to be enough to have a "buy" rating on the stock because everyone - except for Gomez & Co.'s Philip Remek - has a "buy" on Google. The new game - at least until Google has disappointing earnings and people jump off the bandwagon - is writing research with some sizzle such as a $2000 stock price. Another way to view it is as creative thinking by analysts unwilling to follow the pack. As much as analysts should do research using financial models and established metrics, it is also encouraging to see some them thinking outside the box even the ideas seem bizarre.
Some other views on Google and $2000 can be found here (Wharton grad), here (Mathew Ingram), here (Om Malik), here (Henry Blodget) and here (Paul Kedrosky).
Update: Sunday's New York Times wades into the Google stock phenomena with an article that dismisses Piper Jaffray analyst Safa Rashtchy as "relatively obscure". Anyone who follows the Internet would find this description puzzling given Rashtchy's profile. Then again, the NYT quotes Blodget's blog so read into that what you will.

So what do you make of the Consumer Electronics Show (CES)? Despite the best efforts of the VOIP contingent (Skype, Vonage, et al), the overall them - sadly, from the outside looking in at least for this year - is the intent to migrate the Web from personal computers to other access "points" such as wireless devices, cars and TVs. In this keynote speech yesterday, Yahoo CEO Terry Semel officially unveiled Yahoo Go, which will offer access to many of the company's services on cell phones and TVs. Google and Yahoo both announced deals with Motorola to offer wireless search. The focus on wireless is understandable given the emergence of higher speed networks is making it easier to deliver Web services. The big question, however, is how extensive mobile Web services will be used. I totally get e-mail and text-messaging because they are communication tools that complement voice. For whatever reason, I'm not convinced about search. I definitely see it as a useful service but I would be surprised if it becomes wildly popular. I don't get the excitement about mobile video. It strikes me video is an animal being shoved into the market by carriers looking for another way to bump ARPU. I mean, how many people will pay $2 to watch a music video or sports highlights? As for mobile TV, maybe there's a small market among road warriors and bored commuters but it seems like a strange thing to be pushing at a time when monster-size TVs are all the rage. Of course, my cautious take on wireless in North American-centric and comes without a full appreciation of young consumers who see their wireless devices as part of their personal identity. Maybe this is why Google and Yahoo are so keen on wireless. Perhaps they see what's going on in other parts of the world and believe it is only a matter of time before the Web really goes wireless. At the very least, they have little to lose by migrating their services to wireless devices. If it works out, their dominance of the Web will be strengthen; if not, it's on to the next Big Thing.
For another view on what went on at CES, check out Read/WriteWeb, which highlights device connectivity, the Internet as a delivery vehicle and partnerships as key themes of the show.  The anti-climax of CES had to be Google's video service, which the Wall St. Journal reported on two days before Larry Page gave his keynote speech on Friday afternoon. Yahoo CEO Terry Semel also spilled the beans about his keynote to the New York Times a day before he delivered it. As much as this PR technique provides more media coverage, it also punctures much of the excitement about their much-anticipated speeches.