Says the commenter with zero evidence to support their claims.
I made a very specific claim and I'm not sure what everyone's problem is. Google has found other sources of revenue and is actively trying to grow those sources. There are other hoses. I have never claimed it's not an ad company or that ads have somehow gone away. Because that would be dumb and factually wrong.
https://abc.xyz/investor/static/pdf/20201030_alphabet_10Q.pd...
Q3 2019, ads were 84% of revenue Q3 2020, ads were 81% of revenue
It's not a massive change, but it's changing and ads are at the lowest percentage of overall revenue they've ever been.
"More diversified than it's ever been" can be factually true here, but for the purposes of this discussion was highly inaccurate.
> They've mostly given up on the idea of a clever person finding a new money-hose. They just focus on the one they have now.
The financial numbers suggest they have not given up and have succeeded incrementally towards other sources since. How else do you correct the above statement?
Growing from $1B to $10B is really difficult, unless you have virtually no competition.