There are more Google ads online than people on earth. Google is raping their advertiser.
There are more print ads in your house right now, if you have a stack of magazines, than there are people in your neighborhood. And even worse, all your neighbors have newspapers and magazines laying around, each one with literally DOZENS of print ads.
And the same in every nighborhood in your town! And in the nezxt town!
Are all the advertisers being raped by the print industry?
Ok, so if things continue they will make 1 BILLION dollars this year?
- They don't charge for the OS?
- This is income from ad's only?
- Who's being F$%^CK hard here?
1 BILLION from ad revenue? How much are you spending?
I can list hundreds of folks who have NOT purchased ANYTHING from their phone, and if you multiply that by $0.00, someone out there is spending a ton of bucks?
Now, can someone make this clearer for me. What and who is being charged for what, and how much (so that Google can (maybe) make) 1 BILLION DOLLARS within their fiscal year?
Are they getting a cut from every phone sold with their OS on it? No, it's free?
How many of you out there are clicking on, or buying anything via your phone? Let's do the math.
Hey, if the 1 BILLION is based on what companies are buying Google to have an ad on any phone with the Google OS?
"Ok, so if things continue they will make 1 BILLION dollars this year?"
From one part of their enterprise, yes.
"I can list hundreds of folks who have NOT purchased ANYTHING from their phone, and if you multiply that by $0.00, someone out there is spending a ton of bucks?"
The topic is ad revenue, not retail sales. The revenue comes from the advertisers, and not from retail customers of the advertisers.
"Now, can someone make this clearer for me. What and who is being charged for what, and how much (so that Google can (maybe) make) 1 BILLION DOLLARS within their fiscal year?"
You already know the answer to this one.
"- This is income from ad's only?"
"Hey, if the 1 BILLION is based on what companies are buying Google to have an ad on any phone with the Google OS?"
No. The advertisers show up on any phone, including the iPhone, any time a user uses Google's many services. There is no need to have a "Google OS". In that manner, Google is likely to serve many more ads than Apple.
No. The advertisers show up on any phone, including the iPhone, any time a user uses Google's many services. There is no need to have a "Google OS". In that manner, Google is likely to serve many more ads than Apple.
Don't forget most website you visit (like this one) have their adverts managed by Google.
They did not report mobile quarterly figures or costs and profits.
But. we can extrapolate:
$1 Billion annualized == $250 million quarterly mobile revenue.
Elsewhere in the earnings report:
$7,268 million total quarterly revenue
or quarterly mobile revenue == 3.44% of total revenue
One of the costs broken out was TAC (Traffic Acquisition Costs,) -- these were $.25 for each $1 of revenue.
Assuming that TAC costs are consistent across mobile and non-mobile that means:
quarterly mobile revenue - TAC == $187.5 million
ANAICT, Gross margins were 40% of revenue - TAC
quarterly gross mobile profit == $75 million
No figures were given, so let's assume that 50% of mobile comes from Android phones (50 % from iPhones and all other smart phones)
quarterly gross mobile profit from Android == $37.5 million
No direct expenses/costs were given for mobile, Android development, etc.
If we assume Google has 10 people on the Android team @ $100,000 each, per year (Pay, office, equipment, benefits, etc.) or $.25 million per quarter
That would leave:
Android quarterly profit before taxes == $37.25 million
Obviously, these are just SWAG estimates (and I hope my math and logic are correct) -- but they are an attempt to put in context the headline of this article"
"Google announces $1 billion in mobile revenue" == $25 million Android quarterly profit after taxes (30%).
They did not report mobile quarterly figures or costs and profits.
But. we can extrapolate:
$1 Billion annualized == $250 million quarterly mobile revenue.
Elsewhere in the earnings report:
$7,268 million total quarterly revenue
or quarterly mobile revenue == 3.44% of total revenue
One of the costs broken out was TAC (Traffic Acquisition Costs,) -- these were $.25 for each $1 of revenue.
Assuming that TAC costs are consistent across mobile and non-mobile that means:
quarterly mobile revenue - TAC == $187.5 million
ANAICT, Gross margins were 40% of revenue - TAC
quarterly gross mobile profit == $75 million
No figures were given, so let's assume that 50% of mobile comes from Android phones (50 % from iPhones and all other smart phones)
quarterly gross mobile profit from Android == $37.5 million
No direct expenses/costs were given for mobile, Android development, etc.
If we assume Google has 10 people on the Android team @ $100,000 each, per year (Pay, office, equipment, benefits, etc.) or $.25 million per quarter
That would leave:
Android quarterly profit before taxes == $37.25 million
Obviously, these are just SWAG estimates (and I hope my math and logic are correct) -- but they are an attempt to put in context the headline of this article"
"Google announces $1 billion in mobile revenue" == $25 million Android quarterly profit after taxes (30%).
.
Thanks for fleshing this out.. I had a similar thought, but was too lazy to do the work. it strikes me that one assumption in there that is particularly favorable to Google is the assumption of 10 FTEs working on Android. It's got to be much more than that -- at least 10 times that number. And if it's not then Android is way understaffed which suggests a major train wreck in the not too distant future.
No. The advertisers show up on any phone, including the iPhone, any time a user uses Google's many services. There is no need to have a "Google OS". In that manner, Google is likely to serve many more ads than Apple.
Thanks for fleshing this out.. I had a similar thought, but was too lazy to do the work. it strikes me that one assumption in there that is particularly favorable to Google is the assumption of 10 FTEs working on Android. It's got to be much more than that -- at least 10 times that number. And if it's not then Android is way understaffed which suggests a major train wreck in the not too distant future.
Yeah, I was trying to give Android the benefit of every doubt.
Do you really think the Android team is 100 employees?
I was basing my estimate on simpler times-- when SJ and 7-10 pirates created this thing called the Mac (hardware, OS UI, desk accessories, and basic apps) from scratch.
A lot. Software development cost is a fraction of that. I'm on a very large project (I'm an IT consultant) and the total size of the project does not even remotely approach 1 Billion (in fact, i am not aware of any OS development that even approaches 1 Billion)... I think Google assumed that any reasonable person would infer that a substantial amount of that money is profit. Once google builts the OS, all they have to do is make incremental changes and continue to reap the annual (and growing) 1 Billion revenue. I'll bet the cost of developing new versions of the OS is under 10 million.
And Apple is earning billions per quarter in mobile. 'Nuff said.
Yes but apple cost is higher. Apple cost also includes hardware and R&D into creating that hardware in addition to software cost (google only has software cost).
You really cannot do a direct comparison and i doubt that was google intention. Their intention was to show that they are generating revenue from their mobile business, hence why it's a one-time shot.. to shut up the critics
A lot. Software development cost is a fraction of that. I'm on a very large project (I'm an IT consultant) and the total size of the project does not even remotely approach 1 Billion (in fact, i am not aware of any OS development that even approaches 1 Billion)... I think Google assumed that any reasonable person would infer that a substantial amount of that money is profit. Once google builts the OS, all they have to do is make incremental changes and continue to reap the annual (and growing) 1 Billion revenue. I'll bet the cost of developing new versions of the OS is under 10 million.
You do realize that there are many costs other than just the cost of software development, right?
Ok, so if things continue they will make 1 BILLION dollars this year?
- They don't charge for the OS?
- This is income from ad's only?
- Who's being F$%^CK hard here?
1 BILLION from ad revenue? How much are you spending?
I can list hundreds of folks who have NOT purchased ANYTHING from their phone, and if you multiply that by $0.00, someone out there is spending a ton of bucks?
Now, can someone make this clearer for me. What and who is being charged for what, and how much (so that Google can (maybe) make) 1 BILLION DOLLARS within their fiscal year?
Are they getting a cut from every phone sold with their OS on it? No, it's free?
How many of you out there are clicking on, or buying anything via your phone? Let's do the math.
Hey, if the 1 BILLION is based on what companies are buying Google to have an ad on any phone with the Google OS?
Sorry, this math is real hard for me.
Skip
Fortunately for Google, they really don't care how hard the math is for you. They are making a Billion. You can run around claiming they are not, while they laugh at you on the way to the bank or you can just accept it. I'm sure they are not up at night worried that you don't believe them. When they were releasing the numbers, they had you in mind.. they thought.. why not lie just so we can confuse this guy. You were the lucky winner (they probably pulled your name out of a hat). Ok, sarcasm was deep on that one.
If apple tomorrow comes out and said they made 1 Billion, no one questions it..
but just to help you... not all google apps are free.. google takes a percentage (i know what you think.. only iphone has apps.. why, no one could possibly make money on apps like apple does.. how dare google!!!.. blasphemy!!.. lets hang them all). Google has ads.
Now, take your time.. read carefully and i hope the math gets easier and if it doesnt.. remember.. Google does not give a shit
Fortunately for Google, they really don't care how hard the math is for you. They are making a Billion. You can run around claiming they are not, while they laugh at you on the way to the bank or you can just accept it. I'm sure they are not up at night worried that you don't believe them. When they were releasing the numbers, they had you in mind.. they thought.. why not lie just so we can confuse this guy. You were the lucky winner (they probably pulled your name out of a hat). Ok, sarcasm was deep on that one.
If apple tomorrow comes out and said they made 1 Billion, no one questions it..
but just to help you... not all google apps are free.. google takes a percentage (i know what you think.. only iphone has apps.. why, no one could possibly make money on apps like apple does.. how dare google!!!.. blasphemy!!.. lets hang them all). Google has ads.
Now, take your time.. read carefully and i hope the math gets easier and if it doesnt.. remember.. Google does not give a shit
No, they were thinking of you. "Let's release some basically meaningless numbers. Wes will think it means something, even if no one else would".
You do realize that there are many costs other than just the cost of software development, right?
Yes but apple shares those same cost. That was my point. He was making a point about apple revenue per quarter being billions and my point is that their cost per quarter is billions also.
It would be really difficult to do a direct comparison on revenue. The only comparison that is fair would be profit but neither Google or Apple would divulge profits (for obvious competitive reasons).
Yes but apple cost is higher. Apple cost also includes hardware and R&D into creating that hardware in addition to software cost (google only has software cost).
I've bolded what seems to be the main source of your confusion (though your apparent anger seems to come from nowhere).
Google, as with every other major company (yes, even software companies) have many costs, beyond R&D. Think hard, some will come to you.
Yes but apple shares those same cost. That was my point. He was making a point about apple revenue per quarter being billions and my point is that their cost per quarter is billions also.
It would be really difficult to do a direct comparison on revenue. The only comparison that is fair would be profit but neither Google or Apple would divulge profits (for obvious competitive reasons).
Actually, you are totally right here. And that is why google announcing that the think they might earn $1billion over the next year based on one quarters results is meaningless.
Comments
There are more Google ads online than people on earth. Google is raping their advertiser.
There are more print ads in your house right now, if you have a stack of magazines, than there are people in your neighborhood. And even worse, all your neighbors have newspapers and magazines laying around, each one with literally DOZENS of print ads.
And the same in every nighborhood in your town! And in the nezxt town!
Are all the advertisers being raped by the print industry?
- They don't charge for the OS?
- This is income from ad's only?
- Who's being F$%^CK hard here?
1 BILLION from ad revenue? How much are you spending?
I can list hundreds of folks who have NOT purchased ANYTHING from their phone, and if you multiply that by $0.00, someone out there is spending a ton of bucks?
Now, can someone make this clearer for me. What and who is being charged for what, and how much (so that Google can (maybe) make) 1 BILLION DOLLARS within their fiscal year?
Are they getting a cut from every phone sold with their OS on it? No, it's free?
How many of you out there are clicking on, or buying anything via your phone? Let's do the math.
Hey, if the 1 BILLION is based on what companies are buying Google to have an ad on any phone with the Google OS?
Sorry, this math is real hard for me.
Skip
Sorry, this math is real hard for me.
Skip
That's clear.
Here's some answers:
"Ok, so if things continue they will make 1 BILLION dollars this year?"
From one part of their enterprise, yes.
"I can list hundreds of folks who have NOT purchased ANYTHING from their phone, and if you multiply that by $0.00, someone out there is spending a ton of bucks?"
The topic is ad revenue, not retail sales. The revenue comes from the advertisers, and not from retail customers of the advertisers.
"Now, can someone make this clearer for me. What and who is being charged for what, and how much (so that Google can (maybe) make) 1 BILLION DOLLARS within their fiscal year?"
You already know the answer to this one.
"- This is income from ad's only?"
"Hey, if the 1 BILLION is based on what companies are buying Google to have an ad on any phone with the Google OS?"
No. The advertisers show up on any phone, including the iPhone, any time a user uses Google's many services. There is no need to have a "Google OS". In that manner, Google is likely to serve many more ads than Apple.
No. The advertisers show up on any phone, including the iPhone, any time a user uses Google's many services. There is no need to have a "Google OS". In that manner, Google is likely to serve many more ads than Apple.
Don't forget most website you visit (like this one) have their adverts managed by Google.
annualized and revenue.
They did not report mobile quarterly figures or costs and profits.
But. we can extrapolate:
$1 Billion annualized == $250 million quarterly mobile revenue.
Elsewhere in the earnings report:
$7,268 million total quarterly revenue
or quarterly mobile revenue == 3.44% of total revenue
One of the costs broken out was TAC (Traffic Acquisition Costs,) -- these were $.25 for each $1 of revenue.
Assuming that TAC costs are consistent across mobile and non-mobile that means:
quarterly mobile revenue - TAC == $187.5 million
ANAICT, Gross margins were 40% of revenue - TAC
quarterly gross mobile profit == $75 million
No figures were given, so let's assume that 50% of mobile comes from Android phones (50 % from iPhones and all other smart phones)
quarterly gross mobile profit from Android == $37.5 million
No direct expenses/costs were given for mobile, Android development, etc.
If we assume Google has 10 people on the Android team @ $100,000 each, per year (Pay, office, equipment, benefits, etc.) or $.25 million per quarter
That would leave:
Android quarterly profit before taxes == $37.25 million
Obviously, these are just SWAG estimates (and I hope my math and logic are correct) -- but they are an attempt to put in context the headline of this article"
"Google announces $1 billion in mobile revenue" == $25 million Android quarterly profit after taxes (30%).
.
.
annualized and revenue.
They did not report mobile quarterly figures or costs and profits.
But. we can extrapolate:
$1 Billion annualized == $250 million quarterly mobile revenue.
Elsewhere in the earnings report:
$7,268 million total quarterly revenue
or quarterly mobile revenue == 3.44% of total revenue
One of the costs broken out was TAC (Traffic Acquisition Costs,) -- these were $.25 for each $1 of revenue.
Assuming that TAC costs are consistent across mobile and non-mobile that means:
quarterly mobile revenue - TAC == $187.5 million
ANAICT, Gross margins were 40% of revenue - TAC
quarterly gross mobile profit == $75 million
No figures were given, so let's assume that 50% of mobile comes from Android phones (50 % from iPhones and all other smart phones)
quarterly gross mobile profit from Android == $37.5 million
No direct expenses/costs were given for mobile, Android development, etc.
If we assume Google has 10 people on the Android team @ $100,000 each, per year (Pay, office, equipment, benefits, etc.) or $.25 million per quarter
That would leave:
Android quarterly profit before taxes == $37.25 million
Obviously, these are just SWAG estimates (and I hope my math and logic are correct) -- but they are an attempt to put in context the headline of this article"
"Google announces $1 billion in mobile revenue" == $25 million Android quarterly profit after taxes (30%).
.
Thanks for fleshing this out.. I had a similar thought, but was too lazy to do the work. it strikes me that one assumption in there that is particularly favorable to Google is the assumption of 10 FTEs working on Android. It's got to be much more than that -- at least 10 times that number. And if it's not then Android is way understaffed which suggests a major train wreck in the not too distant future.
No. The advertisers show up on any phone, including the iPhone, any time a user uses Google's many services. There is no need to have a "Google OS". In that manner, Google is likely to serve many more ads than Apple.
That's what Ad Blocker software is for.
Thanks for fleshing this out.. I had a similar thought, but was too lazy to do the work. it strikes me that one assumption in there that is particularly favorable to Google is the assumption of 10 FTEs working on Android. It's got to be much more than that -- at least 10 times that number. And if it's not then Android is way understaffed which suggests a major train wreck in the not too distant future.
Yeah, I was trying to give Android the benefit of every doubt.
Do you really think the Android team is 100 employees?
I was basing my estimate on simpler times-- when SJ and 7-10 pirates created this thing called the Mac (hardware, OS UI, desk accessories, and basic apps) from scratch.
.
bwahahaha, $1 billion in revenue!? didnt apple already give $1 billion to developers alone, solely with the %70 cut of profits made from apps.
The App store is not 100% profit for Apple or for the app developers so it's not 70% to developers cut of profits.
And the developers "earned" that. It wasn't "given" to them.
Like on purpose. Not by accident.
C.
$1B in revenue. how much profit?
A lot. Software development cost is a fraction of that. I'm on a very large project (I'm an IT consultant) and the total size of the project does not even remotely approach 1 Billion (in fact, i am not aware of any OS development that even approaches 1 Billion)... I think Google assumed that any reasonable person would infer that a substantial amount of that money is profit. Once google builts the OS, all they have to do is make incremental changes and continue to reap the annual (and growing) 1 Billion revenue. I'll bet the cost of developing new versions of the OS is under 10 million.
And Apple is earning billions per quarter in mobile. 'Nuff said.
Yes but apple cost is higher. Apple cost also includes hardware and R&D into creating that hardware in addition to software cost (google only has software cost).
You really cannot do a direct comparison and i doubt that was google intention. Their intention was to show that they are generating revenue from their mobile business, hence why it's a one-time shot.. to shut up the critics
A lot. Software development cost is a fraction of that. I'm on a very large project (I'm an IT consultant) and the total size of the project does not even remotely approach 1 Billion (in fact, i am not aware of any OS development that even approaches 1 Billion)... I think Google assumed that any reasonable person would infer that a substantial amount of that money is profit. Once google builts the OS, all they have to do is make incremental changes and continue to reap the annual (and growing) 1 Billion revenue. I'll bet the cost of developing new versions of the OS is under 10 million.
You do realize that there are many costs other than just the cost of software development, right?
Ok, so if things continue they will make 1 BILLION dollars this year?
- They don't charge for the OS?
- This is income from ad's only?
- Who's being F$%^CK hard here?
1 BILLION from ad revenue? How much are you spending?
I can list hundreds of folks who have NOT purchased ANYTHING from their phone, and if you multiply that by $0.00, someone out there is spending a ton of bucks?
Now, can someone make this clearer for me. What and who is being charged for what, and how much (so that Google can (maybe) make) 1 BILLION DOLLARS within their fiscal year?
Are they getting a cut from every phone sold with their OS on it? No, it's free?
How many of you out there are clicking on, or buying anything via your phone? Let's do the math.
Hey, if the 1 BILLION is based on what companies are buying Google to have an ad on any phone with the Google OS?
Sorry, this math is real hard for me.
Skip
Fortunately for Google, they really don't care how hard the math is for you. They are making a Billion. You can run around claiming they are not, while they laugh at you on the way to the bank or you can just accept it. I'm sure they are not up at night worried that you don't believe them. When they were releasing the numbers, they had you in mind.. they thought.. why not lie just so we can confuse this guy. You were the lucky winner (they probably pulled your name out of a hat). Ok, sarcasm was deep on that one.
If apple tomorrow comes out and said they made 1 Billion, no one questions it..
but just to help you... not all google apps are free.. google takes a percentage (i know what you think.. only iphone has apps.. why, no one could possibly make money on apps like apple does.. how dare google!!!.. blasphemy!!.. lets hang them all). Google has ads.
Now, take your time.. read carefully and i hope the math gets easier and if it doesnt.. remember.. Google does not give a shit
Don't forget most website you visit (like this one) have their adverts managed by Google.
From what I have seen, Google is perhaps their biggest customer. We, of course, are the product that they sell to Google.
Fortunately for Google, they really don't care how hard the math is for you. They are making a Billion. You can run around claiming they are not, while they laugh at you on the way to the bank or you can just accept it. I'm sure they are not up at night worried that you don't believe them. When they were releasing the numbers, they had you in mind.. they thought.. why not lie just so we can confuse this guy. You were the lucky winner (they probably pulled your name out of a hat). Ok, sarcasm was deep on that one.
If apple tomorrow comes out and said they made 1 Billion, no one questions it..
but just to help you... not all google apps are free.. google takes a percentage (i know what you think.. only iphone has apps.. why, no one could possibly make money on apps like apple does.. how dare google!!!.. blasphemy!!.. lets hang them all). Google has ads.
Now, take your time.. read carefully and i hope the math gets easier and if it doesnt.. remember.. Google does not give a shit
No, they were thinking of you. "Let's release some basically meaningless numbers. Wes will think it means something, even if no one else would".
You do realize that there are many costs other than just the cost of software development, right?
Yes but apple shares those same cost. That was my point. He was making a point about apple revenue per quarter being billions and my point is that their cost per quarter is billions also.
It would be really difficult to do a direct comparison on revenue. The only comparison that is fair would be profit but neither Google or Apple would divulge profits (for obvious competitive reasons).
.
$25 million Android quarterly profit after taxes (30%).
.
Wrap it up. I'll take it.
Yes but apple cost is higher. Apple cost also includes hardware and R&D into creating that hardware in addition to software cost (google only has software cost).
I've bolded what seems to be the main source of your confusion (though your apparent anger seems to come from nowhere).
Google, as with every other major company (yes, even software companies) have many costs, beyond R&D. Think hard, some will come to you.
Yes but apple shares those same cost. That was my point. He was making a point about apple revenue per quarter being billions and my point is that their cost per quarter is billions also.
It would be really difficult to do a direct comparison on revenue. The only comparison that is fair would be profit but neither Google or Apple would divulge profits (for obvious competitive reasons).
Actually, you are totally right here. And that is why google announcing that the think they might earn $1billion over the next year based on one quarters results is meaningless.