They're last place in cloud. They don't have a good search API product to compete with Algolia/Elasticsearch. They can't release new products. Can't build new hardware.
The only things they have going for them are Youtube, Google (the search engine), Android, Chrome,...
Basically everything they did 10 years ago. Even Android + Youtube were acquisitions.
Another good example of too big to fail.
* They have the most popular operating system in the world
* They have the most popular browser in the world
* They have the most popular search engine in the world
* They have the most popular advertising network in the world
* They have the most popular video platform in the world
* They have the most popular mapping software in the world
* They have the third most popular cloud platform in the world
It seems to me that they're doing at least something right
1) They bought Android - they didn't build it in-house.
2) They bought Double Click - they didn't build it in-house
3) They bought YouTube- they didn't build it in-house
4) Third most popular cloud platform is a bit disingenuous; it's like saying Apple Maps is a top mapping platform: sure, you're kind of right, but the gap at the top is fairly wide.
(You might even make the case that the best parts of Chrome weren't built in-house, but taken from open-source contributions via Chromium, but I'm not sure I quite buy that.)
I think the overarching thesis deserves merit: what was the last in-house built product that became a powerhouse with true sticking power, besides Gmail / Google Apps?
IMHO the Google Home devices and Chromecast are quite successful.
I admit these are probably not powerhouses on the level of Android, Chrome or YouTube. However it's just not possible to create a powerhouse every 1 or 2 years.
After some amount of time, for most acquisitions this argument becomes silly.
Apple acquired NeXT and PA Semi. And I hear Jony Ive was hired, not grown in a vat in Cupertino. Apple didn't build its hardware, software, or design in house!
People seriously underestimate how difficult it is to succeed and continue to succeed.
But well, if they can keep buying stuff, then they are okay. It's what Facebook is doing.
Everything else is not as good as AWS offerings.
- Android J++
- Kotlin, the successor, still faces lots of tooling issues, regarding incremental builds, code completion, thin APKs,...
- NDK users keep being neglected, after 10 years there is still no alternative to manually write JNI boilerplate, handle native libraries, a proper C++ API in the NDK, the ones that exist like Oboe are either plain code dumps on GitHub, or use Blaze, which isn't part of the standard SDK tooling, IDE tools if they get added always feel like an afterthought to their Java/Kotlin counterparts
- Stable support library and Android Studio releases have as much bugs as canary ones
- Android Studio feels like it needs a rendering workstation to work properly
The last two points have escalated so high that they finally created Project Marble to improve the current state of affairs.
OEMs love Android only because it is free beer.
Google makes the Pixelbook. It is definitely not the "best" laptop when you consider less expensive alternatives, and it is not the best seller.
But, Android would be called a successful strategy.
And, Chromebooks would be called a successful strategy.
What I'm trying to say (and would love to hear comments suggesting otherwise) is that these forays into hardware might just be to guarantee a baseline level of quality for vendors of the products to aspire to. And, in that light, even if the hardware divisions aren't making a dent in the Google's reported revenue, they still serve and were effective in their goals.
These cutbacks are just evidence that Google wants to optimize the way things are done, not evidence that they were failures.
GCP is a different beast, however. :)
The pixel phones on the other hand have been selling better ( in fact grew quite a bit numbers wise as well ). The phone line has a better chance of turning in to the Googles surface line esp. since the marketing around that has been "Its the best camera ever" and people are willing to pay a premium for that.
I also bought another Chromebook at BestBuy that was ~$250.
I was blown away by another Chromebook that had a 17" screen and was less than $300 at the store. I was overwhelmed by the options (and BestBuy never helps because their employees must be rated on how well they can hide in the store and not how well they can help customers).
There are plenty of options in store and online, most of which hover around the $300 price point, which is very competitive.
If you are buying a Pixelbook you are buying it because you want Linux on it, or the amazing screen, and are calculating that into it. If you want an inexpensive Chromebook, you aren't stymied in that search by price.
Outside that they are even less than the worldwide GNU/Linux desktop market, hardly a measure of success.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-oracle-google-lawsuit/ora...
The first line at your link: "...revenue of about $31 billion and profit of $22 billion..." Again, fake numbers, but wow that's profitable.
22 billion in profit in almost a decade for having 80% of the market is peanuts.
Google has paid more than that to Apple for being the default search engine on iOS for the same time period.
Much of your analysis in this thread suffers from a form of wishful thinking. I suspect you are a fan of "iPhone" devices.
The monopoly that Apple does not have on smartphones as a whole, and the consequent constraints on its ability to dictate the functionality of the mobile web, to capture mobile web and app advertising revenue, etc.
That's the success of Android.
A duopoly between two non-Google vendors (especially if they were effectively two monopolies in distinct market segments) would scarcely have been better for Google than a non-Google monopoly, so even if a low-end smartphone market existed and was substantial without Android, and your perception above in regard to Apple staying out of it without Android is correct, that doesn't materially change the nature of the success of Android for Google.
They raised pricing on Google Maps and have a reputation for dropping services.
Now they require a $75k third party audit to have an app use Gmail API’s.
After that, every other product is just a mechanism to feed the beast including search.