Google isn’t safe from Yahoo’s fate
techcrunch.com
techcrunch.com
Google owns a vast stake in mobile domain through Android. If mobile native ads is the way of future then I am sure Google will use it to their advantage and thrive at it. Plus Google has been diversifying it's revenue stream a lot lately. Also, a few people had internet and personal computers at home back then. People are more tech and internet savvy these days.
A bigger problem that a lot of people fail to acknowledge when it comes to demise of Yahoo is the brain drain. Top talent left Yahoo when Mayers joined.
Only 10% of google revenue and almost none of the profits come from other business than ads. Google has tried but has not been successful in creating profits from elsewhere. Motorola Mobility was huge blunder.
Google is successful there is no moat that keeps it safe. It hast to keep running to to stay ahead.
Is there public info from Google available stating the goal of the Motorola Mobility buy?
Google still makes most (~90%) of its revenue from search.
All the other products need to be[come] succusful for them to be considered alternatives for revenue.
No, it makes about that much from advertising, but "Google websites" -- mostly, but not only, search -- are only 71.3% of Google revenue.
Alphabet's 1Q 2016 10-Q: https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1652044/000165204416...
"Barely worth mentioning" because they don't even break out the $2 billion in quarterly revenue from non-advertising sources beyond "non-advertising sources" in financial reports, but in the most recent, the $400+ million increase in quarterly revenue in that category was primarily attributed to two sources -- increases in Play store revenue, and increases in "revenues from cloud and apps offerings for enterprise".
Its just hard for anything else to seem significant against the background of $18 billion in quarterly advertising revenue.
I suspect the fact they make so much revenue from advertising has actually blown tepid at the efforts to seek revenue elsewhere (e.g. is Youtube even profitable? Google Docs?).
I'm not sure it has -- I think (certainly this is true of the most recent quarter, but I think its a longer term trend) non-advertising revenue is growing at a faster rate (% increase/unit time) than advertising revenue. Its just that the fact that advertising revenue is so much bigger to start with makes the increase in non-advertising revenue seem insignificant in relation to overall revenue.
They have (at least) 4 large sources of ad revenue: search, adwords, mobile & youtube. If one dries up, the others may grow to compensate.
They'll collect data from their free services, they'll run an ad network, they'll run several social and/or communications networks, so they still have access to social graphs and interests. They may even produce or aggregate some content on content portals like Microsoft does with MSN. They'll make some of their money from display ads, but less than they do now. Meanwhile they'll have subscription-based products from which they'll derive the rest of their revenue.
It's tempting to look at where Google's current revenue comes from and accuse them of being a one-trick pony, but they've done what like Microsoft did in the 1990s and have ingrained themselves into the daily lives of people, through Gmail, Android, Chrome, Drive, Docs, and more niche ones like Hangouts, Allo/Duo, Google Photos. They're even guilty of some of the same mistakes as Microsoft: confusing product strategies and messaging, letting some services stagnate for years, sudden shutdown of others and releasing a hip new but slightly inferior alternative soon after.
The transformation of ad consumption and the relevance of search in the app-driven, app-curated world; these are all good points raised in the article. But I think Google's current set of non-money-making products is exactly what will save them from Yahoo's fate -- you may no longer search with Google, you may not even like Google, but all your files and personal data is still going to be with them, their OS running on your phones and laptops, and network effects and platform lock-in (in the sense that it's not worth the effort to switch) will keep people with Google for years to come.
Microsoft has diversified it's revenue but most of it's profits comes from Windows & Office licensing. Its' amazing how little Microsoft's' way of generating profits has changed while it has changed so much.
Page 31
$2B per quarter from "other revenues", listed as "sales of digital content, apps and cloud offerings for enterprise, and sales of hardware".
$2B per quarter would be a huge business in any other context. It's just that ads is so spectacularly successful.
Other than Instagram and WhatsApp.
http://www.investopedia.com/articles/markets/030416/googles-...
That said, if they haven't diversified by the time the need for Google's search engine disappears, or if most people start to use the service without clicking on paid ads (e.g. because of adblockers), they will clearly have problems. "They're working on it" isn't the same as "they have it" when it comes to sources of revenue.
Facebook the company has several options to branch out with synergies and create additional revenue streams: Identity and content are the first that come to mind, but there are probably a lot more.
Overall the problem of not being able to grow, because you already have all the users is really nice to have.
Its very unlikely, but if 10 years ago if someone said Nokia wouldn't be making cell phones in 10 years ago who would have believed you.
Everyone was on AOL in the late 90s and now its mostly gone. Tech is just so fast moving I could see it happen. It just isn't likely.
Google makes many different kinds of things, making it less likely that Google will be thoroughly replaced in people's lives.
2000 was the height of the dot-com bubble, so comparing it to 2016's Google (with strong revenues and earnings) doesn't seem that apt.
"In Pursuit of Simplicity" https://blog.codinghorror.com/in-pursuit-of-simplicity/
Another reason they are safe is because they are not a social network.
Is such a thing even possible?
Yes it is!
Google was founded based on a set of highly algorithmic methods for Search (part of today's AI), which is something that is extremely difficult to do correctly and even harder to duplicate (just ask Apple). Google never morphed into a 'content' site, like AOL. It was not founded based on easy-to-to duplicate code and content of others.
They've come a long a way in terms of real innovation and real technology in addition to revenue that is 10x greater than twitter, facebook, yahoo and others. Now add to this traffic reach, if you look at the top 10-20 sites on the net in terms of traffic, Google actually owns several of them including YouTube, Gmail etc. http://www.alexa.com/topsites Add to this an entire operating system that runs most of the worlds mobile devices. If you aggregate all their platforms and properties, it's orders of magnitude greater than any other.
There are deep technology companies and then there are not so deep technology companies that have limited lifespans.
Google probably has another 10 years before it begins to crumble within. Meanwhile and in a larger historical context, the new AOLs will come and go, repeating a cycle of duplicating one anothers content and so-called technology.
While Google does make a lot of it's earnings from Ads, Google Cloud is supposed to surpass it's Ads business in the next 4 years.
Where do you hear this goal? Google Q2 Ads revenue was $21.5B. AWS Q2 revenue was $2.6B. Google is currently small compared to AWS.