So Android has generated an average of $1 billion in revenue per quarter since it launched.
Ouch.
Isn't it crazy that the money these companies are making hand over fist gets an "ouch" when it's only a $Billion in a quarter? Doesn't seem like it was all that long ago that a Billion was a lot of money. Now it's essentially pocket-change.
FACT: Android sales have been going down FACT: Desktop search has been decreasing 5-15% each year for a decade FACT: iOS mobile revenue makes up the bulk of Google's online advertising
Having those facts in mind it's obvious that any future revenue growth from Google will come from the growth of iOS ads.
Yet Wall Street views Google as a hyper growth company with a 30 PE. When Google is literally a Tim Cook decision from having 90% of its future growth killed off. Tim Cook could literally remove Google as the default search from iOS tomorrow.
Google would instantly lose 70% of its mobile advertising. Google would instantly lose 90% of its future revenue growth.
Yet Wall Street thinks Google is 4x safer investment than Apple. Ridiculous.
For Apple to have shrinking revenues literally TENS OF MILLIONS of people would have to change their mind about a device they use every single day. For Google to have shrinking revenues Tim Cook would just have to turn off a switch.
FACT: Android sales have been going down -> Wrong FACT: Desktop search has been decreasing 5-15% each year for a decade -> Wrong, revenue has been increasing since 2005 FACT: iOS mobile revenue makes up the bulk of Google's online advertising -> Wrong if you can't provide any source for that
As I said, you're just a parody, you don't have any fact right and your constant bashing of Cook is just a trollish thing, well, all of your posts are just trollish
Here's a fact: computer/mobile usage growth isn't slowing down, but hardware replacement is. Consider advertising revenue is tied to usage & hardware revenue is tied to replacement cycle, which company is in the better position?
Show me a single data point that shows iPhone replacement cycles are slowing down? Nice job spewing out a total lie.
The fact is desktop ads has been shrinking the last 3 years. All of Google's future growth will come from mobile ads. More than 60% of Google's mobile ads comes from iOS devices. With a combination of default Adblockers and removing Google search as the default, Google would lose 90% of their growth opportunity.
I never said iphone replacement cycle has slowed down (though that's definitely worrying wall street going forward), but computer/electronics hardware replacement cycle has slowed down, look at Intel, ipad, the camera industry, etc. iphone 6/+ have definitely sold well, partly by finally converting to a larger screen format & continue converting non-iOS users. But like all consumer electronics, there's a point of good enough & we're not sure when/if the next disruptive app will arrive to entice another round of upgrade fervor.
As for ad revenue, more & more websites are starting to not load w/ ad blockers & with more sites switching to https, it's not clear ad blocking will be as effective going forward (especially if the traffic gets tunneled thru the source website). In some ways, that doesn't matter: the paid subscription model hasn't caught on & may never do, so these websites' revenue will come from ad, like it or not. On the other hand, Google search (& cloud infrastructure) is still far ahead of anyone else's; it will not be easily replaced. That Google is on the losing end of mobile platform/social media effort is a real danger, but it's not nearly as fickle/eminent as for consumer electronics manufacturer.
Besides, Google has heavily invested in areas of machine learning/AI since day one so it has a huge lead diversifying into these growing areas while Apple has become more & more heavily reliant on the execution of the iphone line. Right or wrong, these are some of the reasons for their respective stock values.
You've forgotten a few parts (Motorola cash, retained tax write-offs, etc.) so at the end of the day some projected Google to have "lost" around $5B on the deal. But even that does not take into account the 17000 patents plus additional pending patents applied for. Obviously those have a value (Apple paid billions themselves for far fewer patents) so depending on who's doing the calculations they lost a couple $B or made several hundred million.
It can be assumed that Google is making some licensing money on those patents since royalties coming in went up nearly a $Billion dollars in the year after they purchased Moto, and Google kept the IP after selling off the other parts.
But you are ignoring opportunity costs of the acquisition.
One of the main events that stemmed from the Motorola acquistion was Samsung feeling like they were stabbed in the back by Google. Samsung has since then made a stronger push to develop their own OS. In fact all their new watches run on Tizen instead of Android. Purchasing Motorola has created a rift between Samsung and Google that may never fully heal. That alone could cost Google BILLIONS.
Lets also talk about what Google could have been working on instead of trying to integrate Motorolla into the company. They wasted millions of staff hours. Lawyers fees, M&A fees, severance packages, moving expenses = TIMES 2! Once for the acquistion and once for the sale. Lets also not forget the $2 billion plus in operating loses that Motorolla had while under Google.
Only a total Google apologist would not admit the Motorola acquistion was a total failure. Calculating capital loses, opportunity costs, operating loses, and partner mistrust it probably cost them over $10 billion.
So far those patents have netted Google a few million in royalties from Microsoft. Far short of the $8 billion they though it was worth. In fact Google has been writing off hundreds of millions from those patent values every quarter.
It was a flat out mistake. Google thought they could out Apple Apple. They thought they could control the hardware/software/services as well as Apple. They failed. And lost $10 billion in the process.
I don't think the Motorola deal was a loss on the scale you're describing. Google did sell off a number of its product lines for some good money. Also, Google was able to write off its losses in taxes. Also, Motorola was losing money before Google bought it. So there were some tax loss carry-forwards there. Google assumed all of those assets when it bought Motorola. So I don't think the Motorola deal was a huge loss like you're describing.
At the same time, I don't think it was a successful deal for Google. It wasn't even a deal to begin with. It was a shakedown. The patent wars were in full swing at the time. Then-Motorola CEO Sanjay Jha was trying to find a buyer for the money-losing company. He threatened to partner up with Microsoft. Google couldn't have that so it coughed up the money and bought out Motorola. Anytime a business makes an acquisition for defensive purposes, the deal is set up to fail. However, Google managed to cut its losses and might have even made out with a little bit of profit.
So in the end, it's not the monumental loss you're describing. At the same time, it wasn't a very smart deal.
Google spent $12.5 billion on Motorola Mobility in mid-2012. They sold off the non-phone parts for $2.35 billion later in 2012, then the phone parts to Lenovo in early 2014 for $2.91 billion. That's a $7.24 billion loss right there. Is that somehow not banked to/against Android?
You've forgotten a few parts
Oh the irony of you making such a statement (considering how much you "forgot" in your useless post above about Oracle/Google/Java).
?? I don't recall anyone saying the Samsung instance was OK. Confidential should mean exactly that, don't you agree?
Anyway, the important takeaway is that Google doesn't get rich from Android according to the leak. Of course the leak doesn't explain how the figure was arrived at AFAIK. I think articles like this one are guessing how Oracle arrived at it and the period covered, but not entirely certain. It would not shock me at all to find Oracle actually overstated it since it benefits them to do so.
In any event I would not be surprised if Google would have made a different choice knowing what they do now. When the decision was made to use the API's as an organizer (that's the only code Oracle is claiming) it was Sun who controlled it. While they might not have been overjoyed at the way Google used Java they also at least publicly had no complaints about it and in fact congratulated them on Android, welcoming them to the Java platform. I imagine most code creators at the time did not believe a license was needed for API's. Some still don't believe they do.
So a couple years go by and here comes Oracle to scoop up Sun. They have a different view on it, monetization plans for Java that Sun never intended when they created it. In essence nothing was "stolen" from Oracle. When Sun created and owned it it Google's use was at least begrudgingly acceptable. (Mr guess is the relationship Schmidt had with them but it's just that, a guess). Oracle suspected they knew what they were buying even if Google did not. Smart guy.
Had they anticipated that someone else might someday buy up the IP and more aggressively use it as a money-maker I believe Google would have taken a license to begin with whether they thought they needed one or not back in the day. Hindsight is 20-20. IMHO Google will end up paying a $B or more for their oversight, tho out-of-court would be my guess.
No, we already know about the leaked memo where the engineers couldn't find a better approach and suggested taking a license
Are you referring to the Andy Rubin e-mail, where he suggested taking a license, or "using it anyway and making enemies along the way"?
Or the Chris Desalvo email where he said "Ours are half-ass at best. We need another half of an ass."?
Pretty clear Google knew they were doing something wrong and decided to roll the dice. Now it's going to cost them billions.
?? I don't recall anyone saying the Samsung instance was OK. Confidential should mean exactly that, don't you agree?
Anyway, the important takeaway is that Google doesn't get rich from Android according to the leak. Of course the leak doesn't explain how the figure was arrived at AFAIK. I think articles like this one are guessing how Oracle arrived at it and the period covered, but not entirely certain. It would not shock me at all to find Oracle actually overstated it since it benefits them to do so.
In any event I would not be surprised if Google would have made a different choice knowing what they do now. When the decision was made to use the API's as an organizer (that's the only code Oracle is claiming) it was Sun who controlled it. While they might not have been overjoyed at the way Google used Java they also at least publicly had no complaints about it and in fact congratulated them on Android, welcoming them to the Java platform. I imagine most code creators at the time did not believe a license was needed for API's. Some still don't believe they do.
So a couple years go by and here comes Oracle to scoop up Sun. They have a different view on it, monetization plans for Java that Sun never intended when they created it. In essence nothing was "stolen" from Oracle. When Sun created and owned it it Google's use was at least begrudgingly acceptable. (Mr guess is the relationship Schmidt had with them but it's just that, a guess). Oracle suspected they knew what they were buying even if Google did not. Smart guy.
Had they anticipated that someone else might someday buy up the IP and more aggressively use it as a money-maker I believe Google would have taken a license to begin with whether they thought they needed one or not back in the day. Hindsight is 20-20. IMHO Google will end up paying a $B or more for their oversight, tho out-of-court would be my guess.
No, we already know about the leaked memo where the engineers couldn't find a better approach and suggested taking a license
Are you referring to the Andy Rubin e-mail, where he suggested taking a license, or "using it anyway and making enemies along the way"?
Or the Chris Desalvo email where he said "Ours are half-ass at best. We need another half of an ass."?
Pretty clear Google knew they were doing something wrong and decided to roll the dice. Now it's going to cost them billions.
And gosh, we agree! Thought that was pretty much what I said. Hindsight. . .
Google spent $12.5 billion on Motorola Mobility in mid-2012. They sold off the non-phone parts for $2.35 billion later in 2012, then the phone parts to Lenovo in early 2014 for $2.91 billion. That's a $7.24 billion loss right there. Is that somehow not banked to/against Android?
You've forgotten a few parts
Oh the irony of you making such a statement (considering how much you "forgot" in your useless post above about Oracle/Google/Java).
Hey, thanks for the fact-filled rebuttal. It's plain you spent significant some time researching your counter-points.
My point remains. Android revenue is slowing down and is small for Google. Desktop revenue is shrinking every quarter and more and more rapidly. The 75% of Google's mobile revenue comes from iOS devices. So 90% of Google's growth will come from iOS ads. If Apple disconnects the plug Google is friken screwed.
So far, I give the win in this debate to sog35, who has maintained a point and shot down all opposition.
The signs are obvious that Apple will eventually leave Google search as the default search:
1. SIri no longer uses Google 2. Spotlight search does not use Google 3. Tim Cook's stance on privacy 4. Tim Cook stating plainly that Google is Apple's main rival 5. The success of AppleMaps shows Apple can compete in services (AppleMaps is used 300% more on iOS than Google Maps)
Bottom line is for Google to stop growing all Apple needs to do is turn off Google in iOS. Thats it. For Apple to stop growing TENS OF MILLIONS of loyal users would have to be willing to switch ecosystems. Something they use EVERY DAY for hours a day.
Now you tell me which one is more likely?
You sure do go hyperbolic. Obviously Google doesn't want Apple to stop using their services, otherwise they would not pay Apple to keep using them. It's also obvious that Google has a business of its own quite separate and apart from Apple, or that is at least out of Apple's control. Google has become a verb FFS. You ever hear of anyone wanted to "Bing" something? Google is the goto search for HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of loyal users. TENS OF MILLIONS of loyal users at least feel they're locked into Gmail. They've got a big captive audience.
I wasn't and am not overstating Apple's vulnerability, but there is obviously risk in building a few million of anything before it goes on sale. There's also risk (and opportunity certainly) in depending on a product that has a lifespan of maybe 3 years. You mean to tell me that those TENS OF MILLIONS of loyal users don't even think about alternatives when they buy a new phone every few years? Granted the alternatives mostly suck right now, but will they always? The iPhone was a paradigm changer, will there never be similar breakthroughs again? You've got a foolish sort of hubris about Apple. They're on top of the world now, and they've been on top of the world before, particularly in the late 70's and early 80's. What happened in between?
However, Google managed to cut its losses and might have even made out with a little bit of profit.
LOL. Can't believe the flaw-gic in that sentence.
You seriously think Google made money buying something for $12.5 billion and then selling individual units for $5.3 billion? Also remember while Google owned Motorola they had losses of close to $2 billion. Now add in lawyer fees, M&A fees, severance payments, ect.
You go to be smoking something if you think Google made profit on the deal.
You're on target with this. I think Google retained some IP after getting rid of Motorola, but that was a horrendous deal.
So Android has generated an average of $1 billion in revenue per quarter since it launched.
Ouch.
Isn't it crazy that the money these companies are making hand over fist gets an "ouch" when it's only a $Billion in a quarter? Doesn't seem like it was all that long ago that a Billion was a lot of money. Now it's essentially pocket-change.
That number is revenue, which is gross sales. Not profit. Additionally I think we are long removed from a time when a billion was "a lot of money".
The signs are obvious that Apple will eventually leave Google search as the default search:
1. SIri no longer uses Google 2. Spotlight search does not use Google 3. Tim Cook's stance on privacy 4. Tim Cook stating plainly that Google is Apple's main rival 5. The success of AppleMaps shows Apple can compete in services (AppleMaps is used 300% more on iOS than Google Maps)
Bottom line is for Google to stop growing all Apple needs to do is turn off Google in iOS. Thats it. For Apple to stop growing TENS OF MILLIONS of loyal users would have to be willing to switch ecosystems. Something they use EVERY DAY for hours a day.
Now you tell me which one is more likely?
You sure do go hyperbolic. Obviously Google doesn't want Apple to stop using their services, otherwise they would not pay Apple to keep using them. It's also obvious that Google has a business of its own quite separate and apart from Apple, or that is at least out of Apple's control. Google has become a verb FFS. You ever hear of anyone wanted to "Bing" something? Google is the goto search for HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of loyal users. TENS OF MILLIONS of loyal users at least feel they're locked into Gmail. They've got a big captive audience.
I wasn't and am not overstating Apple's vulnerability, but there is obviously risk in building a few million of anything before it goes on sale. There's also risk (and opportunity certainly) in depending on a product that has a lifespan of maybe 3 years. You mean to tell me that those TENS OF MILLIONS of loyal users don't even think about alternatives when they buy a new phone every few years? Granted the alternatives mostly suck right now, but will they always? The iPhone was a paradigm changer, will there never be similar breakthroughs again? You've got a foolish sort of hubris about Apple. They're on top of the world now, and they've been on top of the world before, particularly in the late 70's and early 80's. What happened in between?
You would give up years of rewards for the various disruptions that Apple has made in consumer electronics for a solid history of advertising revenue. You are arguing the same for the future.
That's wonderful being able to casually dismiss hundreds of billions (trillions?) of dollars of revenue so that you can feel good about Google search and advertising.
What you aren't able to extrapolate is that Apple is a culture, even a machine, created by Steve Jobs, and now helmed by Tim Cook, to continue the creation of best in class products and services. Apple is certainly spending the money to do that.
This, of course, is no guarantee that Apple will continue to be so profitable, but at the same time, there are so few Black Swan's in the world that no one can know when and how Apple will fade. Tthey must be satisfied with their emotion taken as fact, as you have.
You seriously think Google made money buying something for $12.5 billion and then selling individual units for $5.3 billion? Also remember while Google owned Motorola they had losses of close to $2 billion. Now add in lawyer fees, M&A fees, severance payments, ect.
You go to be smoking something if you think Google made profit on the deal.
You're on target with this. I think Google retained some IP after getting rid of Motorola, but that was a horrendous deal.
Yup.
Google thought these patents were worth $5-$8 billion when they bought Motorola. Since then they have been writing off hundreds of millions each quarter to lower the book value of those patents.
"Last year(2013), Microsoft claimed victory in its dispute with Motorola over the value of standard essential patents, when a judge determined that a reasonable licensing rate for some patents was a shade under $1.8 million a year. That’s well below the $4 billion a year that Motorola had sought."
In the next 4 years Google will write off (as a loss) almost $3 billion on the Motorola patents. In 2015 they wrote off $1.2 billion as a loss on the Motorola patents. By right they should write off the entire $4 billion but won't do so to cook the books.
Ah, and you're getting that fact from where? I missed the news Google was writing them all off. Odd since the overwhelming majority of them have nothing to do with standard-essential IP as far as I know which is where the claims they're worthless are coming from, right? If they're getting royalties from the IP, perhaps $700M plus per year, I don't know how they could now claim they have no value and do so with a straight face. Why would they?
Google thought these patents were worth $5-$8 billion when they bought Motorola. Since then they have been writing off hundreds of millions each quarter to lower the book value of those patents.
"Last year(2013), Microsoft claimed victory in its dispute with Motorola over the value of standard essential patents, when a judge determined that a reasonable licensing rate for some patents was a shade under $1.8 million a year. That’s well below the $4 billion a year that Motorola had sought."
In the next 4 years Google will write off (as a loss) almost $3 billion on the Motorola patents. In 2015 they wrote off $1.2 billion as a loss on the Motorola patents. By right they should write off the entire $4 billion but won't do so to cook the books.
Ah, and you're getting that fact from where? I missed the news Google was writing them all off. Odd since the overwhelming majority of them have nothing to do with standard-essential IP as far as I know which is where the claims they're worthless are coming from, right? If they're getting royalties from the IP, perhaps $700M plus per year, I don't know how they could now claim they have no value and do so with a straight face. Why would they?
Google will write off a total of $4 billion on intangible assets (patents), the bulk of which is Motorola. Below is directly from the 10Q:
Amortization expense relating to our purchased intangible assets was $285 million and $821 million for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2014 and $218 million and $679 million for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2015 . For the three and nine months ended September 30, 2014 , amortization expense related to Motorola Mobile was included in net loss from discontinued operations.
As of September 30, 2015 , expected amortization expense relating to purchased intangible assets for each of the next five years and thereafter was as follows (in millions, unaudited):
Heck some of that is probably Nest too as well as Boston Dynamics and several dozen other acquisitions and aqui-hires.
Thee was a period 2-3 years ago where all the techs were over-paying for IP, thinking it was the path to riches. Since then write-offs have been the name of the game. Apple, Google, Microsoft, Blackberry etc have all devalued IP in the last several months and taken write-offs. Patents just aren't the guarantees the techs thought they were. Things move too fast.
EDIT: By the way I forgot to say thanks for the find on the Google 10Q. I'm not an investor and so seldom look at those kinds of things without a specific need to. Good work!
Google spent $12.5 billion on Motorola Mobility in mid-2012. They sold off the non-phone parts for $2.35 billion later in 2012, then the phone parts to Lenovo in early 2014 for $2.91 billion. That's a $7.24 billion loss right there. Is that somehow not banked to/against Android?
That's a hardware acquisition. Android is software.
Yes, but Google was effectively forced into buying Motorola Mobility because MM was suing all of the other Android licensees. As such, I'd say it was primarily a cost of Android. Sanjay Jha (MM's CEO at the time) made off like a bandit. Google clearly wasn't interested in actually making phones. They could have shoveled piles of money at the problem if they were.
Excluding the purchase of Motorola Mobility from the costs of running Android is like excluding the costs of lawsuits. The Oracle case against them appears to have enough merit that Oracle almost certainly won't be ordered to pay Google's legal costs, even if Oracle doesn't win. Thus the hours that Google's legal team has spent on this are a cost of Android. As are patent purchases and licensing fees.
Speaking of patents, after Google bought MM and while Google was saying that they don't initiate patent lawsuits, MM (as part of Google) sued Apple. I found it really odd at the time that the media made a big deal of Motorola Mobility suing Apple, but never mentioned that Motorola Mobility was owned by Google.
I don't think the situation for Google is quite that dire, but I agree with your overall point. Apple is doing very well and I think they will continue to do very well. The stock price doesn't appear to reflect my optimism.
t think part of it is due to Google advertising being a business with low overhead and where Google is well entrenched. Google doesn't depend on hardware sales, while Apple does. Apple makes great money on hardware but it is a highly competitive business and consumers are fickle. Apple could be overtaken by a better OS or hardware, could fail to plan adequately and have too much inventory of some undesirable product (there's reason for concern on this - so many sales on Apple Watch and iPad over the holidays) , they could lose patent infringement lawsuits, lose critical staff, they could suffer a massive data breach (heck, they have EVERYBODY's data - credit cards and much more), or the products could just become uncool and not get taken up by consumers and enterprise. Apple does great. Hell, I am typing on a Macbook Pro, wearing an Apple Watch, sitting next to an iMac and Time Capsule, and have an iPhone in my pocket. I love the stuff. But look at history - lots of highly successful and profitable companies are not even memories anymore for reasons like those I listed.
Google, on the other hand, could simply stop doing something of the seemingly unrelated stuff they spend money developing and continue to collect ad money. They can go to hell as far as I'm concerned, but I don't think they will.
There's a lot of fear and skepticism built into the current AAPL price, so we'll see if the upcoming financial results change any minds. Given the lousy market conditions, I don't expect much. Over the long run, I think Apple will do great, so hang in there!
WTF.
You act like services companies are bullet proof. You can name a hardware company that tanked, but I can name a services company that tanked just as bad.
You don't see the weakness of Google. 70% of their revenue is from desktop search. That's a market that has been shrinking the last 3 years and will continue to shrink as people move to mobile devices. Google is not doing great with mobile advertising, which is the future. Facebook is very close to overtaking them in gross mobile ad dollars. Also Google's mobile ad revenue is 75% from iOS devices. If Apple cuts them off Google is screwed. All Apple is waiting for is a search tool that matches or is close to matching Google and they will give Google the middle finger.
Once that happens Google is done. All their future revenue growth is coming from iOS ads. Android as a platform sucks and hundreds of thousands of Android phones in China don't use Google services, so no revenue for Google.
The signs are obvious that Apple will eventually leave Google search as the default search:
1. SIri no longer uses Google 2. Spotlight search does not use Google 3. Tim Cook's stance on privacy 4. Tim Cook stating plainly that Google is Apple's main rival 5. The success of AppleMaps shows Apple can compete in services (AppleMaps is used 300% more on iOS than Google Maps)
Bottom line is for Google to stop growing all Apple needs to do is turn off Google in iOS. Thats it. For Apple to stop growing TENS OF MILLIONS of loyal users would have to be willing to switch ecosystems. Something they use EVERY DAY for hours a day.
Now you tell me which one is more likely?
Apple won't flip that switch until they're ready.
You just wait. Apple's gonna reveal a REAL bad ass search method that will make searching and clicking through endless links feel so 1996
You sure do go hyperbolic. Obviously Google doesn't want Apple to stop using their services, otherwise they would not pay Apple to keep using them. It's also obvious that Google has a business of its own quite separate and apart from Apple, or that is at least out of Apple's control. Google has become a verb FFS. You ever hear of anyone wanted to "Bing" something? Google is the goto search for HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of loyal users. TENS OF MILLIONS of loyal users at least feel they're locked into Gmail. They've got a big captive audience.
I wasn't and am not overstating Apple's vulnerability, but there is obviously risk in building a few million of anything before it goes on sale. There's also risk (and opportunity certainly) in depending on a product that has a lifespan of maybe 3 years. You mean to tell me that those TENS OF MILLIONS of loyal users don't even think about alternatives when they buy a new phone every few years? Granted the alternatives mostly suck right now, but will they always? The iPhone was a paradigm changer, will there never be similar breakthroughs again? You've got a foolish sort of hubris about Apple. They're on top of the world now, and they've been on top of the world before, particularly in the late 70's and early 80's. What happened in between?
With due respect I think you are overstating Apple’s vulnerability and understating Google’s. Sure, Google is a verb. And as far as moonshots that aren’t profitable, they do well. Perhaps one of these moonshots will be profitable; time will tell but history is reason for pessimism. And indeed, Google is vulnerable to losing a lot of profit in mobile search if Apple acts. This certainly won’t maim them, but it will hurt. One reasonable way to look at Google is they’ve got a fantastic cash cow, desktop search, but in terms of coherent business models and profitability, they’re a one-trick pony.
In contrast, Apple has a large number of satisfied, loyal and prosperous customers. It’s legitimate to look at Apple’s business as an annuity system, and then each one of us loyal customers pays, on the average, a dollar or so day to remain current in the ecosystem. In addition, you don’t have to view Apple as the iPhone company any more than it was the iPad company or the Macintosh company. Apple is the innovation company delivering hit after hit, and its charter is to exploit Moore’s law in a way that is pleasing to use. Not a bad place to be!
Comments
FACT: Desktop search has been decreasing 5-15% each year for a decade -> Wrong, revenue has been increasing since 2005
FACT: iOS mobile revenue makes up the bulk of Google's online advertising -> Wrong if you can't provide any source for that
As I said, you're just a parody, you don't have any fact right and your constant bashing of Cook is just a trollish thing, well, all of your posts are just trollish
As for ad revenue, more & more websites are starting to not load w/ ad blockers & with more sites switching to https, it's not clear ad blocking will be as effective going forward (especially if the traffic gets tunneled thru the source website). In some ways, that doesn't matter: the paid subscription model hasn't caught on & may never do, so these websites' revenue will come from ad, like it or not. On the other hand, Google search (& cloud infrastructure) is still far ahead of anyone else's; it will not be easily replaced. That Google is on the losing end of mobile platform/social media effort is a real danger, but it's not nearly as fickle/eminent as for consumer electronics manufacturer.
Besides, Google has heavily invested in areas of machine learning/AI since day one so it has a huge lead diversifying into these growing areas while Apple has become more & more heavily reliant on the execution of the iphone line. Right or wrong, these are some of the reasons for their respective stock values.
At the same time, I don't think it was a successful deal for Google. It wasn't even a deal to begin with. It was a shakedown. The patent wars were in full swing at the time. Then-Motorola CEO Sanjay Jha was trying to find a buyer for the money-losing company. He threatened to partner up with Microsoft. Google couldn't have that so it coughed up the money and bought out Motorola. Anytime a business makes an acquisition for defensive purposes, the deal is set up to fail. However, Google managed to cut its losses and might have even made out with a little bit of profit.
So in the end, it's not the monumental loss you're describing. At the same time, it wasn't a very smart deal.
Oh the irony of you making such a statement (considering how much you "forgot" in your useless post above about Oracle/Google/Java).
Are you referring to the Andy Rubin e-mail, where he suggested taking a license, or "using it anyway and making enemies along the way"?
Or the Chris Desalvo email where he said "Ours are half-ass at best. We need another half of an ass."?
Pretty clear Google knew they were doing something wrong and decided to roll the dice. Now it's going to cost them billions.
Hey, thanks for the fact-filled rebuttal. It's plain you spent significant some time researching your counter-points.
I wasn't and am not overstating Apple's vulnerability, but there is obviously risk in building a few million of anything before it goes on sale. There's also risk (and opportunity certainly) in depending on a product that has a lifespan of maybe 3 years. You mean to tell me that those TENS OF MILLIONS of loyal users don't even think about alternatives when they buy a new phone every few years? Granted the alternatives mostly suck right now, but will they always? The iPhone was a paradigm changer, will there never be similar breakthroughs again? You've got a foolish sort of hubris about Apple. They're on top of the world now, and they've been on top of the world before, particularly in the late 70's and early 80's. What happened in between?
Additionally I think we are long removed from a time when a billion was "a lot of money".
That's wonderful being able to casually dismiss hundreds of billions (trillions?) of dollars of revenue so that you can feel good about Google search and advertising.
What you aren't able to extrapolate is that Apple is a culture, even a machine, created by Steve Jobs, and now helmed by Tim Cook, to continue the creation of best in class products and services. Apple is certainly spending the money to do that.
This, of course, is no guarantee that Apple will continue to be so profitable, but at the same time, there are so few Black Swan's in the world that no one can know when and how Apple will fade. Tthey must be satisfied with their emotion taken as fact, as you have.
Pretty much defines the stock market.
For readers other than yourself here's a couple of different numbers run on the Moto purchase and sell-off.
http://www.zdnet.com/article/googles-motorola-mobility-detour-running-the-numbers/
Thee was a period 2-3 years ago where all the techs were over-paying for IP, thinking it was the path to riches. Since then write-offs have been the name of the game. Apple, Google, Microsoft, Blackberry etc have all devalued IP in the last several months and taken write-offs. Patents just aren't the guarantees the techs thought they were. Things move too fast.
EDIT: By the way I forgot to say thanks for the find on the Google 10Q. I'm not an investor and so seldom look at those kinds of things without a specific need to. Good work!
Excluding the purchase of Motorola Mobility from the costs of running Android is like excluding the costs of lawsuits. The Oracle case against them appears to have enough merit that Oracle almost certainly won't be ordered to pay Google's legal costs, even if Oracle doesn't win. Thus the hours that Google's legal team has spent on this are a cost of Android. As are patent purchases and licensing fees.
Speaking of patents, after Google bought MM and while Google was saying that they don't initiate patent lawsuits, MM (as part of Google) sued Apple. I found it really odd at the time that the media made a big deal of Motorola Mobility suing Apple, but never mentioned that Motorola Mobility was owned by Google.
You just wait. Apple's gonna reveal a REAL bad ass search method that will make searching and clicking through endless links feel so 1996