Precisely why Apple is idiotic for spending this kind of money ("chump change" or not) merely on "AdWords." It's ridiculous for a company as well-known as Apple to do this, and as an AAPL investor for more than 11 years, I do not like it at all. Another part of it that I hate is the fact that Apple is paying this kind of money to Google, whom we all know is the New Microsoft, intent on copying anything Apple is successful at.
Steve Jobs needs to do the right thing and cut off all this AdWord money to Google immediately. And if indeed Apple does still need to advertise, there are better ways to do it than with AdWords.
It's a business decision not a John Wayne movie. If Google AdWords drive more business to Apple than it costs and brings other less tangible results like getting something into people's memory, then it behoves Apple to do it. As a shareholder I'm sure you want them to maximise profits... no?
Steve said about Google products on iOS, and I'm clearly paraphrasing... If they make the best maps and the best search then we want our customers to have that experience. Google make great products. In some areas we compete with them and in other areas we work cooperatively. We want to put out the best coolest product we can. If customers think someone else is doing this better we'll get the message when we're not selling product. Right now, we're not getting that message.
8:20 PM - February 12, 2010 - By Jane McEntegart -
Today we learn that Google is actually paying a lot of money for the privilege of appearing as the default search engine in Safari. The Business Insider cites people familiar with the matter who say Apple's contract with Google earns the Cupertino-based electronics company $100 million a year.
If the Bing rumors are true, it's very likely that Microsoft is offering Apple more money, hence the latter's decision to give Google the boot. However, it's also possible that with Google now firmly established in the smartphone market and presenting a real threat to the iPhone, Apple just wants to switch search providers for the sake of keeping away from the competition.
OMG! Google is an insane control death camp Nazi litigious lock down tyranny! Eric Schmidt is much like Hitler! No doubt any "action taken" will involve ordering the relevant legal authorities to do their bidding! They must be desperate! Etc.
Jesus, settle the hell down and drink your juice Shelby....
If June is representative of Apple's average, then the Cupertino, Calif., company spends under $12 million on search-related advertisements with Google every year.
Online retail stores have no other options, Yahoo and Bing combined hardly bring in 1/10th of what Google brings in. Depending on what business you're in, Google ends up making more money from your sales, and in many cases you end up paying all your profits to Google, some clicks are well over $5 each. That is why businesses pay big-bucks for organic SEO.
Of course I'll do it again as an online retailer, there are no other choices to get new businesses running from day 1.
If Apple does not go on Google's Adwords, they will not show up in the top 2 or 3 search results, because those are reserved for paid advertisers. Besides, Apple probably has one of the nations most experienced SEO personnel, they can navigate and tweak Analytics very efficiently. Adwords clicks also help with Organic SEO.
Moreover, if Apple does not pay for Adwords they would have to tackle other experienced SEO experts from Dell and Microsoft who can bring their search results to appear even when you search for Apple products. As an example, try Googling MacBook and you'll see that Microsoft has an campaign for PC vs Mac: Get the facts.
It's a business decision not a John Wayne movie. If Google AdWords drive more business to Apple than it costs and brings other less tangible results like getting something into people's memory, then it behoves Apple to do it. As a shareholder I'm sure you want them to maximise profits... no?
I disagree with that "business decision." And you are guessing, with no facts whatsoever, to assume that AdWords "drive more business to Apple than..."
We must also remember that Steve Jobs has made a lot of decisions in his business that do in fact resemble what one sees in a John Wayne movie. Steve Jobs is truly driven by emotion. And part of that emotional side has made him successful. You are trying to argue from a more logical and traditional business standpoint -- which is not what has led Apple to success.
My contention is that there are better ways to advertise and "get the word out." I don't believe that "AdWords are Apple's only choice." How silly! And since there are better ways to advertise, it makes little sense to continue advertising in a way that pays money to an entity that is fast becoming one of your biggest competitors. It may have made good sense when Apple and Google were buddy-buddy, but not any longer. Call it John Wayne, but that's the facts of the matter.
Why fund something you don't want to see around in the future? That is the basis for why Steve Jobs made the hard decision to not support Flash on Apple mobile products. Adobe failed to deliver decent performance, they lost the trust of Jobs, and now Jobs doesn't want to see Flash continue in its popularity, which surely would occur if Apple maintained Flash compatibility on all iOS devices.
So sometimes, big companies can do the right thing by going the John Wayne route. And I want to see some of the big guns pulled out to keep AAPL growing higher and higher in the long term. With Google out to copy anything that has given Apple success, I don't want to see Apple fund Google directly or indirectly. As a shareholder, that's prudent thinking.
Comments
Precisely why Apple is idiotic for spending this kind of money ("chump change" or not) merely on "AdWords." It's ridiculous for a company as well-known as Apple to do this, and as an AAPL investor for more than 11 years, I do not like it at all. Another part of it that I hate is the fact that Apple is paying this kind of money to Google, whom we all know is the New Microsoft, intent on copying anything Apple is successful at.
Steve Jobs needs to do the right thing and cut off all this AdWord money to Google immediately. And if indeed Apple does still need to advertise, there are better ways to do it than with AdWords.
It's a business decision not a John Wayne movie. If Google AdWords drive more business to Apple than it costs and brings other less tangible results like getting something into people's memory, then it behoves Apple to do it. As a shareholder I'm sure you want them to maximise profits... no?
Steve said about Google products on iOS, and I'm clearly paraphrasing... If they make the best maps and the best search then we want our customers to have that experience. Google make great products. In some areas we compete with them and in other areas we work cooperatively. We want to put out the best coolest product we can. If customers think someone else is doing this better we'll get the message when we're not selling product. Right now, we're not getting that message.
Source : Tom's Guide US
http://www.tomsguide.com/us/Google-A...news-5818.html
Google Pays Apple $100,000,000/Year for Search
8:20 PM - February 12, 2010 - By Jane McEntegart -
Today we learn that Google is actually paying a lot of money for the privilege of appearing as the default search engine in Safari. The Business Insider cites people familiar with the matter who say Apple's contract with Google earns the Cupertino-based electronics company $100 million a year.
If the Bing rumors are true, it's very likely that Microsoft is offering Apple more money, hence the latter's decision to give Google the boot. However, it's also possible that with Google now firmly established in the smartphone market and presenting a real threat to the iPhone, Apple just wants to switch search providers for the sake of keeping away from the competition.
OMG! Google is an insane control death camp Nazi litigious lock down tyranny! Eric Schmidt is much like Hitler! No doubt any "action taken" will involve ordering the relevant legal authorities to do their bidding! They must be desperate! Etc.
Jesus, settle the hell down and drink your juice Shelby....
If June is representative of Apple's average, then the Cupertino, Calif., company spends under $12 million on search-related advertisements with Google every year.
So now we really know who is financing Android!
Did it work for you? Would you do it again?
Online retail stores have no other options, Yahoo and Bing combined hardly bring in 1/10th of what Google brings in. Depending on what business you're in, Google ends up making more money from your sales, and in many cases you end up paying all your profits to Google, some clicks are well over $5 each. That is why businesses pay big-bucks for organic SEO.
Of course I'll do it again as an online retailer, there are no other choices to get new businesses running from day 1.
If Apple does not go on Google's Adwords, they will not show up in the top 2 or 3 search results, because those are reserved for paid advertisers. Besides, Apple probably has one of the nations most experienced SEO personnel, they can navigate and tweak Analytics very efficiently. Adwords clicks also help with Organic SEO.
Moreover, if Apple does not pay for Adwords they would have to tackle other experienced SEO experts from Dell and Microsoft who can bring their search results to appear even when you search for Apple products. As an example, try Googling MacBook and you'll see that Microsoft has an campaign for PC vs Mac: Get the facts.
Jesus, settle the hell down and drink your juice Shelby....
Sigh.
And I bet that a lot of that advertizing money that google receives is the result of click-fraud and other forms of bot-net activity.
I use a hosts file to block pretty much all of the on-line advertizing on websites.
And I bet that a lot of that advertizing money that google receives is the result of click-fraud and other forms of bot-net activity.
I assume that Google tracks click fraud effectively since 95% their income comes through Adwords.
I use a hosts file to block pretty much all of the on-line advertizing on websites.
And I bet that a lot of that advertizing money that google receives is the result of click-fraud and other forms of bot-net activity.
Really? Mind sharing some of the contents of that hosts file?
It's a business decision not a John Wayne movie. If Google AdWords drive more business to Apple than it costs and brings other less tangible results like getting something into people's memory, then it behoves Apple to do it. As a shareholder I'm sure you want them to maximise profits... no?
I disagree with that "business decision." And you are guessing, with no facts whatsoever, to assume that AdWords "drive more business to Apple than..."
We must also remember that Steve Jobs has made a lot of decisions in his business that do in fact resemble what one sees in a John Wayne movie. Steve Jobs is truly driven by emotion. And part of that emotional side has made him successful. You are trying to argue from a more logical and traditional business standpoint -- which is not what has led Apple to success.
My contention is that there are better ways to advertise and "get the word out." I don't believe that "AdWords are Apple's only choice." How silly! And since there are better ways to advertise, it makes little sense to continue advertising in a way that pays money to an entity that is fast becoming one of your biggest competitors. It may have made good sense when Apple and Google were buddy-buddy, but not any longer. Call it John Wayne, but that's the facts of the matter.
Why fund something you don't want to see around in the future? That is the basis for why Steve Jobs made the hard decision to not support Flash on Apple mobile products. Adobe failed to deliver decent performance, they lost the trust of Jobs, and now Jobs doesn't want to see Flash continue in its popularity, which surely would occur if Apple maintained Flash compatibility on all iOS devices.
So sometimes, big companies can do the right thing by going the John Wayne route. And I want to see some of the big guns pulled out to keep AAPL growing higher and higher in the long term. With Google out to copy anything that has given Apple success, I don't want to see Apple fund Google directly or indirectly. As a shareholder, that's prudent thinking.
Really? Mind sharing some of the contents of that hosts file?
http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.htm
http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.zip