ahh - v900 - you don't seriously believe your last point, do you ?
they do care. They are trying to be relevant. Trying valiantly, desperately, trying any which way they can to be seen as not just an ad company. I don't have to quote all their failed attempts at the hardware realm.
Page Rank has what - a year or 18 months to go ? After that expires - GOOG Quo vadis ?
edit: oh wait ! They'll have all that user data to on sell, that they've accumulated by fair means or foul. :no: :no:
Google makes hardware for two reasons: The first one is that Google knows "the Internet of things" is a mirage and they're desperately trying to find the "next great thing" to keep the tech gold rush going, and possibly start a new one. That explains stuff like Glass.
The other reason is to make more/better internet available for more people. (More eyeballs means more ads. And more data for Google to learn from.) That is the driving force of Chromebook/Android as well as GoogleTV/Android TV and some of their other hardware.
Would Google prefer if you used an Android phone rather than an iPhone? Sure, but it is waaay down on their list of priorities, and doesn't make any difference in terms of dollars and cents.
The proof is in how they rarely differentiate between Android and iOS in terms of services, which they could easily do. Many Google services/apps are better on iOS, and in some cases available on iOS before Android.
As for the patent on Pagerank? That matters a lot less than you'd think. Google has managed to build up an all encompassing ecosystem that creates a significant lock-in.
For many people Google IS the internet, and is sitting on all of their doorways to the internet. (Android phone/Chrome browser/Search)
Heck, even if Google lost patent protection tomorrow, and all of their competitors started using Pagerank, Google would still deliver vastly better search results because of their size and scale.
ahh - v900 - you don't seriously believe your last point, do you ?
they do care. They are trying to be relevant. Trying valiantly, desperately, trying any which way they can to be seen as not just an ad company.
I don't have to quote all their failed attempts at the hardware realm.
Page Rank has what - a year or 18 months to go ?
After that expires - GOOG Quo vadis ?
edit: oh wait !
They'll have all that user data to on sell, that they've accumulated by fair means or foul. :no:
:no:
Anyone can already license PageRank. It's not Google's property nor do they have an exclusive license. In addition Pagerank 2 and Pagerank 3 patents have been issued in Stanford's name and licensed by Google and it will be years before those become public domain. Further according to reports , Google has moved beyond PageRank anyway. If you've been here long I'm surprised you weren't already aware of most of this.
Google makes hardware for two reasons: The first one is that Google knows "the Internet of things" is a mirage and they're desperately trying to find the "next great thing" to keep the tech gold rush going, and possibly start a new one. That explains stuff like Glass.
The other reason is to make more/better internet available for more people. (More eyeballs means more ads. And more data for Google to learn from.) That is the driving force of Chromebook/Android as well as GoogleTV/Android TV and some of their other hardware.
Would Google prefer if you used an Android phone rather than an iPhone? Sure, but it is waaay down on their list of priorities, and doesn't make any difference in terms of dollars and cents.
The proof is in how they rarely differentiate between Android and iOS in terms of services, which they could easily do. Many Google services/apps are better on iOS, and in some cases available on iOS before Android.
Well their choices reflect on what data they get. As for IOS customers they don't get anything by default. I don't use any other G-services than a spam account on gmail. They get nothing from me...
Google is becoming more and more irrelevant and its _their_ choice! If you look at what they could have. they could have 100% of IOS customers, but they don't!
iSuppli's analysis of the iPhone 6, for example, concluded that the handset costs Apple just $216 for the 16-gigabyte model, much lower than its $649 starting price. This analysis does include labor, but does not appear to take into account marketing or other costs.
Most estimates consider the raw cost of components only, and underestimate or ignore ancillary costs like marketing, software development, logistics, or patent royalties that can quickly add up.
The estimates are out but Apple themselves state their gross margins, which average to about 40% and Apple has said that their Mac line has lower margins, which reduces the average. If we go with 40% then the costs to put out a $649 iPhone would be $389. The iSuppli estimate of $216 is 55% of this. The real number for build costs alone will be somewhere between $216-389. The estimates should use the gross margin as a guide.
The biggest problem with low estimates is that it adds to the idea of Apple products being 'overpriced'. There needs to be more of an understanding that the net margin is what's ultimately most important. If your operating costs exceed revenue then you make a loss. Apple's most recent financials show 23% net margin. If you took all of the net profit out of a $649 iPhone, you end up at $499, which still isn't a particularly cheap phone. They could actually do this and increase marketshare considerably as Tim Cook has said in the past. They can push some buttons and ramp up the volume any time they want. As it is now, they make a healthy profit margin and they have demand that they are able to meet.
Facebook is growing revenue at exponentially higher rates than google.
Since they started out so far behind why would that be surprising. Hell there's probably a number of companies growing revenue at an "exponentially higher rate" than Apple but it doesn't mean Apple is at any risk. With that said Google is going to have to work hard to maintain their market lead in mobile
The fact is less and less people are using desktop search which is Google's bread and butter. On the mobile end the majority of searches are being done on APPS. People are using facebook and Twitter to search news/events. People are using Amazon to search about products to buy. Is it any wonder that Google's revenue growth has been stagnant? Is it any wonder their GAAP profits are down the last 2 quarters?
"It's a bit irresponsible to say everything should be many hundreds of dollars [as most Apple products are]. We have figured out a way to provide important services to users responsibly," <a href="http://www.cnet.com/news/google-exec-its-irresponsible-of-apple-to-make-everything-expensive/" style="color:rgb(14,118,189);list-style:none;margin:0px;padding:0px;" target="_blank">continued</a> Pichai in an intervew with Forbes
That's a simple difference of opinion rather than a lie. I also don't know where the "lie all the time" comes from. A better example would have been when Google said they didn't know the effect their cookie change had with Safari. IMHO, THAT"S a lie.
Just like a couple people here who thought Apple makes 50% gross margins on ipods.
These idiots firms also thing restuarants have 90% margins since cows only eat corn so they are cheap.
These firms are just trying to spread Googles lies that Apple is charging consumers too much.
Well Google really doesn't care if anyone making Android phones actually make a profit or not!!! Most just break even or really slim profits with Samsung making most of them on Android and that's still only about 10% or the Smartphone profits where Apple is making around 88% of the profits. That leaves abut 2% for everyone else. That's pretty laughable for Android having around 80% of the market worldwide.
They 'lie' or don't tell the whole truth about their privacy policies. Or lets just say they bury their lies in hundreds of pages of legal mumbo jumbo.
Example? Not claiming they don't but I'm interested in what you're basing that on.
Facebook had $12 billion in revenue last year. Google had $66 billion.
Facebook is growing revenue at 50%+ per year while Google is staggering at about 10-15%.
In a couple of years Facebook's revenue may be $25 billion which is no joke compared to Google's $66 billion.
In 5 years Facebook/Twitter/Amazon combined may have more ad revenue than Google
Of course they might. Or they might not. Who would have predicted Apple to be in the position they are today 8 years ago? Pretty much due to a single product they took a big gamble on and one that could have been their deathknell.
mobile is where its at for the future and Facebook/Twitter/Amazon is killing Google in mobile.
I suspect that in a few years the idea that mobile as you understand it today was the be-all will sound quaint. We'll be past mobile before you know it IMO.
Look at all the court cases in the USA and Europe that has found Google guilty of privacy breach. How about those mapping vans that were stealing wifi passwords.
Street view is pretty much it then? I thought you actually had something to share. Dump the name-calling too. It's a tactic oft-used by someone losing an argument so it doesn't reflect well on you.
Cows in the US eat grass too, for most of their lives. But as you probably know, they are finished on corn (and worse.) Anything to fatten them up.
Cows are finished on corn for about 3 months because it makes the meat taste better. Fully grass fed beef has a slightly different taste that many people do not like. I prefer the natural beef as the corn is most likely GMO and I try to stay away from that.
small? Facebook isn't small. They will probably have $25 billion in revenue by 2016. Google had $66 billion in 2014.
Facebook is not small and is growing extremely fast.
What you meant to say is an analyst you read predicted Facebook might have as much as $25B in revenue by 2016... and if nothing changes... and apparently an analyst you trust.
Of course you know as well as I do that things change, and the analyst you trust today is the one you vilify tomorrow. (BTW whatever happened to goldenboy Andy Zacky? :???: ) Facebook is now under the same attack from the EU as Google is experiencing with 5 different countries doing active investigations of apparent privacy violations regarding their data collection and sharing practices.
Comments
they do care. They are trying to be relevant. Trying valiantly, desperately, trying any which way they can to be seen as not just an ad company.
I don't have to quote all their failed attempts at the hardware realm.
Page Rank has what - a year or 18 months to go ?
After that expires - GOOG Quo vadis ?
edit: oh wait !
They'll have all that user data to on sell, that they've accumulated by fair means or foul. :no:
:no:
The other reason is to make more/better internet available for more people. (More eyeballs means more ads. And more data for Google to learn from.) That is the driving force of Chromebook/Android as well as GoogleTV/Android TV and some of their other hardware.
Would Google prefer if you used an Android phone rather than an iPhone? Sure, but it is waaay down on their list of priorities, and doesn't make any difference in terms of dollars and cents.
The proof is in how they rarely differentiate between Android and iOS in terms of services, which they could easily do. Many Google services/apps are better on iOS, and in some cases available on iOS before Android.
As for the patent on Pagerank? That matters a lot less than you'd think. Google has managed to build up an all encompassing ecosystem that creates a significant lock-in.
For many people Google IS the internet, and is sitting on all of their doorways to the internet. (Android phone/Chrome browser/Search)
Heck, even if Google lost patent protection tomorrow, and all of their competitors started using Pagerank, Google would still deliver vastly better search results because of their size and scale.
Google makes hardware for two reasons: The first one is that Google knows "the Internet of things" is a mirage and they're desperately trying to find the "next great thing" to keep the tech gold rush going, and possibly start a new one. That explains stuff like Glass.
The other reason is to make more/better internet available for more people. (More eyeballs means more ads. And more data for Google to learn from.) That is the driving force of Chromebook/Android as well as GoogleTV/Android TV and some of their other hardware.
Would Google prefer if you used an Android phone rather than an iPhone? Sure, but it is waaay down on their list of priorities, and doesn't make any difference in terms of dollars and cents.
The proof is in how they rarely differentiate between Android and iOS in terms of services, which they could easily do. Many Google services/apps are better on iOS, and in some cases available on iOS before Android.
Well their choices reflect on what data they get. As for IOS customers they don't get anything by default. I don't use any other G-services than a spam account on gmail. They get nothing from me...
Google is becoming more and more irrelevant and its _their_ choice! If you look at what they could have. they could have 100% of IOS customers, but they don't!
Apple's Tim Cook accurately identifies supply chain costs as 'guesstimators'
The estimates are out but Apple themselves state their gross margins, which average to about 40% and Apple has said that their Mac line has lower margins, which reduces the average. If we go with 40% then the costs to put out a $649 iPhone would be $389. The iSuppli estimate of $216 is 55% of this. The real number for build costs alone will be somewhere between $216-389. The estimates should use the gross margin as a guide.
The biggest problem with low estimates is that it adds to the idea of Apple products being 'overpriced'. There needs to be more of an understanding that the net margin is what's ultimately most important. If your operating costs exceed revenue then you make a loss. Apple's most recent financials show 23% net margin. If you took all of the net profit out of a $649 iPhone, you end up at $499, which still isn't a particularly cheap phone. They could actually do this and increase marketshare considerably as Tim Cook has said in the past. They can push some buttons and ramp up the volume any time they want. As it is now, they make a healthy profit margin and they have demand that they are able to meet.
I wouldn't consider 3% a "bunch of marketshare", but yes good to see Yahoo doing better. Guess she learned a thing or two while at Google.
Yup, Google has good challengers in mobile. That's a good thing from a consumer point of view, pushing all the players to be innovative.
http://www.emarketer.com/Article/Yahoo-Poised-Pass-Twitter-US-Mobile-Ad-Share-by-2015/1011663
Just like a couple people here who thought Apple makes 50% gross margins on ipods.
These idiots firms also thing restuarants have 90% margins since cows only eat corn so they are cheap.
These firms are just trying to spread Googles lies that Apple is charging consumers too much.
Well Google really doesn't care if anyone making Android phones actually make a profit or not!!! Most just break even or really slim profits with Samsung making most of them on Android and that's still only about 10% or the Smartphone profits where Apple is making around 88% of the profits. That leaves abut 2% for everyone else. That's pretty laughable for Android having around 80% of the market worldwide.
I suspect that in a few years the idea that mobile as you understand it today was the be-all will sound quaint. We'll be past mobile before you know it IMO.
Cows eat corn?
Not here in NZ they don't. They might have corn feed as a supplement but we feed our cows on grass here.
Cows in the US eat grass too, for most of their lives. But as you probably know, they are finished on corn (and worse.) Anything to fatten them up.
the trend is clear.
mobile is where its at for the future and Facebook/Twitter/Amazon is killing Google in mobile.
It's easy to grow when your small.
Any savvy person realizes that 50% growth is very unlikely to be sustained for long.
Not to mention the cost of employing hundreds of designers and engineers to design & prototype & test the things, and so much more.
This is one place Samsung saves on since Apple foots the bill for it... /s
Cows in the US eat grass too, for most of their lives. But as you probably know, they are finished on corn (and worse.) Anything to fatten them up.
Cows are finished on corn for about 3 months because it makes the meat taste better. Fully grass fed beef has a slightly different taste that many people do not like. I prefer the natural beef as the corn is most likely GMO and I try to stay away from that.
Of course you know as well as I do that things change, and the analyst you trust today is the one you vilify tomorrow. (BTW whatever happened to goldenboy Andy Zacky? :???: ) Facebook is now under the same attack from the EU as Google is experiencing with 5 different countries doing active investigations of apparent privacy violations regarding their data collection and sharing practices.
...
...
You 2 really need to have a beer together or something.