I'd wager Google is putting a thorn in Apple's side. Google is so quick to overpay for a company that Apple can't come in and lowball them anymore. That would piss me off.
I wonder, though, if it's possible that Apple already had their eye on Quattro, considering how quickly they scooped it up after losing AdMob. They could have forced Google to pay that premium by planting that seed in the minds of Google's higher-ups that they needed to "snatch" AdMob away.
They were call a monopoly because they had like 98% of market share.
Now Google gets away with it by just having a non-existence "competitor".
There is nothing wrong with being a monopoly. There is something wrong with using that position to illegally hurt competition. So far, Google doesn't look to be going down the same road MS did which led to their anti-trust case.
Didn't Google show off working concepts of the AdMob ads at the keynote?
I think he was referring to the vaporware of iAds. Google was able to convince to FTC that Apple was already a credible competitor before the market could see how it was competing with the incumbent AdMob. AdMob has already been in the market successfully.
I also don't see how a good competitor on one platform translates to healthy competition across the whole mobile space. Or is iAds suppose to launch for other mobile platforms as well?
I wonder, though, if it's possible that Apple already had their eye on Quattro, considering how quickly they scooped it up after losing AdMob. They could have forced Google to pay that premium by planting that seed in the minds of Google's higher-ups that they needed to "snatch" AdMob away.
I thought of that. It's good to have a backup plan, to use misdirection in negotiations (which I think Apple has been doing for years now with a Verizon iPhone to get a better deal with AT&T) and get your competition to over extend themselves, but I haven't seen anything to lead 'me' to conclude that as a viable hypothesis with the AdMob/Quattro purchases.
There is nothing wrong with being a monopoly. There is something wrong with using that position to illegally hurt competition. So far, Google doesn't look to be going down the same road MS did which led to their anti-trust case.
The problem is that they seem to use their near monopoly in search and the revenue it brings to bring disruptive change to other markets. When you can offer a free version of something because your business model is based off of taking advantage of it to feed your cash generators, your competitors can't compete on equal terms. Reminds me of other browser vendors trying to compete with a free Internet Explorer.
Google seems to like saying that open technologies will always win out in the market while glossing over the fact that their open solutions are usually free and that their revenue comes from technologies that are not open in the slightest. I like a lot of what Google does, but their BS rhetoric just turns my stomach.
The problem is that they seem to use their near monopoly in search and the revenue it brings to bring disruptive change to other markets. When you can offer a free version of something because your business model is based off of taking advantage of it to feed your cash generators, your competitors can't compete on equal terms. Reminds me of other browser vendors trying to compete with a free Internet Explorer.
Google seems to like saying that open technologies will always win out in the market while glossing over the fact that their open solutions are usually free and that their revenue comes from technologies that are not open in the slightest. I like a lot of what Google does, but their BS rhetoric just turns my stomach.
But Google started their search as free and all the popular searches at the time were free. Google was just better at it and won a legal monopoly. What MS did with IE to crush Netscape wasn't legal.
But Google started their search as free and all the popular searches at the time were free. Google was just better at it and won a legal monopoly. What MS did with IE to crush Netscape wasn't legal.
I think he's referring to Google's forays into areas other than search, dumping free products on the market to starve out the competition, as much or more than to monetize them, and being able to do so because of their search ad revenue.
But Google started their search as free and all the popular searches at the time were free. Google was just better at it and won a legal monopoly. What MS did with IE to crush Netscape wasn't legal.
I'm not implying that Google did anything illegal to become a monopoly. And search may be free, but their revenue is based off advertising and it's engine is their search. And the free offerings I'm referring to are of course Android, and their suite of Google Apps, and navigation among others. I was simply pointing out that their free offerings forces the existing competitors in the markets they enter to change their business models. Because now they are competing with free and they can't take advantage of Google's model to do so. Maybe IE was a bad example for this.
I readily admit that I like using what they provide for free. But I do think that there is a cost, and some of that cost is in it's competition. And once they have something out there and it becomes popular, they may just stop innovating. I still find Gmail and Google Docs to be severely lacking in basic important features, but they don't seem interested in doing anything to really build it up.
I also am finding their rhetoric to be bullying and arrogant lately. I just don't respect them as a company as much as I used to. Their workers are all still top notch, I don't like their leadership. They are scaring me. But that's just my opinion.
Let me get this straight. A company (Google) that already dominates the ad market buys up a competitor to become even more dominant. This is okay because there is a newbie start-up ad company (Apple). Looks the like FTC is a ball-less as the former Wall Street regulators. Time for Obama to clean another house.
When was the last time Apple didn't deliver an announced product on time or within reasonable timeframe. Put another way, is there anything that was promised from Apple that is so late we are left wondering if it will ever arrive? MobileMe and Push we reasonable delays and they did deliver. Apple investors have higher expectations than a few other companies that come to mind. iAd will arrive - and sooner than later. I think the FTC either know that from Apple's excellent track record or Apple has shared a timeline. It's certian enough that Google is running scared. And yes, the AdMob deal was staged to drive up the price. Google knew it but really had no choice. I think Quattro was a better fit with it's list of clients at the upper end of the spectrum. Google has the ad volumes it was looking for.
When was the last time Apple didn't deliver an announced product on time or within reasonable timeframe. Put another way, is there anything that was promised from Apple that is so late we are left wondering if it will ever arrive? MobileMe and Push we reasonable delays and they did deliver. Apple investors have higher expectations than a few other companies that come to mind. iAd will arrive - and sooner than later. I think the FTC either know that from Apple's excellent track record or Apple has shared a timeline. It's certian enough that Google is running scared. And yes, the AdMob deal was staged to drive up the price. Google knew it but really had no choice. I think Quattro was a better fit with it's list of clients at the upper end of the spectrum. Google has the ad volumes it was looking for.
I think it's being referred to as "vaporware" simply because it's not in the market yet so it would be hard to see how it would affect that market. It's also ONLY on the iPhone so seems to be a strange reason to be convinced that Google has enough competition in the whole mobile space. Especially since Google thinks of the iPhone as only third or fourth best now.
Let me get this straight. A company (Google) that already dominates the ad market buys up a competitor to become even more dominant. This is okay because there is a newbie start-up ad company (Apple). Looks the like FTC is a ball-less as the former Wall Street regulators. Time for Obama to clean another house.
Yep. AND only available on the iPhone. Competition in one corner. A beautiful walled garden in that corner, but still...
I think he's referring to Google's forays into areas other than search, dumping free products on the market to starve out the competition, as much or more than to monetize them, and being able to do so because of their search ad revenue.
If Google was ever to become a convicted monopolist like Microsoft, then their behaviour of using a monopoly in one market (say advertising or search) to choke other markets by offering "free" products would certainly cause them problems.
Google is starting to scare me with all the stuff they're doing. TV, phones, search, desktop OS, music store, advertising, blogging, video (YouTube), VoIP, social networking, photo sharing and editing (Picasa), office suite, GPS, web browser, iTunes syncing--it's all a bit big. All their acquisitions are worrisome to me as well, as they are buying all the great small companies and hiding and holding them for their use only (I understand Apple does this too, but Google has quite a few more buy-outs). Google is growing so large so fast, I can only guess at where they'll be in 2 years.
Have no fear, Google turns everything it touches into mediocrity. The fact that it will compete with Apple is a very good thing in this case.
Comments
That is one of the most amazing thing about today's marketplace. Vaporware is just as good as the real thing.
Google was able to use vaporware to convince the FTC that there is competition in the market today.
[snip]
Didn't Google show off working concepts of the AdMob ads at the keynote?
They were call a monopoly because they had like 98% of market share.
Now Google gets away with it by just having a non-existence "competitor".
I'd wager Google is putting a thorn in Apple's side. Google is so quick to overpay for a company that Apple can't come in and lowball them anymore. That would piss me off.
I wonder, though, if it's possible that Apple already had their eye on Quattro, considering how quickly they scooped it up after losing AdMob. They could have forced Google to pay that premium by planting that seed in the minds of Google's higher-ups that they needed to "snatch" AdMob away.
LOL now I feel bad for Microsoft.
They were call a monopoly because they had like 98% of market share.
Now Google gets away with it by just having a non-existence "competitor".
There is nothing wrong with being a monopoly. There is something wrong with using that position to illegally hurt competition. So far, Google doesn't look to be going down the same road MS did which led to their anti-trust case.
LOL now I feel bad for Microsoft.
They were call a monopoly because they had like 98% of market share.
Now Google gets away with it by just having a non-existence "competitor".
What market does Google have 98% market share in?
Didn't Google show off working concepts of the AdMob ads at the keynote?
I think he was referring to the vaporware of iAds. Google was able to convince to FTC that Apple was already a credible competitor before the market could see how it was competing with the incumbent AdMob. AdMob has already been in the market successfully.
I also don't see how a good competitor on one platform translates to healthy competition across the whole mobile space. Or is iAds suppose to launch for other mobile platforms as well?
I wonder, though, if it's possible that Apple already had their eye on Quattro, considering how quickly they scooped it up after losing AdMob. They could have forced Google to pay that premium by planting that seed in the minds of Google's higher-ups that they needed to "snatch" AdMob away.
I thought of that. It's good to have a backup plan, to use misdirection in negotiations (which I think Apple has been doing for years now with a Verizon iPhone to get a better deal with AT&T) and get your competition to over extend themselves, but I haven't seen anything to lead 'me' to conclude that as a viable hypothesis with the AdMob/Quattro purchases.
Google has way more.
Apple total count: 28
Apple in the past 3 years: 6
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...tions_by_Apple
Google total count: 68
Google in the past 3 years: 33
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ions_by_Google
Google has done more in the past 3 years than Apple in totality.
I seem to remember a fairy-tale about that...
There is nothing wrong with being a monopoly. There is something wrong with using that position to illegally hurt competition. So far, Google doesn't look to be going down the same road MS did which led to their anti-trust case.
The problem is that they seem to use their near monopoly in search and the revenue it brings to bring disruptive change to other markets. When you can offer a free version of something because your business model is based off of taking advantage of it to feed your cash generators, your competitors can't compete on equal terms. Reminds me of other browser vendors trying to compete with a free Internet Explorer.
Google seems to like saying that open technologies will always win out in the market while glossing over the fact that their open solutions are usually free and that their revenue comes from technologies that are not open in the slightest. I like a lot of what Google does, but their BS rhetoric just turns my stomach.
The problem is that they seem to use their near monopoly in search and the revenue it brings to bring disruptive change to other markets. When you can offer a free version of something because your business model is based off of taking advantage of it to feed your cash generators, your competitors can't compete on equal terms. Reminds me of other browser vendors trying to compete with a free Internet Explorer.
Google seems to like saying that open technologies will always win out in the market while glossing over the fact that their open solutions are usually free and that their revenue comes from technologies that are not open in the slightest. I like a lot of what Google does, but their BS rhetoric just turns my stomach.
But Google started their search as free and all the popular searches at the time were free. Google was just better at it and won a legal monopoly. What MS did with IE to crush Netscape wasn't legal.
What market does Google have 98% market share in?
pretty safe to say that they have more than 98% of mobile ads market share.
Not sure about online ads though, but after buying doubleclick, I am pretty sure they are in a VERY dominant position also.
But Google started their search as free and all the popular searches at the time were free. Google was just better at it and won a legal monopoly. What MS did with IE to crush Netscape wasn't legal.
I think he's referring to Google's forays into areas other than search, dumping free products on the market to starve out the competition, as much or more than to monetize them, and being able to do so because of their search ad revenue.
But Google started their search as free and all the popular searches at the time were free. Google was just better at it and won a legal monopoly. What MS did with IE to crush Netscape wasn't legal.
I'm not implying that Google did anything illegal to become a monopoly. And search may be free, but their revenue is based off advertising and it's engine is their search. And the free offerings I'm referring to are of course Android, and their suite of Google Apps, and navigation among others. I was simply pointing out that their free offerings forces the existing competitors in the markets they enter to change their business models. Because now they are competing with free and they can't take advantage of Google's model to do so. Maybe IE was a bad example for this.
I readily admit that I like using what they provide for free. But I do think that there is a cost, and some of that cost is in it's competition. And once they have something out there and it becomes popular, they may just stop innovating. I still find Gmail and Google Docs to be severely lacking in basic important features, but they don't seem interested in doing anything to really build it up.
I also am finding their rhetoric to be bullying and arrogant lately. I just don't respect them as a company as much as I used to. Their workers are all still top notch, I don't like their leadership. They are scaring me. But that's just my opinion.
When was the last time Apple didn't deliver an announced product on time or within reasonable timeframe. Put another way, is there anything that was promised from Apple that is so late we are left wondering if it will ever arrive? MobileMe and Push we reasonable delays and they did deliver. Apple investors have higher expectations than a few other companies that come to mind. iAd will arrive - and sooner than later. I think the FTC either know that from Apple's excellent track record or Apple has shared a timeline. It's certian enough that Google is running scared. And yes, the AdMob deal was staged to drive up the price. Google knew it but really had no choice. I think Quattro was a better fit with it's list of clients at the upper end of the spectrum. Google has the ad volumes it was looking for.
I think it's being referred to as "vaporware" simply because it's not in the market yet so it would be hard to see how it would affect that market. It's also ONLY on the iPhone so seems to be a strange reason to be convinced that Google has enough competition in the whole mobile space. Especially since Google thinks of the iPhone as only third or fourth best now.
Let me get this straight. A company (Google) that already dominates the ad market buys up a competitor to become even more dominant. This is okay because there is a newbie start-up ad company (Apple). Looks the like FTC is a ball-less as the former Wall Street regulators. Time for Obama to clean another house.
Yep. AND only available on the iPhone. Competition in one corner. A beautiful walled garden in that corner, but still...
I think he's referring to Google's forays into areas other than search, dumping free products on the market to starve out the competition, as much or more than to monetize them, and being able to do so because of their search ad revenue.
If Google was ever to become a convicted monopolist like Microsoft, then their behaviour of using a monopoly in one market (say advertising or search) to choke other markets by offering "free" products would certainly cause them problems.
Google is starting to scare me with all the stuff they're doing. TV, phones, search, desktop OS, music store, advertising, blogging, video (YouTube), VoIP, social networking, photo sharing and editing (Picasa), office suite, GPS, web browser, iTunes syncing--it's all a bit big. All their acquisitions are worrisome to me as well, as they are buying all the great small companies and hiding and holding them for their use only (I understand Apple does this too, but Google has quite a few more buy-outs). Google is growing so large so fast, I can only guess at where they'll be in 2 years.
Have no fear, Google turns everything it touches into mediocrity. The fact that it will compete with Apple is a very good thing in this case.
That is one of the most amazing thing about today's marketplace. Vaporware is just as good as the real thing.
Google was able to use vaporware to convince the FTC that there is competition in the market today.
Adobe has convinced 90% of the press that Apple is being evil by banning a product that doesn't even exist.
When the iPad came out, people were talking about how much better the HP slate or Courier were.
What ever happened to people talking about REAL products?
it's only vapourware if the product doesn't exist. iAd has been demoed as a product and apple has shopped it around to clients. NOT vapourware.