Jump to content

GOOGL - Google

Liberty

By Liberty
in Investment Ideas

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 2.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Posted Images

VAL9000 Newbie

VAL9000

Posted
Posted

I'm not sure if this has been posted:

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1035_3-57421363-94/android-not-critical-to-google-really/

 

The slides demonstrate why Android is important to GOOG.

 

tx, thanks for posting.  This is an interesting article.  I think the author did himself a disservice by saying that Android is critical to Google's success.  Your description of "important" is more accurate.  Critical implies that if you don't have it, you will fail.  When I look at these projected revenue numbers for 2013 (34bn search, 8bn display, 5bn video, 5bn commerce, and 2bn enterprise), I don't see Android as a critical component for any of them except commerce, where you need a mobile platform to lift revenue from payments (NFC or downloadable content).

 

The rest of the elements require active participation to achieve success in the mobile delivery of that category, but don't actually require control of a mobile platform.  Kind of like how Google was successful in web-based advertising before they had a browser or an operating system.  Maybe that's a broken analogy but it seems suitable based on how I understand "web" versus "mobile"

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
txlaw Newbie

txlaw

Posted
Posted

I'm not sure if this has been posted:

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1035_3-57421363-94/android-not-critical-to-google-really/

 

The slides demonstrate why Android is important to GOOG.

 

tx, thanks for posting.  This is an interesting article.  I think the author did himself a disservice by saying that Android is critical to Google's success.  Your description of "important" is more accurate.  Critical implies that if you don't have it, you will fail.  When I look at these projected revenue numbers for 2013 (34bn search, 8bn display, 5bn video, 5bn commerce, and 2bn enterprise), I don't see Android as a critical component for any of them except commerce, where you need a mobile platform to lift revenue from payments (NFC or downloadable content).

 

The rest of the elements require active participation to achieve success in the mobile delivery of that category, but don't actually require control of a mobile platform.  Kind of like how Google was successful in web-based advertising before they had a browser or an operating system.  Maybe that's a broken analogy but it seems suitable based on how I understand "web" versus "mobile"

 

Val, I wouldn't necessarily call Android "critical" to success on an absolute basis, but I do think it was "critical" in the sense that without Android, GOOG would probably make much less money going forward relative to its current competitive positioning.  I am looking at Android from a defensive strategy perspective.

 

GOOG has always understood that true platform providers can enjoy a position in the value chain that is hard to beat because once you get tons of developers and users buying into your ecosystem, not only do you get stickiness of users/developers and pricing power, but you also become a gatekeeper of sorts where you can extract tolls for key services or even bar certain services from crossing your bridge.  There is a reason why Bill Gates -- one of the smartest businessmen out there -- was in the platform biz.

 

The threat to GOOG has always been that some platform provider (think Mr. Softie) would grab a material percentage of the  market and cut GOOG out of the picture for an extended period of time, perhaps by teaming up with a rival to provide competing services (e.g., Yahoo) or developing their own competing services that would be baked into the platform (e.g., making Bing or Bing maps the defauls on Win phones).  Thus, GOOG could potentially be foregoing a substantial amount of revenue  both in the near future and the long term by letting someone who had different interests gain a position in this naturally oligopolistic market.

 

It is true that from the very beginning, Apple was more than happy to work with GOOG so that GOOG's services would be available on iOS devices and so that Apple/Google could throw a one-two punch against MSFT.  However, as we all know, Apple's approach to its iOS platform is closed or curated, and they initially targeted higher end users who could afford the integrated product.  This meant that there was an opening for someone else to take market share through the development of an open platform or semi-open platform that could work on multiple hardware devices.  MSFT would have been the natural company to step into those shoes.

 

So my take is that GOOG had to head MSFT off at the pass and prevent them from establishing a toehold in the market, thereby giving Mr. Softie an in for selling their own search/advertising services, augmented reality services, and infrastructure services, and picking and choosing which content providers would have best access to end users.  Or they had to head off some other MSFT-friendly competitor that would have teamed up with MSFT to extract as much value as possible from the market opportunity.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
VAL9000 Newbie

VAL9000

Posted
Posted

Val, I wouldn't necessarily call Android "critical" to success on an absolute basis, but I do think it was "critical" in the sense that without Android, GOOG would probably make much less money going forward relative to its current competitive positioning.  I am looking at Android from a defensive strategy perspective.

 

GOOG has always understood that true platform providers can enjoy a position in the value chain that is hard to beat because once you get tons of developers and users buying into your ecosystem, not only do you get stickiness of users/developers and pricing power, but you also become a gatekeeper of sorts where you can extract tolls for key services or even bar certain services from crossing your bridge.  There is a reason why Bill Gates -- one of the smartest businessmen out there -- was in the platform biz.

 

The threat to GOOG has always been that some platform provider (think Mr. Softie) would grab a material percentage of the  market and cut GOOG out of the picture for an extended period of time, perhaps by teaming up with a rival to provide competing services (e.g., Yahoo) or developing their own competing services that would be baked into the platform (e.g., making Bing or Bing maps the defauls on Win phones).  Thus, GOOG could potentially be foregoing a substantial amount of revenue  both in the near future and the long term by letting someone who had different interests gain a position in this naturally oligopolistic market.

 

It is true that from the very beginning, Apple was more than happy to work with GOOG so that GOOG's services would be available on iOS devices and so that Apple/Google could throw a one-two punch against MSFT.  However, as we all know, Apple's approach to its iOS platform is closed or curated, and they initially targeted higher end users who could afford the integrated product.  This meant that there was an opening for someone else to take market share through the development of an open platform or semi-open platform that could work on multiple hardware devices.  MSFT would have been the natural company to step into those shoes.

 

So my take is that GOOG had to head MSFT off at the pass and prevent them from establishing a toehold in the market, thereby giving Mr. Softie an in for selling their own search/advertising services, augmented reality services, and infrastructure services, and picking and choosing which content providers would have best access to end users.  Or they had to head off some other MSFT-friendly competitor that would have teamed up with MSFT to extract as much value as possible from the market opportunity.

 

This is probably the most astute analysis of "why Android" that I've ever come across.  Thanks for sharing it. 

 

One of my closely held beliefs in this space is that open tends to beat closed.  Therefore, in the long-run, I think the need for Android wouldn't be considered critical to combat these scenarios, but I can certainly appreciate investing in Android to ensure that "the long-run" doesn't become "the really, really long run".  Whether or not that's worth 15 billion bucks could be argued..  but who has time to argue over $15 bn ? ;)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
Shane Newbie

Shane

Posted
Posted

Liberty - GREAT article!

 

It is my opinion that aesthetic changes are the easiest to fix, I am much less worried about that than the information that the engine is collecting.  Public perception and information collection could be difficult things to manage, however, I think the information and the way google is using it is leaps and bounds ahead of their competitors and this is the competitive advantage.  I keep the position small but do like the company quite a bit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bargainman Newbie

bargainman

Posted
Posted

Liberty - GREAT article!

 

It is my opinion that aesthetic changes are the easiest to fix, I am much less worried about that than the information that the engine is collecting.  Public perception and information collection could be difficult things to manage, however, I think the information and the way google is using it is leaps and bounds ahead of their competitors and this is the competitive advantage.  I keep the position small but do like the company quite a bit.

 

Right.. so the fact that Bing is integrating with facebook and twitter is more of a threat...

 

http://news.cnet.com/8301-10805_3-57431224-75/bing-deepens-facebook-integration-connecting-searchers-with-friends/?tag=mncol;3n

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
meiroy Newbie

meiroy

Posted
Posted

 

"http://mashable.com/2012/05/22/guy-kawasaki-google-plus/

 

"Guy Kawasaki Compares Google+ to Apple, Calls it a ‘Religious Experience

 

“When I saw Macintosh for the first time it was somewhat of a religious experience for me,” said Kawasaki during a talk at the Google+ Photographer’s Conference Tuesday. “Fast forward about 25 years and I had a second religious experience — which is when I saw Google+ for the first time” "

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Liberty Newbie

Liberty

Posted
  • Author
Posted

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jvmL14diIBVB9Mehb3yfYqRVb-VA?docId=1cd9a80e03ca40c38d87f216b8d550fe

 

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — A federal jury ruled Wednesday that Google didn't infringe on Oracle's patents when the Internet search leader developed its popular Android software for mobile devices.

Wednesday's verdict comes about two weeks after the same jury, with two additional members, failed to agree on a pivotal issue in Oracle's copyright-infringement case against Google. As a result, Google Inc. faced maximum damages of only $150,000 — not the hundreds of millions of dollars that Oracle Corp. was seeking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Liberty Newbie

Liberty

Posted
  • Author
Posted

 

Absolutely. The map change certainly is bad for Google, and Apple's control of that platform gives them a lot of power. Things would be much worse if Android didn't exist, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jeffmori7 Newbie

jeffmori7

Posted
Posted

 

Absolutely. The map change certainly is bad for Google, and Apple's control of that platform gives them a lot of power. Things would be much worse if Android didn't exist, though.

 

 

This is not good for Google for sure, but to my knowledge, Apple doesn't have a search engine yet!

 

edit: I inserted the bad quote..

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest valueInv

Guest valueInv

Posted
Posted

 

Absolutely. The map change certainly is bad for Google, and Apple's control of that platform gives them a lot of power. Things would be much worse if Android didn't exist, though.

 

If there was no Android:

1, Google would have $14B more cash in the bank

2, They would have had free regin all advertising and other service revenue on IOS

 

How is that worse? Now they face the risk of Apple replacing Google with Bing as the default search engine.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest valueInv

Guest valueInv

Posted
Posted

"Oracle has paid Google more in legal fees than it could win in damages"

 

http://news.techeye.net/business/oracles-google-java-show-trial-cost-more-than-it-couldve-won

 

This is not good for Google for sure, but to my knowledge, Apple doesn't have a search engine yet!

 

They don't have a search engine but they're building an "answer" engine which obviates search - Siri

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest valueInv

Guest valueInv

Posted
Posted

But I'm certain Siri is relying on the powerful search engine (aka Google) to get answers to a lot of questions though...but the question would be, could you still monetize ads this way?

Today, Siri uses Wolfram Alpha to answer queries and falls back to Google if Wolfram cannot address the query. Over time, it will add more and more services that are able to provide better information than a search engine. For example, it will use the services to the Yelp app when asked for restaurant review without using a search engine. Expect some big announcements in this direction next week.

 

Siri could be monetized with ads but I doubt Apple is interested in doing it in a big way. There are many, many other avenues for monetization. For example, Apple could get a cut of the dinner reservations made through Siri. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing


×
×
  • Create New...