Obviously advertising is more important to Google than it is to Apple but at what point does Apple become an advertising company and Google a product company? Is there a revenue threshold? A branding threshold?
Edit: I'm not saying Google isn't an advertising company. I'm asking what makes Google (but not Apple) an advertising company.
Is Apple an advertising company? Why or why not?
Is Rooster Teeth (one of my favorite creator groups) an advertising company? They make a large percentage of their revenue from selling advertising but they also make video content.
90.4% revenue from advertising for Google
https://www.statista.com/statistics/266249/advertising-reven...
https://www.google.ca/search?q=google+total+revenue&ie=utf-8...
vs Apple: http://marketingland.com/app-purchases-dominate-ads-app-stor...
If Apple made 50% of its revenue from adverting would it still be a product company?
Is this distinction about the size of the business unit?
For some companies ads are supplemental, for some lifeblood.
They're looking at search ads for apps in the app store, but that's pretty limited to just the store.
So what is Google then? As of 2015 Q4, ~90% of revenue comes from ads and it's trending down vs. other sources.
http://qz.com/607378/were-live-charting-googles-first-alphab...
Is Apple also an advertising company?
How about the local minor league hockey team? Are they an advertising company?
The Internet and the occasional use of a stationary landline is all many of us need.
The constraint is going to kill Google and Apple because a future competitor is going to manage to offer service without requiring the data in raw form, an example of which would be Agent Based Computation in say 15 years time. Because of that it shall become the standard. Google and Apple will be stuck because their stakeholders include parties which require the raw form even if Google/Apple did not. That opens up a good line of attack on a previously impenetrable business model.
The legal implications of visiting somebody's house should be considered. Did I sign anything saying Google or Apple could use my data? No. This opens up the door for class action law suits in some US states at least. Unless they are smart enough to be able to dodge this somehow, perhaps with a contextual local filter for new voices and a permission request made of same, but I doubt it, they probably don't have the incentive to look at the ugly.
Apple's approach to this is already different than Google's and has (arguably) hampered them a bit, but that might pay off long term and give them an opportunity to evolve, change and adapt in other ways to.
I see no particular reason either company couldn't change their tactics, regardless of shareholders. Granted evolving with technology is not necessarily easy/without its challenges but if staying with your current model is going to lose you customers, and as such data and therefor your income, why would you stick with it? If no one cares enough to stop sending them their data in the face of better/more privacy sensible alternatives, then it seems their model would still work.
I was talking about the government putting restrictions on the kinds of technology Google and Apple can invest in because some innovations do not suit their interests.
I'm pretty sure that if this was going to happen, it'd already have happened. Next time you walk into any store take a look around for discrete black plastic bubbles.