Motorola down to be expected.
PPC yields -15% is concerning but the soon to come monetization of Shopping is going to reverse that.
The p/e is 20 vs FB at 66.
Google are still the strongest and most consistently innovative large-cap around. They've already moved past the point that MS failed at.
Google ad systems are going to be able to subsidise hardware (TVs, phones, tablets, cars) in a way no other company can going forwards.
I'm not trying to be anti-Google, I'm just honestly asking. For example, can you compare innovations Google put forward in last couple of years and compare it with, lets say, MSFT?
There are few places that compare to Google.
Vaporware (Self driving cars. Glass.) is not what I'm considering innovative because these things are not in production. And IBM and MSFT are very very good at vaporware.
Maps are not innovative (they might be the best for some people but, on my iPhone, Nokia maps are actually better).
There are few places that compare to Google.
2) Maps may no longer be the most innovative product in the space, but Google defined the tiled, online map, and they forced Apple to provide free turn-by-turn by doing so on Android.
Moreover, Google has made two press announcements (we made our own maps via StreetView, and then we made it free on Android) that destroyed the market cap of the major nav companies to the tune of double digit market cap percentage losses, which amounted to billions of dollars, in a day... twice.
3) As for Google Glass, I don't expect much from this project actually, but vaporware is not the right term for something that is already being worn and used.
And don't forget that vaporware does not imply non-innovation! Plenty of vaporware is innovative but fails for other reasons.
Don't forget the sheer amount of integrated information such as transit and traffic routes. Google maps has continually set the bar for mapping. They are so successful that people no longer even recognize that all these features were not commonplace prior to Google maps.
Edit: and if you define innovation to things in production, I straight up disagree. Innovation happens prior to production.
A similar feature to Streetview has existed in Bing Maps since 2009 [1]. Google was first, but others are chasing hard.
Plus, they are moving into mapping shopping malls, parks, stores, and even tourist spots
Bing Maps started adding malls and building maps in 2010. They also had birdeye view and 3D "photosynth" views predating Google's implementations [2] by 2 years.
[1] http://www.bing.com/community/site_blogs/b/maps/archive/2009...
[2] http://www.bing.com/community/site_blogs/b/maps/archive/2010...
Nokia maps are accessible on iPhone without trouble.
"Vaporware is a term in the computer industry that describes a product, typically computer hardware or software, that is announced to the general public but is never actually released"
Self-driving google cars and google glasses nominally qualify.
There are also people outside of Google that already have Glass units.
They also do a lot of stuff for advertisers (their real customers) that you probably won't know about if you don't manage advertising campaigns.
Android has had lots of innovations, such as being the first NFC-enabled mobile OS, the first with turn by turn directions, voice actions and the quality of their speech recognition in general (which requires constant innovation), etc.
Google Translate.
Google Takeout.
Google Transparency Report.
The Google+ sharing model (circles), which forced Facebook to respond and implement something similar.
etc.
Seriously, Glass and the car projects are simply slightly more practical outputs of Google's research division. MS and IBM are doing a lot of research in areas that simply aren't as practical.
The reality is that IBM is no longer consumer facing, and neither is their research. MS still is and has to be (and losing), but IBM just abandoned being a household name a while ago, except with things like Watson.
Just because something is not the first to market doesn't make it not innovative[1]. Android is not a feature-by-feature copy of the iPhone, and I think various Android features (Google Now for one) are quite innovative. Furthermore, Apple also "copied" various Android features (notifications for instance). Similarly, while the Kinect is universally considered as innovative, I think Microsoft's Metro UI + OS is also quite innovative in that they came up with a refreshingly different and clean interface.
First to market may drive important metrics like adoption/success/profit, but doesn't define whether a product is innovative or not.
[1] sorry for the multiple negatives in that sentence.
Android usually has features long before iOS.
Can you elaborate? Are you referring to the late 90s trials and their aftermath?
The few really good products they had (SQL Server, OneNote etc.) got lost in the noise. Everything became unstable, clunky, complicated and inconsistent.
Most kids leaving school now think Xbox when they hear 'Microsoft' - not really the legacy Microsoft deserved.
(it could all have been solved by splitting the company up in to 4 - OS/tools, Gaming, Apps, Online Services and letting them compete in their own vertical spaces without having to do things the Microsoft way - SQL Server running on Linux, VS on OSX etc.)
Google haven't fallen in to that trap - they are not competing in every single market - when they do compete in a new market they don't dilute their existing product quality - and there is a cohesion to the product strategy.