GOOGL - Google

[txlaw]

Btw, I don't want to get into it again with you, ValueInv.  I don't particularly enjoy participating in these jihads against anyone who competes with or is critical of Apple.

[Guest valueInv]

Not sure why you would quote my previous post, as it proves my point . . .

 

From the post you just quoted:

 

One major point of attack against GOOG is to control the OS layer between the end user and Google services.  Therefore, GOOG provides Android and ChromeOS.

 

Your point A is to prevent others from controlling.

Your point B is to control the OS experience itself.

 

They are two different things. But both are not coming to fruition:

A. As Samsung takes over the Android market, it has more control.

B. Samsung is increasingly building more and more components into the OS experience giving it more control over the user and less to Google.

B. Google increasingly does not control the Android experience

[Ross812]

Samsung is turning the tables on Google:

 

http://techcrunch.com/2013/03/15/the-samsung-galaxy-s-4-and-its-de-googling-of-android-suggests-we-might-see-a-split/

 

I remember people posting about how Android allows Google to control the end point.

 

The way things are going, probably not.

 

The article was extrapolated from this:

 

Samsung did something fairly surprising given that it included the most recent version of Android, 4.2.2, on its brand new Galaxy S 4 smartphone: it didn’t talk about that much at all last night at the special launch event. Maybe the company was too busy trying to cram as many song and dance numbers into the show as possible, but maybe that’s because Samsung will soon take what it needs from Android and go its own way.

 

Please check your sources. Read some of the comments to your linked article.

 

http://officialandroid.blogspot.com.au/2012/09/the-benefits-importance-of-compatibility.html

 

We built Android to be an open source mobile platform freely available to anyone wishing to use it. In 2008, Android was released under the Apache open source license and we continue to develop and innovate the platform under the same open source license -- it is available to everyone at: http://source.android.com. This openness allows device manufacturers to customize Android and enable new user experiences, driving innovation and consumer choice.

 

As the lead developer and shepherd of the open platform, we realize that we have a responsibility to app developers -- those who invested in the platform by adopting it and building applications specifically for Android. These developers each contribute to making the platform better -- because when developers support a platform with their applications, the platform becomes better and more attractive to consumers. As more developers build great apps for Android, more consumers are likely to buy Android devices because of the availability of great software content (app titles like Fruit Ninja or Google Maps). As more delighted consumers adopt Android phones and tablets, it creates a larger audience for app developers to sell more apps. The result is a strategy that is good for developers (they sell more apps), good for device manufacturers (they sell more devices) and good for consumers (they get more features and innovation).

 

In biological terms, this is sometimes referred to as an ecosystem. In economic terms, this is known as a virtuous cycle -- a set of events that reinforces itself through a feedback loop. Each iteration of the cycle positively reinforces the previous one. These cycles will continue in the direction of their momentum until an external factor intervenes and breaks the cycle.

 

When we first contemplated Android and formed the Open Handset Alliance, we wanted to create an open virtuous cycle where all members of the ecosystem would benefit. We thought hard about what types of external factors could intervene to weaken the ecosystem as a whole. One important external factor we knew could do this was incompatibilities between implementations of Android. Let me explain:

 

Imagine a hypothetical situation where the platform on each phone sold was just a little bit different. Different enough where Google Maps would run normally on one phone but run terribly slow on another. Let's say, for sake of example, that Android implemented an API that put the phone to sleep for a fraction of a second to conserve battery life when nothing was moving on the screen. The API prototype for such a function might look like SystemClock.sleep(millis) where the parameter "millis" is the number of milliseconds to put the device to sleep for.

 

If one phone manufacturer implemented SystemClock.sleep() incorrectly, and interpreted the parameter as Seconds instead of Milliseconds, the phone would be put to sleep a thousand times longer than intended! This manufacturer’s phone would have a terrible time running Google Maps. If apps don’t run well across devices due to incompatibilities, consumers would leave the ecosystem, followed by developers. The end of the virtuous cycle.

 

We have never believed in a “one size fits all” strategy, so we found a way to enable differentiation for device manufactures while protecting developers and consumers from incompatibilities by offering a free "compatibility test suite" (CTS). CTS is a set of software tools that tests and exercises the platform to make sure that (for example) SystemClock.sleep(millis) actually puts the device to sleep for only milliseconds. Like Android, the test suite is freely available to everyone under the Apache open source license: http://source.android.com/compatibility/cts-intro.html

 

While Android remains free for anyone to use as they would like, only Android compatible devices benefit from the full Android ecosystem. By joining the Open Handset Alliance, each member contributes to and builds one Android platform -- not a bunch of incompatible versions. We’re grateful to the over 85 Open Handset Alliance members who have helped us build the Android ecosystem and continue to drive innovation at an incredible pace. Thanks to their support the Android ecosystem now has over 500 million Android-compatible devices and counting!

Posted by Andy Rubin, Senior Vice President of Mobile and Digital Content

 

Google has already stopped such forks before:

 

http://www.androidauthority.com/google-speaks-up-on-the-aceralibaba-affair-115229/

 

Btw, Amazon was never an OHA member.

We're talking about user experience, not the core OS. TouchWiz, Samsung Hub, S Voice, S Message, Samsung's Passbook Clone, S Health, etc.

 

The article you linked to suggests that Samsung is forking Android. Also, from an investment perspective, what does Google care if Samsung produces its own apps. Google wants the search revenue... HTC also has Sense, sense messaging, dialer, and sense only widgets... 

 

At the end of the day who cares? This doesn't affect a Google or Apple investment at all.

 

If you want a walled garden ecosystem and a phone that 'just works', get an iPhone.

If you want an open ecosystem and the ability to customize your user experience however you want, get any flagship android phone.

 

Apple is a very successful consumer electronics company. Their competitive advantage is open to debate (which is obvious considering the number of posts in the AAPL thread). Google is a search company. Everything they give away causes you to ultimately look at more of their advertising. All Android did was put smartphones into that many more peoples hands to perform searches. It also raised the bar on Apple so they couldn't implement some sort of inferior (to google) mobile search provider, and gives Google a way to mold the mobile experience in the direction they want it to make more advertising revenue and forces Apple to follow their lead as far as services offered. 

 

 

[VAL9000]

http://www.kellerburkvu.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/paper-clip-dentist1.jpeg

"It looks like you're getting into a fight over Google vs. Apple.  Would you like help?"

 

 

[Ross812]

http://www.kellerburkvu.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/paper-clip-dentist1.jpeg

"It looks like you're getting into a fight over Google vs. Apple.  Would you like help?"

 

Some one should just ask Siri:

 

"Is the Android or iOS a better mobile platform?"

 

And be done with it.

[no_free_lunch]

from an investment perspective, what does Google care if Samsung produces its own apps.

 

I hate to agree with ValueInv but this is not great news for Google.  Not the end of the world but definitely a negative.  If the manufacturers can tailor the core apps on the device and if they increasingly exercise that right, couldn't you get into a situation where the default search engine as well can be changed?  Google is paying $200M a year to firefox to be their default search option so couldn't the manufacturers start auctioning off search on their devices as well or is that contractually prevented?

 

Also, it's not just about search.  Search is definitely google's bread and butter but to survive they need to expand.  Hence this array of services they offer.  Some of it is just to hook people into their eco-system (google+), others to drive revenue growth on their own (youtube).  The point is, with android many phones have app versions of these various features and if samsung replaces them then that is a negative to google.

 

This doesn't mean android is a failure.  Android is a success just for slowing down / preventing apple's dominance.  I mean I think they are only in for about a billion on it which is peanuts.  Maybe this is why they are buying motorola?

[txlaw]

http://www.kellerburkvu.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/paper-clip-dentist1.jpeg

"It looks like you're getting into a fight over Google vs. Apple.  Would you like help?"

 

 

 

LOL ;D

[txlaw]

Not sure why you would quote my previous post, as it proves my point . . .

 

From the post you just quoted:

 

One major point of attack against GOOG is to control the OS layer between the end user and Google services.  Therefore, GOOG provides Android and ChromeOS.

 

Your point A is to prevent others from controlling.

Your point B is to control the OS experience itself.

 

They are two different things. But both are not coming to fruition:

A. As Samsung takes over the Android market, it has more control.

B. Samsung is increasingly building more and more components into the OS experience giving it more control over the user and less to Google.

B. Google increasingly does not control the Android experience

 

Actually, my post you reference above was really about a modified version of what you call my "point A," where I am equating "control" with market dominance over the mobile OS layer. 

 

I made that post in response to hellsten's comment wondering whether GOOG should not just focus on search rather than spend time and resources on Android and Chrome/ChromeOS.  My response was about the defensive aspect of Android and Chrome/ChromeOS with respect to Google software and services. 

 

One of the ways to make sure that utilization of GOOG's software and services (many of which are superior to anything else available) and profits therefrom continue to grow over time is to prevent major software providers from dominating (that's the type of "control" I meant) the OS layer and then either directing users to non-GOOG software/services from which they would benefit (e.g., Bing instead of Google.com), or extracting tolls from GOOG.  I have made this point time and time again, even going so far as to characterize Android and Nexus device R&D as maintenance expenditures.

 

You were conflating two concepts of "control" in your "I told you so" post about GOOG and Android forking.  What the article demonstrates is that Android licensees can add and strip out all sorts of functionality/content in their Android devices.  This is nothing new -- we saw it with the Kindle Fire, for example.  I view this as okay for the market place, as I like the idea of device manufacturers and carriers being able to modify Android to their liking, encouraging buyers to utilize their own services and changing the UI, though stock Android appears to be pretty darn good (some of my geekier friends like cyanogenmod instead, though).  I don't want GOOG to win through market dominance of their almost-free OS, but through market dominance of their apps and services resulting from their superiority.

 

So while you are correct that Samsung is exerting more "control" over the UX in a way that could direct end users to Samsung apps and services, you were wrong to criticize past posts that are probably not about what you contend they are.  In fact, you are making a fundamental error in confusing "control" over the UX with market dominance "control." 

 

IMO, Steve Jobs purposefully conflated the two when he was still at Apple because he was a crafty businessman.

[Guest valueInv]

 

The article you linked to suggests that Samsung is forking Android. Also, from an investment perspective, what does Google care if Samsung produces its own apps. Google wants the search revenue... HTC also has Sense, sense messaging, dialer, and sense only widgets... 

 

At the end of the day who cares? This doesn't affect a Google or Apple investment at all.

 

If you want a walled garden ecosystem and a phone that 'just works', get an iPhone.

If you want an open ecosystem and the ability to customize your user experience however you want, get any flagship android phone.

 

Apple is a very successful consumer electronics company. Their competitive advantage is open to debate (which is obvious considering the number of posts in the AAPL thread). Google is a search company. Everything they give away causes you to ultimately look at more of their advertising. All Android did was put smartphones into that many more peoples hands to perform searches. It also raised the bar on Apple so they couldn't implement some sort of inferior (to google) mobile search provider, and gives Google a way to mold the mobile experience in the direction they want it to make more advertising revenue and forces Apple to follow their lead as far as services offered.

 

As Samsung gains more marketshare, they control more on the endpoints the Google uses to deliver search and other services. This allows them to extract a greater percentage of Google's revenue:

 

http://professional.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323699704578324220017879796.html?mg=reno64-wsj

 

They are also likely increasingly compete in markets which Google is trying to enter. Samsung also has the ability to switch out Google's services for competitors' if those companies offer more lucrative terms.

[Guest valueInv]

http://www.kellerburkvu.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/paper-clip-dentist1.jpeg

"It looks like you're getting into a fight over Google vs. Apple.  Would you like help?"

 

Some one should just ask Siri:

 

"Is the Android or iOS a better mobile platform?"

 

And be done with it.

 

I asked Siri: "Which is the best smartphone out there?"

Response: "Seriously?"

 

Try it out.

[Guest valueInv]

Btw, I don't want to get into it again with you, ValueInv.  I don't particularly enjoy participating in these jihads against anyone who competes with or is critical of Apple.

But you do like contradicting yourself  ;)

[hyten1]

i always wonder

 

what if samsung has 90 to 95% of andriod marketshare

 

what happens then?

 

i am not too familiar with the licensing for andriod, but lets say samsung as 90 to 95% can samsung then modify andriod to the point were they can call it their own and basically take over the andriod market from google?

 

sorry for my ignorance

 

hy

[Guest valueInv]

i always wonder

 

what if samsung has 90 to 95% of andriod marketshare

 

what happens then?

 

i am not too familiar with the licensing for andriod, but lets say samsung as 90 to 95% can samsung then modify andriod to the point were they can call it their own and basically take over the andriod market from google?

 

sorry for my ignorance

 

hy

 

At some point Samsung's unit growth starts slowing down. Maybe margins drop due to Chinese vendors. So how does Samsung continue to grow to keep its stock price up? They have a few options:

 

  - Build apps/services on top of their devices that result in additional revenue streams - this is Google's territory.

  - Squeeze more for the device ecosystem itself - the one with the most squeezable fat is - Google.

 

You can see them making moves in both directions.

 

[hyten1]

valueInv,

 

thanks for reply, actually that was not what i was getting at

 

put another way, is it possible for samsung to completely take over andriod and call it their own and leave google out? meaning effectively samsung becomes the owner of future rendition of andriod that they have created and modify to the point were they basically kick google out of the mobile os game (other than their apps of course). so it'll become iOS vs Windows Phone OS vs Samsung Andriod

 

due to the strategy that google setup, to give andriod away

 

but can this strategy come back to bit them in the ass? letting someone to take over the mobile os from google. effect render google original strategy pointless (having a free OS for everyone to build of). If 90 to 95% on andriod base phone sold are samsungs.

 

hy

[no_free_lunch]

After adding up all the points, I believe, that Samsung Android is worth a substantial premium vs. vanilla Google Android on the same hardware. By my own measurement, that would mean that I'd be willing to pay 40-50% more for a Samsung device over stock Android, and even more over an Android handset from another vendor. You can judge the value of the added functionality for yourself.

 

http://www.osnews.com/story/26751

 

Samsung is already modifying android and customizing it.  The above article goes so far as to indicate it is worth paying a premium for the phone as a result of the substantial mods that samsung implements.  With it's scale this is where Samsung wins.  They also win by having google maintain the core O/S.  Google is basically subsidizing samsung's business model.  You start to see the motivation for buying motorola and building google glass.

 

[Guest valueInv]

valueInv,

 

thanks for reply, actually that was not what i was getting at

 

put another way, is it possible for samsung to completely take over andriod and call it their own and leave google out? meaning effectively samsung becomes the owner of future rendition of andriod that they have created and modify to the point were they basically kick google out of the mobile os game (other than their apps of course). so it'll become iOS vs Windows Phone OS vs Samsung Andriod

 

due to the strategy that google setup, to give andriod away

 

but can this strategy come back to bit them in the ass? letting someone to take over the mobile os from google. effect render google original strategy pointless (having a free OS for everyone to build of). If 90 to 95% on andriod base phone sold are samsungs.

 

hy

 

They can kick Google out completely but have little incentive to do that. Google bears the development and talent costs, much of the marketing and branding burden, some of the patent defence costs, etc. and pays Samsung to use its OS. So it is a have your cake and eat it too situation for Samsung.

 

Over the long run, it could backfire. Samsung's track record with copying is great but its track record with design and innovation is spotty. Its relationship with content providers is little.

 

It is a risky move for the company but Samsung has won by being super aggressive in copying , marketing, adding features, fight patent lawsuits and so on. I don't expect them to change what had worked for them in the past. Therein lies the rub. I think there are a few things likely in the horizon that are going to cause big problems for Samsung.

[Palantir]

valueInv,

 

thanks for reply, actually that was not what i was getting at

 

put another way, is it possible for samsung to completely take over andriod and call it their own and leave google out? meaning effectively samsung becomes the owner of future rendition of andriod that they have created and modify to the point were they basically kick google out of the mobile os game (other than their apps of course). so it'll become iOS vs Windows Phone OS vs Samsung Andriod

 

 

No they cannot "fork" it like you suggest. I think the link on the Open Handset Alliance details this. Basically only firms that agree to Google's terms get full Android features. If Samsung makes its own version of Android that threatens Google's interests, they'll take action, perhaps by preventing access to apps etc.

 

 

It would be more likely that they build out their own smartphone platform, leverage that with their GS brand, and start selling Tizen Phones as their flagship, if there is enough critical mass, they could potentially scale down involvement with Android. But I"m making stuff up.

[VAL9000]

Samsung will almost certainly continue to add more software and services to every handset that it sells.  It's not really that they want to go this route, or that they are any good at it, but they really have no choice.  As the dubious "S3 vs. Nexus" article points out, a significant chunk of the "value" offered by the S3 is in the form of software.  Again, this goes back to the economics of handset manufacturing: they are dogshit.

 

Samsung is looking into its crystal ball and realizes that if they do not develop meaningful software improvements ("features") in their offering, they will operate entirely on a lowest-cost model.  It will be a fight-to-the-death-of-margins battle.  Probably the easiest analogy here is to look at IBM, HPQ, and DELL.  These were PC leaders for the past 10 years.  Today, none of them make meaningful profits from PC manufacturing.  They are ALL focused on Software and Services as their business model.  I think anyone studying the mobile business today can learn a lot from the choices the giants have made.  Mobile is similar, except there are a few meaningful differences:

1. There are fewer models each competitor is offering.

2. The volume per model is greater.

3. The pace of hardware innovation has flattened faster.

4. The cost of materials are lower.

5. The product is easier to manufacture.

Each of these differences compounds the speed at which the impending mobile device price war will occur.  Think it was crazy that a standard business laptop cost $2500 7 years ago, and costs $600 today?  Watch what happens with a $800 phone today in 3 years.

 

So faced with these economics, Samsung can only do two things: software or service.  Now I'll be the first to admit that Samsung's service (at least in Canada) is absolutely atrocious.  There is a huge opportunity here as I strongly believe that one of Apple's core competitive advantages is excellent customer service.  This just doesn't exist in the  Android realm.

 

Their software, I have no idea about.  My wife has an S3 but I haven't encountered any of the software mentioned in the above article.  My guess is that the S4 software is probably not as great as Samsung is touting.  Gizmodo seems to agree.  For years we have watched hardware manufacturers bolt software on to an otherwise clean build in an effort to boost margins.  It's such bad software that it now goes by the name "CrapWare".  I would love to see Samsung buck the trend, because I am invested in Google and I firmly believe that CrapWare is a significant contributor to Apple's rise in Mac sales - but that's a different story for a different day.

 

Alas, Samsung really has no choice.  They have to do something or risk becoming a glorified Foxconn.  The motivations are similar for why Apple would spend a boatload on Maps.  Apple also knows what happens to hardware later in an innovation cycle.  They need software and services to compete on pricing.  Today they have a pretty strong foothold on both, but when Google is your chief competitor, you really need to get aggressive with your software/services.

 

Samsung, in my opinion, needs to walk a very fine line between software innovation and user alienation.  If Samsung's software efforts float close to the CrapWare quality standard, they will lose their following.  If they do nothing, they will lose their margins.  I would guess that Samsung can extract a fee from Google over the inclusion of their services on phones, however it is not clear that they will.  If Google refuses to pay, Samsung will be forced to use potentially substandard services, which again will turn off their users.

 

I believe the wisdom of Google buying Motorola is starting to play out.  I mentioned this previously but will repeat myself.  With Motorola on board, Google has significantly more leverage over handset manufacturers than without.  It's important.

 

But, all of this is kind of pointless.  I read today that Google is potentially putting together a $200 "X Phone".  If the specs are near with the Nexus 4 is offering today, nobody's going to buy anything but that phone.  There is no amount of software Samsung can throw at the S4 to make up for a $400 price gap.  But clearly this is where we're going.  $200 phones for everyone - hurrah!

 

 

[Guest valueInv]

But, all of this is kind of pointless.  I read today that Google is potentially putting together a $200 "X Phone".  If the specs are near with the Nexus 4 is offering today, nobody's going to buy anything but that phone.  There is no amount of software Samsung can throw at the S4 to make up for a $400 price gap.  But clearly this is where we're going.  $200 phones for everyone - hurrah!

 

I wonder what Google's overall margins will be if they sold a lot of those $200 phones?

[Ross812]

http://www.kellerburkvu.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/paper-clip-dentist1.jpeg

"It looks like you're getting into a fight over Google vs. Apple.  Would you like help?"

 

Some one should just ask Siri:

 

"Is the Android or iOS a better mobile platform?"

 

And be done with it.

 

I asked Siri: "Which is the best smartphone out there?"

Response: "Seriously?"

 

Try it out.

 

Shoot, I thought we were going to be able to put this to a rest once and for all.

[VAL9000]

But, all of this is kind of pointless.  I read today that Google is potentially putting together a $200 "X Phone".  If the specs are near with the Nexus 4 is offering today, nobody's going to buy anything but that phone.  There is no amount of software Samsung can throw at the S4 to make up for a $400 price gap.  But clearly this is where we're going.  $200 phones for everyone - hurrah!

 

I wonder what Google's overall margins will be if they sold a lot of those $200 phones?

 

They'd go from 25% operating margins to 20% operating margins if they sold 64 million $200 phones at a break-even price and everything else stayed the same.

 

[Guest valueInv]

But, all of this is kind of pointless.  I read today that Google is potentially putting together a $200 "X Phone".  If the specs are near with the Nexus 4 is offering today, nobody's going to buy anything but that phone.  There is no amount of software Samsung can throw at the S4 to make up for a $400 price gap.  But clearly this is where we're going.  $200 phones for everyone - hurrah!

 

I wonder what Google's overall margins will be if they sold a lot of those $200 phones?

 

They'd go from 25% operating margins to 20% operating margins if they sold 64 million $200 phones at a break-even price and everything else stayed the same.

Interesting situation, they actually have to lower their profits to prevent Android from being controlled. Its like they would be a victim of their "commoditization". I'm sure you've seen Motorola's earnings recently. What will they look like with the $200 phone? 

 

What would happen to other Android vendors like HTC, Sony Ericsson, etc. if Google started gaining traction with the $200 phone?

[VAL9000]

Interesting situation, they actually have to lower their profits to prevent Android from being controlled. Its like they would be a victim of their "commoditization". I'm sure you've seen Motorola's earnings recently. What will they look like with the $200 phone? 

 

What would happen to other Android vendors like HTC, Sony Ericsson, etc. if Google started gaining traction with the $200 phone?

 

Who said lower their profits?  I said lower their profit margins in this narrowly defined scenario (no upside impact regarding any other Google services, such as Play or AdWords).  Google's profits will continue to build as search volume increases.  Probably well above that trend.

 

I think that Motorola's profits will match those of other handset makers.  Something on the order of 5-15% operating margins over the long term.

 

I've already described what I believe will happen to all handset makers over the next few years.  A $200 competitive smartphone is inevitable and I've already prognosticated as to how I believe competitors will act in this market.

 

Note that Google's core business isn't currently under threat of commoditization.  This is a key distinction when comparing handset makers.  You could say the same of Microsoft, whose businesses are (to date) largely unaffected by the mobile industry's vicissitudes.

 

 

[Guest valueInv]

Who said lower their profits?  I said lower their profit margins in this narrowly defined scenario (no upside impact regarding any other Google services, such as Play or AdWords).  Google's profits will continue to build as search volume increases.  Probably well above that trend.

If they have to sink their profits from search into selling devices at costs, what do you think happens to their overall profits. In fact, look at Google's profit growth before they bought Motorola and after. Do you see a difference?

 

 

I think that Motorola's profits will match those of other handset makers.  Something on the order of 5-15% operating margins over the long term.

If you add up Samsung's and Apple's share of profits in the smartphone market, its totals more than 100%. Do you know why?

 

 

Note that Google's core business isn't currently under threat of commoditization.  This is a key distinction when comparing handset makers.  You could say the same of Microsoft, whose businesses are (to date) largely unaffected by the mobile industry's vicissitudes.

You could have said the same of RIM a few years ago.

 

BTW, how have Google's margins been lately?

[VAL9000]

Who said lower their profits?  I said lower their profit margins in this narrowly defined scenario (no upside impact regarding any other Google services, such as Play or AdWords).  Google's profits will continue to build as search volume increases.  Probably well above that trend.

If they have to sink their profits from search into selling devices at costs, what do you think happens to their overall profits. In fact, look at Google's profit growth before they bought Motorola and after. Do you see a difference?

 

 

I think that Motorola's profits will match those of other handset makers.  Something on the order of 5-15% operating margins over the long term.

If you add up Samsung's and Apple's share of profits in the smartphone market, its totals more than 100%. Do you know why?

 

 

Note that Google's core business isn't currently under threat of commoditization.  This is a key distinction when comparing handset makers.  You could say the same of Microsoft, whose businesses are (to date) largely unaffected by the mobile industry's vicissitudes.

You could have said the same of RIM a few years ago.

 

BTW, how have Google's margins been lately?

 

Yes. Yes. 25% operating.

 

What's your point?