Google is a service. Nothing more. That service has to run on a platform. Be it iOS, Android, MacOS, Windows, etc... for most people, it's a search box or Map. Nothing more. The device they're using is what people identify with, and it's an iPhone, PC, etc... Google is nothing without the device.
Google does do a lot more in the background in terms of collecting information about users and selling them out to 3rd-party people. Most people have zero clue how any of that works so I question exactly how this #1 brand recognition was truly decided. I'm sure it's #1 for marketers for sure.
Most of the tech savvy population of the world knows what Google is and that inlcudes millions of Apple users. The brand is there. Apple's Think Different campaign was not for any one product. It was simply brand marketing.
If you ask almost anyone that uses Google services what they think of the brand and its services, you will hear a lot of positives. Those positives will cover a lot of ground but among those you will see some major satisfaction spikes when it comes to lack of downtime and having access to your data.
If most people still use Google as a default option for search, it is because they are happy with the results.
I see a lot of companies using Google's managed domains. More and more. The public education area where I live covers seven million people. The whole system uses Google's managed domains. I have never heard any of tech people involved in these decisions ever show signs of regret.
The list goes on but as a brand, I can see why it's up there at the top.
Google is practically synonymous with searching the web, of course they have huge brand value. Apple is seen as a quality mark in consumer elctronics, of course they have huge brand value.
Being either proud or outraged over how a third party evaluates either to an actual $ value seems to me to be the height of pointless fanboyism.
BrandZ says X. Does it mean anything? No. Is it an objective measurement? No. Should anyone care? I think you know
Google is practically synonymous with searching the web, of course they have huge brand value. Apple is seen as a quality mark in consumer elctronics, of course they have huge brand value.
Being either proud or outraged over how a third party evaluates either to an actual $ value seems to me to be the height of pointless fanboyism.
BrandZ says X. Does it mean anything? No. Is it an objective measurement? No. Should anyone care? I think you know
My guess would be that in the US the result might be different but globally, this makes sense. Most people around the world don't have the money/desire to buy Apple products but a lot more trust Google with their sensitive data. Experience with a brand is important.
Ahh, who cares? Data-harvesting companies are the most profitable and most valuable companies on the planet. Wall Street loves big data and so do big investors. It's all free profits. The consumer is the product. There's an endless amount of product because humans breed rather quickly. Because Google can't be regulated, they're basically free to do whatever they want with consumers' personal data to turn those massive profits. So, if Google branding is worth more than Apple, it comes as no surprise. There are far more people on the planet that use Google services than Apple products, so maybe Google is that much more important to consumers. But in the end, what really does any of that matter. It's not like Apple is hurting by being in second place.
The top firms that data harvest & then sell advertising are indeed quite profitable and still growing strongly (btw - they don't sell the data - or at least FB hasn't for years - which, as noted here, is against their business model).
However, they are not the most profitable. Apple is, both in absolute dollars, and in free cash flow generation. Apple's business model is more profitable (to the bottom line) than Google's. The marginal cost for those ads might be low, but both Google, FB, Amazon etc, all have huge operations costs. Just go check out revenues and overall profit to see which ones generate most free cash.
Ahh, who cares? Data-harvesting companies are the most profitable and most valuable companies on the planet. Wall Street loves big data and so do big investors. It's all free profits. The consumer is the product. There's an endless amount of product because humans breed rather quickly. Because Google can't be regulated, they're basically free to do whatever they want with consumers' personal data to turn those massive profits. So, if Google branding is worth more than Apple, it comes as no surprise. There are far more people on the planet that use Google services than Apple products, so maybe Google is that much more important to consumers. But in the end, what really does any of that matter. It's not like Apple is hurting by being in second place.
The top firms that data harvest & then sell advertising are indeed quite profitable and still growing strongly (btw - they don't sell the data - or at least FB hasn't for years - which, as noted here, is against their business model).
However, they are not the most profitable. Apple is, both in absolute dollars, and in free cash flow generation. Apple's business model is more profitable (to the bottom line) than Google's. The marginal cost for those ads might be low, but both Google, FB, Amazon etc, all have huge operations costs. Just go check out revenues and overall profit to see which ones generate most free cash.
Honestly I don't even see how Google survives on only a few $B in profits. Heck they barely have a $100B in cash on hand. What are they gonna do? They're plainly doomed.
Ahh, who cares? Data-harvesting companies are the most profitable and most valuable companies on the planet. Wall Street loves big data and so do big investors. It's all free profits. The consumer is the product. There's an endless amount of product because humans breed rather quickly. Because Google can't be regulated, they're basically free to do whatever they want with consumers' personal data to turn those massive profits. So, if Google branding is worth more than Apple, it comes as no surprise. There are far more people on the planet that use Google services than Apple products, so maybe Google is that much more important to consumers. But in the end, what really does any of that matter. It's not like Apple is hurting by being in second place.
The top firms that data harvest & then sell advertising are indeed quite profitable and still growing strongly (btw - they don't sell the data - or at least FB hasn't for years - which, as noted here, is against their business model).
However, they are not the most profitable. Apple is, both in absolute dollars, and in free cash flow generation. Apple's business model is more profitable (to the bottom line) than Google's. The marginal cost for those ads might be low, but both Google, FB, Amazon etc, all have huge operations costs. Just go check out revenues and overall profit to see which ones generate most free cash.
Nobody generates more free cash than Apple. Not even Exxon.
Ahh, who cares? Data-harvesting companies are the most profitable and most valuable companies on the planet. Wall Street loves big data and so do big investors. It's all free profits. The consumer is the product. There's an endless amount of product because humans breed rather quickly. Because Google can't be regulated, they're basically free to do whatever they want with consumers' personal data to turn those massive profits. So, if Google branding is worth more than Apple, it comes as no surprise. There are far more people on the planet that use Google services than Apple products, so maybe Google is that much more important to consumers. But in the end, what really does any of that matter. It's not like Apple is hurting by being in second place.
The top firms that data harvest & then sell advertising are indeed quite profitable and still growing strongly (btw - they don't sell the data - or at least FB hasn't for years - which, as noted here, is against their business model).
However, they are not the most profitable. Apple is, both in absolute dollars, and in free cash flow generation. Apple's business model is more profitable (to the bottom line) than Google's. The marginal cost for those ads might be low, but both Google, FB, Amazon etc, all have huge operations costs. Just go check out revenues and overall profit to see which ones generate most free cash.
Nobody generates more free cash than Apple. Not even Exxon.
Ahh, who cares? Data-harvesting companies are the most profitable and most valuable companies on the planet. Wall Street loves big data and so do big investors. It's all free profits. The consumer is the product. There's an endless amount of product because humans breed rather quickly. Because Google can't be regulated, they're basically free to do whatever they want with consumers' personal data to turn those massive profits. So, if Google branding is worth more than Apple, it comes as no surprise. There are far more people on the planet that use Google services than Apple products, so maybe Google is that much more important to consumers. But in the end, what really does any of that matter. It's not like Apple is hurting by being in second place.
The top firms that data harvest & then sell advertising are indeed quite profitable and still growing strongly (btw - they don't sell the data - or at least FB hasn't for years - which, as noted here, is against their business model).
However, they are not the most profitable. Apple is, both in absolute dollars, and in free cash flow generation. Apple's business model is more profitable (to the bottom line) than Google's. The marginal cost for those ads might be low, but both Google, FB, Amazon etc, all have huge operations costs. Just go check out revenues and overall profit to see which ones generate most free cash.
Honestly I don't even see how Google survives on only a few $B in profits. Heck they barely have a $100B in cash on hand. What are they gonna do? They're plainly doomed.
Since you sarcastically talked about the Google is doomed theory, I suddenly remembered @Herbivore2 who used to post the Google is doomed posts here in AI. He used to mention how Samsung is going to destroy Android/Google with Tizen. I recently read a rumor about Samsung abandoning Tizen, even for their smart watches and will go with Wear OS from Google for their next watch. Not 100% sure if that is true, but won't be surprised if it happens. And history would repeat itself with yet another OS abandoned by Samsung due to their incompetence.
Ahh, who cares? Data-harvesting companies are the most profitable and most valuable companies on the planet. Wall Street loves big data and so do big investors. It's all free profits. The consumer is the product. There's an endless amount of product because humans breed rather quickly. Because Google can't be regulated, they're basically free to do whatever they want with consumers' personal data to turn those massive profits. So, if Google branding is worth more than Apple, it comes as no surprise. There are far more people on the planet that use Google services than Apple products, so maybe Google is that much more important to consumers. But in the end, what really does any of that matter. It's not like Apple is hurting by being in second place.
The top firms that data harvest & then sell advertising are indeed quite profitable and still growing strongly (btw - they don't sell the data - or at least FB hasn't for years - which, as noted here, is against their business model).
However, they are not the most profitable. Apple is, both in absolute dollars, and in free cash flow generation. Apple's business model is more profitable (to the bottom line) than Google's. The marginal cost for those ads might be low, but both Google, FB, Amazon etc, all have huge operations costs. Just go check out revenues and overall profit to see which ones generate most free cash.
Honestly I don't even see how Google survives on only a few $B in profits. Heck they barely have a $100B in cash on hand. What are they gonna do? They're plainly doomed.
Since you sarcastically talked about the Google is doomed theory, I suddenly remembered @Herbivore2 who used to post the Google is doomed posts here in AI. He used to mention how Samsung is going to destroy Android/Google with Tizen. I recently read a rumor about Samsung abandoning Tizen, even for their smart watches and will go with Wear OS from Google for their next watch. Not 100% sure if that is true, but won't be surprised if it happens. And history would repeat itself with yet another OS abandoned by Samsung due to their incompetence.
Yeah, I'm a bit surprised that there's even serious rumors of Samsung opting for Wear instead of Tizen but perhaps there's truth to it.
Comments
If you ask almost anyone that uses Google services what they think of the brand and its services, you will hear a lot of positives. Those positives will cover a lot of ground but among those you will see some major satisfaction spikes when it comes to lack of downtime and having access to your data.
If most people still use Google as a default option for search, it is because they are happy with the results.
I see a lot of companies using Google's managed domains. More and more. The public education area where I live covers seven million people. The whole system uses Google's managed domains. I have never heard any of tech people involved in these decisions ever show signs of regret.
The list goes on but as a brand, I can see why it's up there at the top.
Being either proud or outraged over how a third party evaluates either to an actual $ value seems to me to be the height of pointless fanboyism.
BrandZ says X.
Does it mean anything? No.
Is it an objective measurement? No.
Should anyone care? I think you know
However, they are not the most profitable. Apple is, both in absolute dollars, and in free cash flow generation. Apple's business model is more profitable (to the bottom line) than Google's. The marginal cost for those ads might be low, but both Google, FB, Amazon etc, all have huge operations costs. Just go check out revenues and overall profit to see which ones generate most free cash.