I really hope this conflict can be resolved sooner rather than later if for no other reason that when it comes to iPhones, Qualcomm chips are far superior to Intels.
So what Apple now got from their “diversification strategy”: commercial bans / legal issues with QualComm for $30 (already passed onto customers in $100...300 overpriced handsets), LTE/Cellular issues, to be solved with numerous undocumented stability iOS updates, no modem supplier diversification, and at least 1 year delay for 5G. (which I hardly care about, but can be deadly harmful in a technology-push market where they struggle to differentiate themselves) Using their extensive outsourcing experience with Intel & lagging MacBook cpu’s... NOT
Why am I willing to pay $100 to $300 more for an Apple handset?
This making money off of people’s private information allows Google to give away Android to OEMs for free. Result; cheaper Android phones based on the lack of privacy. - Apple does very little data mining. Outside of App Store searches and the News app, Apple does not mine user data and protects user privacy. Apple needs to make its money another way. Apple by contrast makes most of its money from hardware sales especially from the iPhone. https://www.fool.com/investing/2017/04/08/how-apple-inc-makes-most-of-its-money.aspx
Result; Apple needs to charge more for its hardware.
2. Service and support; Apple has top notch customer service and tech support. Apple extends the life of its iOS devices with OS updates many more years compared with Android OEMs.
Apple screws suppliers, all big companies do it to some extent, some are just more aggressive than other. Supermarkets push milk farmers to the point they can hardly make any money. Apple killed GT advanced technologies because it couldn't meet apples demands, screwed some other imaging company to although forgot the name.
Apple is a super aggressive greedy bully, will do whatever it takes to keep generating its billions. Remember they were going super nuclear on android, well that worked out well for them, they lost that war. Apple now trying to screw over Qualcomm, because all they are thinking about is their share price and retaining their ridiculous profit margins.
No I’m not “effectively” wrong. I have a different conclusion based on the clear facts vs. a hypothesis by Florian Mueller about the confidential thinking of Apple and Motorola.
Here is a quote from the Mueller article you linked to.
<b>”I have meanwhile seen articles in which certain experts -- who are experts in some areas, but likely spend less time perusing Android patent suit court filings than I do -- claimed that Motorola was the aggressor and Apple "forced to defend itself", which is plain wrong.”</b> http://www.fosspatents.com/2011/08/proof-apple-attacked-motorola-not-other.html
Mueller argues that he is right and other experts are wrong because he spends more time pursuing Android court filings. Is Mueller an attorney/patent attorney? No. He is a tech consultant currently working for Microsoft and Oracle. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florian_Müller_(author) Mueller is speculating about Apple’s and Motorola’s behavior at this time. Again from the linked article;
<b>”It's highly probable that Apple had a lawsuit in the making but had to change plans after the DJ action in terms of which patents to assert in which court.”</b>
“Highly probable” does not = an established fact. I do not know what Apple’s management / lawyers were thinking at the time because no outside observer was in the room when these matters were being discussed by Apple. No clear source about what was Apple’s timeframe at the time. It’s possible that Apple was waiting for Motorola to make the first movie. - I am open to accepting a statement (with citation) from Apple saying they intended to sue Motorola first. Second, I would need to see a statement from Motorola that they had no intention to sue Apple. And that they only sued Apple first because they were afraid that Apple would sue them. Third, to support Mueller’s reasoning a statement from Motorola is needed that they sued quickly because they wanted to get a preferable venue. On the venue issue Mueller brings up the East Texas court district.
<b>”Companies do this frequently to avoid such venues as East Texas.”</b> But Apple doesn’t go to the East Texas District to file patent lawsuits. Motorola should not have had a fear that Apple would do that. This reasoning by Mueller undercuts his argument.
- I am not going to accept the speculations by Mueller in this case, over other experts, as absolute fact.
I really hope this conflict can be resolved sooner rather than later if for no other reason that when it comes to iPhones, Qualcomm chips are far superior to Intels.
So what Apple now got from their “diversification strategy”: commercial bans / legal issues with QualComm for $30 (already passed onto customers in $100...300 overpriced handsets), LTE/Cellular issues, to be solved with numerous undocumented stability iOS updates, no modem supplier diversification, and at least 1 year delay for 5G. (which I hardly care about, but can be deadly harmful in a technology-push market where they struggle to differentiate themselves) Using their extensive outsourcing experience with Intel & lagging MacBook cpu’s... NOT
Why am I willing to pay $100 to $300 more for an Apple handset?
This making money off of people’s private information allows Google to give away Android to OEMs for free. Result; cheaper Android phones based on the lack of privacy. - Apple does very little data mining. Outside of App Store searches and the News app, Apple does not mine user data and protects user privacy. Apple needs to make its money another way. Apple by contrast makes most of its money from hardware sales especially from the iPhone. https://www.fool.com/investing/2017/04/08/how-apple-inc-makes-most-of-its-money.aspx
Result; Apple needs to charge more for its hardware.
2. Service and support; Apple has top notch customer service and tech support. Apple extends the life of its iOS devices with OS updates many more years compared with Android OEMs.
FWIW Google doesn't use GMail data for ad purposes. I don't think they use Google Drive data either but I'll research it for you unless you want to do so yourself to support your own claims that they do. You're linking relatively old sources. There's been policy changes since.
If you don't really understand the whole Google ad thing and under the impression your personal data is for sale you should read this link. It should clarify things for you. It's not as onerous as some posters here would have you believe. https://safety.google/privacy/ads-and-data/
EDIT: No, Google Drive data is all encrypted and what those files contain is not mined for ads. The only danger to be aware of is who you are sharing files with. To control that look here: https://www.wired.com/insights/2012/04/google-drive-privacy/
Remember they were going super nuclear on android, well that worked out well for them, they lost that war. .
I guess if you consider getting 90 to 100% of the ENTIRE industry's profits "losing," you're spot on. LOL.
The last news I saw on this subject was Q2-18 and the figure given was 62%.
One company out of many, 62% of all profits. Still not losing.
I don't think his original point was winning or losing; I think it was that "90 to 100%" was a number simply pulled out of someone's nether regions, and unsubstantiated.
Remember they were going super nuclear on android, well that worked out well for them, they lost that war. .
I guess if you consider getting 90 to 100% of the ENTIRE industry's profits "losing," you're spot on. LOL.
The last news I saw on this subject was Q2-18 and the figure given was 62%.
One company out of many, 62% of all profits. Still not losing.
Who spoke of losing? Or winning for that matter!
If we are going to spout numbers, isn't it reasonable to expect valid numbers?
Apple, over four quarters, typically gains over 80% of the profits in the smartphone industry. You chose a single quarter, which is not a sufficient indicator for a yearly calculated metric. Samsung picks up about 10%, and the rest is split amongst the other players.
Maybe that is changing, but I doubt it.
Either way, a company, Apple, with some 15% to 18% of total smartphone marketshare worldwide for the year, is doing pretty well.
Yeah, its those ASP's and margins that are behind Apple being able to do this, year after year.
I didn't 'choose' one quarter. I simply mentioned the last data point I had seen which happened to be for one quarter.
Given that Android had a great - year - pushing into higher price bands throughout 2018 and Apple has announced a rocky iPhone start to 2019, I think it may even end up lower than 80% for the year.
Either way, and as far as I can see, the 90-100% seems off to me.
You "chose" to post that data point, so yeah, you "chose" one quarter, and since you didn't post a link, it's just anecdotal.
"Given that Android has had a great year"
Evidence of that please, and not just Huawei data. Android device sales are flat, and LG and Samsung just got hammered. What makes you think that Huawei, with its "great" unit sales, didn't have high marketing and acquisition costs that effected their revenue and profit?
'Great' in the sense that since 2017 most of Android's top manufacturers have increased prices and pushed into higher bands with success. That carried over into 2018.
Huawei, Honor, Samsung, Oppo, Vivo, OnePlus etc. With each passing quarter, new, higher priced flagships have appeared. They now have price bands for all budgets.
I am not talking about 'unit sales' in a general sense but specifically the progress Android manufacturers have made in entering higher bands.
Obviously Huawei is blazing a trail at the moment but in terms of higher priced terminals, it is clear that just about all the major Android manufacturers have moved up a level with regards to pricing.
That will possibly allow them to gain more of the overall profit available.
"it is clear" but, again, no data, and "moved up a level", which is increasing ASP, in case you didn't make that connection, doesn't necessarily mean increasing margins.
But now it's okay to talk about ASP...finally...
ASP means nothing - to consumers!
In this case we are talking about industry profits in relation to Apple's proportion. It doesn't mean anything either - which I made clear in the very first post!
All I am doing is looking at the 90-100% claim, which still hasn't been substantiated in any way, and raising some major eyebrows.
The whole point of who has the most profits is moot if most of them aren't actually used for anything at all.
If Apple makes 100€ profit and sticks 90€ in an off shore account for a decade, it doesn't benefit consumers as much less than 10€ is used for further product development.
If Huawei makes 20€ profit and reserves 5€, it leaves less than 15€ for further product development but more than Apple.
Simplified in the extreme, this is pretty much reality. Huawei is doing FAR more than Apple with far less of of the profit pie.
Better products, more innovation and higher investment in R&D.
Not only that but Huawei's consumer business unit not only announced that they broke through the 100 billion USD revenue mark and sold over 200,000,000 handsets but that it also sold over a 100,000,000 non-handset devices. Another record for that business unit.
As is patently evident, not having the highest ASP or highest revenues or highest profits, has had ZERO impact on its ability to do amazing business while besting Apple along the way in R&D efforts too.
Anyone wishing to wave the revenue/profits flag really should look at Apple's amassed cash and reflect a little.
You speak of consumers, what’s good for them. Then you attempt to make a case that Huawei is somehow putting more into R&D than Apple, but you neglect to mention that Hauwei has other businesses that demand some of that R&D. So what’s the numbers when you compare iPhone R&D to Hauwei smartphone R&D. You don’t know. You’re just blowing hot air, aren’t you?
One of my Apple criticisms from a business approach perspective is the lack of dynamism in its release cycle. In part, this lack of dynamism and iterative product releases has left its newest phones looking less attractive in China during its peak quarter. I can assure you that if they appear less attractive today, they will not have an easier time by the time MWC2019 comes around, and that is next month!
If you (or China) think Apple’s iterative product developer is detrimental, you (or China) still fail to understand Apple.
https://www.macworld.com/article/1151235/macs/apple-rolls.html The iPhone is following the same pattern. In 2007 it debuted with no third-party apps, no 3G networking, and a maximum storage capacity of 8GB. One year later, Apple had doubled storage, added 3G and GPS, and opened the App Store. The year after that, Apple swapped in a faster processor, added a compass and an improved camera, and doubled storage again. The pattern repeats. We may never see an iPhone that utterly blows away the prior year’s, but we’ll soon have one that utterly blows away the original iPhone.
Yes. That's what I said. I understand Apple well enough to see it is now* detrimental
* Times have changed. As a result Apple needs to change. In fact it is changing, just too slowly.
You’ve shown you don’t understand buybacks, you don’t understand market share (when majority is relevant and when it’s not), you hardly understand the difference between the market capitalization of a company’s stock and the health of the underlying business. But you understand Apple well enough? You’re out of your league.
Remember they were going super nuclear on android, well that worked out well for them, they lost that war. .
I guess if you consider getting 90 to 100% of the ENTIRE industry's profits "losing," you're spot on. LOL.
The last news I saw on this subject was Q2-18 and the figure given was 62%.
One company out of many, 62% of all profits. Still not losing.
I don't think his original point was winning or losing; I think it was that "90 to 100%" was a number simply pulled out of someone's nether regions, and unsubstantiated.
The 90 to 100% was at one time the actual number being presented. It’s nit that number in the most recent quarter. So what. He persisted in driving the thread away from the original point that apple is not losing by hanging on this irrelevant detail. That’s what such folks do. They’re agenda is to distract from the key point by focusing on any detail that might not be perfectly accurate. In this case, a single company, with minority global market share, making an outsized share of global profits relative to their market share, is not a company that’s losing, not a company we all suddenly need to worry about.
The 90 to 100% was at one time the actual number being presented. It’s nit that number in the most recent quarter. So what. He persisted in driving the thread away from the original point that apple is not losing by hanging on this irrelevant detail. That’s what such folks do. They’re agenda is to distract from the key point by focusing on any detail that might not be perfectly accurate. In this case, a single company, with minority global market share, making an outsized share of global profits relative to their market share, is not a company that’s losing, not a company we all suddenly need to worry about.
Nobody can "[drive] the thread away from the original point" without help from other posters.
I really hope this conflict can be resolved sooner rather than later if for no other reason that when it comes to iPhones, Qualcomm chips are far superior to Intels.
So what Apple now got from their “diversification strategy”: commercial bans / legal issues with QualComm for $30 (already passed onto customers in $100...300 overpriced handsets), LTE/Cellular issues, to be solved with numerous undocumented stability iOS updates, no modem supplier diversification, and at least 1 year delay for 5G. (which I hardly care about, but can be deadly harmful in a technology-push market where they struggle to differentiate themselves) Using their extensive outsourcing experience with Intel & lagging MacBook cpu’s... NOT
Why am I willing to pay $100 to $300 more for an Apple handset?
This making money off of people’s private information allows Google to give away Android to OEMs for free. Result; cheaper Android phones based on the lack of privacy. - Apple does very little data mining. Outside of App Store searches and the News app, Apple does not mine user data and protects user privacy. Apple needs to make its money another way. Apple by contrast makes most of its money from hardware sales especially from the iPhone. https://www.fool.com/investing/2017/04/08/how-apple-inc-makes-most-of-its-money.aspx
Result; Apple needs to charge more for its hardware.
2. Service and support; Apple has top notch customer service and tech support. Apple extends the life of its iOS devices with OS updates many more years compared with Android OEMs.
FWIW Google doesn't use GMail data for ad purposes. I don't think they use Google Drive data either but I'll research it for you unless you want to do so yourself to support your own claims that they do. You're linking relatively old sources. There's been policy changes since.
If you don't really understand the whole Google ad thing and under the impression your personal data is for sale you should read this link. It should clarify things for you. It's not as onerous as some posters here would have you believe. https://safety.google/privacy/ads-and-data/
EDIT: No, Google Drive data is all encrypted and what those files contain is not mined for ads. The only danger to be aware of is who you are sharing files with. To control that look here: https://www.wired.com/insights/2012/04/google-drive-privacy/
Bottom line, and there is no way you can dispute this, is that Google got caught red-handed mining gmail and serving up ads from what it gleaned. They did so only after they were caught and called out for it. They said they would stop reading gmail and serving ads, they never said anything about no longer reading your email.
Remember they were going super nuclear on android, well that worked out well for them, they lost that war. .
I guess if you consider getting 90 to 100% of the ENTIRE industry's profits "losing," you're spot on. LOL.
The last news I saw on this subject was Q2-18 and the figure given was 62%.
One company out of many, 62% of all profits. Still not losing.
I don't think his original point was winning or losing; I think it was that "90 to 100%" was a number simply pulled out of someone's nether regions, and unsubstantiated.
The 90 to 100% was at one time the actual number being presented. It’s nit that number in the most recent quarter. So what. He persisted in driving the thread away from the original point that apple is not losing by hanging on this irrelevant detail. That’s what such folks do. They’re agenda is to distract from the key point by focusing on any detail that might not be perfectly accurate. In this case, a single company, with minority global market share, making an outsized share of global profits relative to their market share, is not a company that’s losing, not a company we all suddenly need to worry about.
I suggest you re-read the thread. I simply corrected a falsehood and was prepared to leave it at that. On subsequent occasions I did just that (not picking up on replies - tmay's included for example).
That is not persistently driving the thread away.
On the other hand you have posted in the last few pages with six replies which have also contributed to preventing getting back on topic.
My first replies were short and to the point.
Yes, then people come in with longer replies which sometimes got countered but I then took a deliberate decision to refrain from splintering even more once Gatorguy and Bb-15 nudged it back on track.
It went off topic for a while, yes but that is a result of many people participating - including yourself. The thread then came back on track. It is not the result if one person, much less, 'persistent'.
Once again I will refrain from further branching by not picking up on your investor comments just as I have already let others go unanswered further up.
Remember they were going super nuclear on android, well that worked out well for them, they lost that war. .
I guess if you consider getting 90 to 100% of the ENTIRE industry's profits "losing," you're spot on. LOL.
The last news I saw on this subject was Q2-18 and the figure given was 62%.
One company out of many, 62% of all profits. Still not losing.
I don't think his original point was winning or losing; I think it was that "90 to 100%" was a number simply pulled out of someone's nether regions, and unsubstantiated.
The 90 to 100% was at one time the actual number being presented. It’s nit that number in the most recent quarter. So what. He persisted in driving the thread away from the original point that apple is not losing by hanging on this irrelevant detail. That’s what such folks do. They’re agenda is to distract from the key point by focusing on any detail that might not be perfectly accurate. In this case, a single company, with minority global market share, making an outsized share of global profits relative to their market share, is not a company that’s losing, not a company we all suddenly need to worry about.
I suggest you re-read the thread. I simply corrected a falsehood and was prepared to leave it at that. On subsequent occasions I did just that (not picking up on replies - tmay's included for example).
That is not persistently driving the thread away.
On the other hand you have posted in the last few pages with six replies which have also contributed to preventing getting back on topic.
My first replies were short and to the point.
Yes, then people come in with longer replies which sometimes got countered but I then took a deliberate decision to refrain from splintering even more once Gatorguy and Bb-15 nudged it back on track.
It went off topic for a while, yes but that is a result of many people participating - including yourself. The thread then came back on track. It is not the result if one person, much less, 'persistent'.
Once again I will refrain from further branching by not picking up on your investor comments just as I have already let others go unanswered further up.
I really hope this conflict can be resolved sooner rather than later if for no other reason that when it comes to iPhones, Qualcomm chips are far superior to Intels.
So what Apple now got from their “diversification strategy”: commercial bans / legal issues with QualComm for $30 (already passed onto customers in $100...300 overpriced handsets), LTE/Cellular issues, to be solved with numerous undocumented stability iOS updates, no modem supplier diversification, and at least 1 year delay for 5G. (which I hardly care about, but can be deadly harmful in a technology-push market where they struggle to differentiate themselves) Using their extensive outsourcing experience with Intel & lagging MacBook cpu’s... NOT
Why am I willing to pay $100 to $300 more for an Apple handset?
This making money off of people’s private information allows Google to give away Android to OEMs for free. Result; cheaper Android phones based on the lack of privacy. - Apple does very little data mining. Outside of App Store searches and the News app, Apple does not mine user data and protects user privacy. Apple needs to make its money another way. Apple by contrast makes most of its money from hardware sales especially from the iPhone. https://www.fool.com/investing/2017/04/08/how-apple-inc-makes-most-of-its-money.aspx
Result; Apple needs to charge more for its hardware.
2. Service and support; Apple has top notch customer service and tech support. Apple extends the life of its iOS devices with OS updates many more years compared with Android OEMs.
FWIW Google doesn't use GMail data for ad purposes. I don't think they use Google Drive data either but I'll research it for you unless you want to do so yourself to support your own claims that they do. You're linking relatively old sources. There's been policy changes since.
If you don't really understand the whole Google ad thing and under the impression your personal data is for sale you should read this link. It should clarify things for you. It's not as onerous as some posters here would have you believe. https://safety.google/privacy/ads-and-data/
EDIT: No, Google Drive data is all encrypted and what those files contain is not mined for ads. The only danger to be aware of is who you are sharing files with. To control that look here: https://www.wired.com/insights/2012/04/google-drive-privacy/
Bottom line, and there is no way you can dispute this, is that Google got caught red-handed mining gmail and serving up ads from what it gleaned. They did so only after they were caught and called out for it. They said they would stop reading gmail and serving ads, they never said anything about no longer reading your email.
Caught mining GMail for ads?? What silliness, as tho they were doing it without telling anyone. Heck they told you right up front they did so. Unless it was a paid GMail account, for instance GMail for business, the service was paid for with ad impressions just as nearly every other free email service was. PAID GMail accounts were never scanned for ads. It wasn't a secret and they didn't hide it, so they could hardly have been "caught".
By 2017 they stopped doing so as it was becoming more of a negative distraction and not worth the bad PR. It also was a source of confusion when companies considered moving their services to Google. No business paying for GSuite would want their emails data-mined for ads and they wouldn't have been, but Google began making a big push for enterprise accounts a few years back (increasingly successful at it by the way) and didn't need the misinformation about "ADS!" being bandied about. So good move right, even if it was motivated by profits. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-alphabet-gsuite/googles-g-suite-is-no-microsoft-killer-but-still-winning-converts-idUSKBN1FL3ZX
As for "reading your email" of course they do. So does Apple. How else do you think Apple, Google, Microsoft and other email providers save you from spam, malicious attachments, malware, etc? Some companies DO keyword search your mail for ad purposes, for example Yahoo and Earthlink. Google does not.
Besides that how did this thread ever become "Whaddabout Google" anyway?
Comments
1. Privacy; Google makes most of its money from ads based on massive data mining. Google’s mines data from “free” services like Gmail, Chrome, Google Maps & Google Drive for ads.
https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/020515/business-google.asp
https://bgr.com/2016/02/11/why-facebook-and-google-mine-your-data-and-why-theres-nothing-you-can-do-to-stop-it/ ;
This making money off of people’s private information allows Google to give away Android to OEMs for free.
Result; cheaper Android phones based on the lack of privacy.
- Apple does very little data mining. Outside of App Store searches and the News app, Apple does not mine user data and protects user privacy.
Apple needs to make its money another way.
Apple by contrast makes most of its money from hardware sales especially from the iPhone.
https://www.fool.com/investing/2017/04/08/how-apple-inc-makes-most-of-its-money.aspx
Result; Apple needs to charge more for its hardware.
2. Service and support; Apple has top notch customer service and tech support. Apple extends the life of its iOS devices with OS updates many more years compared with Android OEMs.
Here is a quote from the Mueller article you linked to.
<b>”I have meanwhile seen articles in which certain experts -- who are experts in some areas, but likely spend less time perusing Android patent suit court filings than I do -- claimed that Motorola was the aggressor and Apple "forced to defend itself", which is plain wrong.”</b>
http://www.fosspatents.com/2011/08/proof-apple-attacked-motorola-not-other.html
Mueller argues that he is right and other experts are wrong because he spends more time pursuing Android court filings.
Is Mueller an attorney/patent attorney? No.
He is a tech consultant currently working for Microsoft and Oracle.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florian_Müller_(author)
Mueller is speculating about Apple’s and Motorola’s behavior at this time. Again from the linked article;
<b>”It's highly probable that Apple had a lawsuit in the making but had to change plans after the DJ action in terms of which patents to assert in which court.”</b>
“Highly probable” does not = an established fact.
I do not know what Apple’s management / lawyers were thinking at the time because no outside observer was in the room when these matters were being discussed by Apple. No clear source about what was Apple’s timeframe at the time. It’s possible that Apple was waiting for Motorola to make the first movie.
- I am open to accepting a statement (with citation) from Apple saying they intended to sue Motorola first.
Second, I would need to see a statement from Motorola that they had no intention to sue Apple. And that they only sued Apple first because they were afraid that Apple would sue them.
Third, to support Mueller’s reasoning a statement from Motorola is needed that they sued quickly because they wanted to get a preferable venue.
On the venue issue Mueller brings up the East Texas court district.
<b>”Companies do this frequently to avoid such venues as East Texas.”</b>
But Apple doesn’t go to the East Texas District to file patent lawsuits. Motorola should not have had a fear that Apple would do that. This reasoning by Mueller undercuts his argument.
- I am not going to accept the speculations by Mueller in this case, over other experts, as absolute fact.
If you don't really understand the whole Google ad thing and under the impression your personal data is for sale you should read this link. It should clarify things for you. It's not as onerous as some posters here would have you believe.
https://safety.google/privacy/ads-and-data/
EDIT: No, Google Drive data is all encrypted and what those files contain is not mined for ads. The only danger to be aware of is who you are sharing files with. To control that look here:
https://www.wired.com/insights/2012/04/google-drive-privacy/
That is not persistently driving the thread away.
On the other hand you have posted in the last few pages with six replies which have also contributed to preventing getting back on topic.
My first replies were short and to the point.
Yes, then people come in with longer replies which sometimes got countered but I then took a deliberate decision to refrain from splintering even more once Gatorguy and Bb-15 nudged it back on track.
It went off topic for a while, yes but that is a result of many people participating - including yourself. The thread then came back on track. It is not the result if one person, much less, 'persistent'.
Once again I will refrain from further branching by not picking up on your investor comments just as I have already let others go unanswered further up.
Nuh huh.
By 2017 they stopped doing so as it was becoming more of a negative distraction and not worth the bad PR. It also was a source of confusion when companies considered moving their services to Google. No business paying for GSuite would want their emails data-mined for ads and they wouldn't have been, but Google began making a big push for enterprise accounts a few years back (increasingly successful at it by the way) and didn't need the misinformation about "ADS!" being bandied about.
So good move right, even if it was motivated by profits.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-alphabet-gsuite/googles-g-suite-is-no-microsoft-killer-but-still-winning-converts-idUSKBN1FL3ZX
As for "reading your email" of course they do. So does Apple. How else do you think Apple, Google, Microsoft and other email providers save you from spam, malicious attachments, malware, etc? Some companies DO keyword search your mail for ad purposes, for example Yahoo and Earthlink. Google does not.
Besides that how did this thread ever become "Whaddabout Google" anyway?