Originally Posted by Macky the Macky
Google's preoccupation with the smartphone business will be their undoing in the end. Besides costing them billions of real dollars, it has distracted upper management from the company's core business. If those two things were not enough, the whole smartphone focus has alienated the support of two major bases of positive synthesis -- Microsoft and Apple.
The loss of Apple's goodwill has especially bad long-term consequences. Apple about two steps away from isolating Google from Apple's customers, and that never needed to have happened. When I can ask Siri for information and I get the answer to most of my questions without Google even being part of the process, then Google loses about 45% to 70% of the input needed to fuel its search engine's loop.
While Bing by Microsoft is considered a lightweight by Google's standards, it really can do a reasonably comparable search. Compare the two search engines side-by-side here: http://www.bingiton.com
Five years out and Google could be a marginalized company unless they get back to their knitting quickly and quit playing hardball with companies whose friendship they need.
Exactly. And reading this story leads me to think also of Facebook and how they might be in the same boat as Google. Facebook would not have been so late to mobile:
if they had not tried to arm wrestle Apple several years ago. They might have gotten on iPhones and iPads in a big way more quickly, polish the app, and leverage an Apple partnership much more to their advantage.
Facebook playing hardball with Steve seems somewhat similar to Google trying to play hardball (and betraying) Steve. In both cases, these guys thought they could run a company the way Steve did and they tried to use some key Jobsian business skills (minus the basic integrity) against him. Jobs was known as a great business competitor and his business acumen was respected. He helped build industries and create wealth for very many people when those upstarts were still sucking on pacifiers. Speaking of goodwill, despite public perception, Steve had tons of it.
Those upstarts just didn't get it. Steve offered Larry and Sergy and also Mark wisdom, advice and partnerships. Google intruded on Steve's space, but Apple wasn't stupid enough to go all-in on advertising, search, and social. iAds still struggles, but it's peripheral, not core to Apple. IIRC, Steve stated that propping up iAds was a way for Apple to help developers monetize their efforts.
Yes, they are interested in search, but understanding mobile better, they continue to improve search via Siri (having the added benefit of locking out Google). As you mentioned, Macky, Google's future in search may be in peril.
Ping flailed and was shuttered, but is was a reaction, I think, to Facebook locking Apple out of their social network, or requiring Apple cede user data. Apple, at one point, seemed to all but beg Facebook to develop a good native app for iOS. Zuckerberg didn't like the terms (he needed user data) and declined. I don't think Apple really was interested in developing its own social network. Apple wanted a good native Facebook app because Apple's customers wanted Facebook on their mobile devices.
In none of those instances did Apple pour billions into their efforts or simply fail to move on a core aspect of their business. They saw the big picture and stuck to playing the long game. Facebook's and Google's business models may be broken insofar as they rely far too heavily on delivering eyeballs, as opposed to finding what their customers want and delivering it. Arguably, their customers are advertisers, not end users. I don't think I'm a typical case, but I got off Facebook and dropped Chrome because of degradations in privacy protection (Facebook and Google) and user experience.