Google isn't AdWords, Google is search (and now, the web). Search > Coupons. Google > Groupon
Groupon could definitely end up being bigger than Google.
Some local coupon startup thingy bigger than Google? u-huh.
People have been saying 'local is gonna be big' for years. I don't see why. Why do they think more money will be spent locally than people already spend other places?
And the amount people spend on local commerce absolutely dwarfs all online spending, let alone online advertising.
By actual revenue? Google is AdWords.
I don't think Groupon will necessarily end up bigger than Google, but they may end up fairly comparable. The point is, Groupon is a fairly young startup with some growth left in it and Google is a mature, publicly-traded company. As a business (rather than as a social force or a technical harbinger), Google rounds down to web advertising. To beat Google as a business, you have to beat Google's web advertising. Groupon can do that.
From a revenue driving. Local Search > Search, Local Couponing > AdWords. Therefore, Groupon > Google.
If you could show me how Local Search could exist outside of search, then you might have an argument, but right now, I just don't see it.
I doubt very much that Google doesn't generate at least some of their own power.
I'm quite confident that they can exist outside of any single power company.
Does the analogy hold after this premise is eliminated?
Saying that the analogy (argument) rests on "the fact that..." pretty blatantly begs the question.
Is there a case where one company is both bigger than and wholly[1] depends on another, single company's services?
I would be unsurprised if the answer is "no" and that this is the case because dependents are invariably absorbed or killed off by the "parent" before they can grow larger.
[1] If the issue is monopoly, then my "quibble" is that, to Google (or any other electricity consumer beyond a modest size), no company has a monopoly on power.