The one thing that was a real shock was how much more gas was left in the ad model engine. They've managed to grow substantially over the past couple of years largely by pushing advertisers in to a ROAS model that is clearly optimized to make Google more money: gross almost 2x from 2019 to 2023 -- from $161b to $307b. Net income more than doubled -- from $34b to $73.8b.
Google, Google's employees, and Google's shareholders don't need nearly $1b in revenue a day. What they do just isn't that important anymore. That money is very much a tax, and ultimately the money consumers are paying for products and services is going to Google instead of making the product or service better.
The good news is there are now many alternatives that work as well or better than Google. Combine that with LLM options (Perplexity, ChatGPT), and the future looks Google-lite or Google-free. It would be even better if we had more decentralized & localized search options like YaCy. If we want to have any control over our search future we need it.
I'll just keep repeating this: Google today is a yellow pages. For search they offer little of value that isn't provided by others. Old people keep using Google because that's what they have been using for years or because it just shows up (like the yellow pages did, but now as a default.)
Because I can see pretty much all of the 'growth' that occurred during 2020-2021 being unwound gradually as people realise that a lot of what happened was an absolute disaster for society.
When it comes to making any predictions for the future you really have to write off the 2019-2021 pandemic era figures as a glitch.
If you want to win reelection you're much better off taking massive piles of cash from big businesses and regulate consumers to help create the monopolies. Trying to protect consumers by breaking up monopolies and promoting healthy market competition will see you leaving office in a hurry.
You have? How? You barely have any. And the ones you do have you rarely enforce.
> Trying to protect consumers by breaking up monopolies and promoting healthy market competition will see you leaving office in a hurry.
That sounds like a flaw in your political/electoral system not in anti-competition regulations.
> You barely have any .. anti-competition regulations
this is not true. However, the secrecy implemented around enforcement (bad publicity) causes the casual observer to think so..
There are very large enforcement actions that take place regularly.. they are far from perfect, and the failures tend to be the ones that are amplified in media..
That isn't the reason it isn't true. The US nominally has quite strong antitrust laws. The statutes are extremely broad in what they prohibit. But the enforcement is lacking and the courts over time have read the laws more narrowly than they were intended to be.
> the failures tend to be the ones that are amplified in media..
The failures are prolific. In a functioning regulatory environment, whether because you don't have regulations that prop up incumbents and don't create regulatory barriers to entry or because you break them up and stop them from buying each other, you wouldn't have industries where any one company has more than 15% of the market. But that is common, not rare, and that is the measure of it working.
Is that realistic? Intuition is telling me that's very idealistic but I'm prepared to be surprised
There are many markets where this is the case. Which trucking company has significantly more than 15% market share? Which law firm? Which car insurance company? Which university? Which construction company?
Nearly all of the consolidated industries got there through some combination of mergers, vertical integration and regulatory barriers to entry. Even some of the "natural monopolies" like last mile telecommunications are only so because of regulatory choices -- the natural monopoly is actually the roads, which the government owns, and if they provided easy and affordable access to roadside cable trenches there would be much more competition for data service.
Lack of enforcement was actually part of my point. More broadly, though, we don't need more regulation so much as we need less legal protections that allow companies to get away with it.
> That sounds like a flaw in your political/electoral system not in anti-competition regulations.
No disagreements at all that our political and electoral system is flawed. I'm not so sure if that's the direct cause here though or if its the other way around. Meaning, we could be here because runaway anticompetitive behavior led to political and regulatory capture rather than the flawed political system being the proximal cause.
The US is no more likely to break them up as it is to cut its military budget in half.
They came out with Gemini really late and they look like they don't know what they're doing. They are going to be late to the next disruptor too