Author Topic: GOOGL - Google  (Read 391262 times)

txlaw

  • Lifetime Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3081
Re: GOOGL - Google
« Reply #30 on: May 24, 2011, 08:31:06 AM »
A good example of why Google needs to be involved in developing mobile device OS's:

http://arstechnica.com/open-source/news/2011/05/new-mobile-web-google-maps-highlights-sorry-state-of-native-ios-app.ars

Apple's lack of updates to the native iOS [Google Maps] app is another indication that the company intends to create its own mapping application. Around a year ago, Apple acquired both the online mapping company Placebase and mapping mashup firm Poly9, which was about the same time that the native iOS app started to diverge, capability-wise, from the desktop and Android versions. Lately, speculations have arisen that Apple will create mapping features that integrate with a revamped MobileMe.
« Last Edit: May 24, 2011, 08:45:43 AM by txlaw »


txlaw

  • Lifetime Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3081
Re: GOOGL - Google
« Reply #31 on: May 24, 2011, 08:56:28 AM »
PS  Hopefully it will dawn on the mayors around the world that they too can usurp the last mile guys and become the new at&t or Comcast in their towns.

Unfortunately, the last mile guys will fight tooth and nail to make sure that that doesn't happen, including getting legislation passed that prevents municipalities from effectively deploying fiber.

See, e.g., http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/03/cable-backed-anti-muni-broadband-bill-advances-in-north-carolina.ars

That's why we need forward thinking companies like GOOG to break the stranglehold on the last mile so that both consumers and GOOG will benefit in the long run.

VAL9000

  • Guest
Re: GOOGL - Google
« Reply #32 on: May 24, 2011, 09:31:56 AM »
The movie theater example was used to demonstrate how a loss leader works.  I could have used the razor and blades model or the selling of burgers at cost to sell high margin fries and beverages as examples, as well.  Let's not get too cute with the analogy.
It wouldn't matter which analogy you used..  It's not me getting cute with the analogy, it's Schmidt getting cute with the revenue.  The assignment of revenue to Android means that you need to unassign it from search.  It doesn't sit well with me because there's no consistency in reporting along those lines.  It's a one-off sound bite, one that I think is unnecessary.

Look, the real question is whether consumers would use Google search, browse the web, watch videos on YouTube.com, or watch videos on third party sites powered by YouTube as often if there were no iOS or Android.  I don't think they would.  
I agree, but the question is to what degree with regards to Android.  For me, I don't look at the numbers that way.  I see search as search and people use it because it's good.  Android is a defense mechanism but I think a revenue generator primarily.  I could be wrong, but that's life with opinions :)

I don't consider applications media, but I suppose if you are going to take the position that iTunes is a platform, then you have to characterize apps as media.  I don't think that really makes much sense, though.  iTunes is merely a storefront that is integrated very tightly with the iOS platform.

There's really no reason why anyone should have to buy their media or apps from a platform provider such as Google or Apple, where the platform provider gets some cut of the revenues.  You might argue that buying through the platform providers allows for a less fragmented experience.  But why does this less fragmented experience have to come from either Google or Apple?  

I consider apps media because they act roughly the same from the platform perspective.  You pick from a catalog, pay for a download, suck it in over the web, etc.  It's not traditional media and there's definitely a gradient running from music/movies, to video games, to newspaper apps, to productivity apps.  That is, the thing that looks most like media is former, and the bit that looks the least like media is the latter.  It's just a convenient label.

Buying through the platform provider isn't required, but giving up the opportunity would be waste.  They can do it, and they should do it.  I think they will do it.  Look at the next step in Android's evolution: NFC.  Android acting as a credit card.  I don't see Google saying "buy an android, and then find a third party provider to run your credit card transactions through at a retailer."  It just doesn't jive.  An integrated solution is so much better.  And frankly I'd feel much better if I only had to give my credit card information once to a single payment processor with a lot on the line to secure that payment, rather than give it to a bunch of different small vendors.  Sony is a good example of what happens when a bunch of amateurs achieve scale in credit card processing.

txlaw

  • Lifetime Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3081
Re: GOOGL - Google
« Reply #33 on: May 24, 2011, 10:00:19 AM »
Some more color from Schmidt on building platforms:

http://news.cnet.com/8301-30685_3-20065613-264.html

VAL9000

  • Guest
Re: GOOGL - Google
« Reply #34 on: May 25, 2011, 08:45:13 AM »
Some more color from Schmidt on building platforms:

http://news.cnet.com/8301-30685_3-20065613-264.html

The Chrome web app store reads to me like it's similar to the iTunes business from Google's perspective.  Offer a store for a captive market and make revenue by charging a fee based on the transactions.

Regardless, it looks like we'll find out part of the answer to the Android revenue stream riddle soon:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304066504576343613260587314.html?KEYWORDS=android+nfc

Last week, I'd have said firmly that Google would take a cut of these payments (and other payments), and that's how they'll make money on Android.

However, your arguments have been really well formed and insightful...  so I think it's equally possible that during this unveiling Google will say that they won't take a cut, and instead rely on point-of-sale advertising/couponing to drive revenue for Android.  I like this model because it is significantly more aligned with the Android product offering - the search reassignment of revenue didn't do it for me (for reasons stated).  I can also see a similar advertising model applied to app store media, although I don't think it would be as effective as the traditional couponing model.

So, we'll see, but either way I appreciate you taking the time to debate the various revenue models with me.

txlaw

  • Lifetime Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3081
Re: GOOGL - Google
« Reply #35 on: May 25, 2011, 04:37:02 PM »
Some more color from Schmidt on building platforms:

http://news.cnet.com/8301-30685_3-20065613-264.html

The Chrome web app store reads to me like it's similar to the iTunes business from Google's perspective.  Offer a store for a captive market and make revenue by charging a fee based on the transactions.

Regardless, it looks like we'll find out part of the answer to the Android revenue stream riddle soon:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304066504576343613260587314.html?KEYWORDS=android+nfc

Last week, I'd have said firmly that Google would take a cut of these payments (and other payments), and that's how they'll make money on Android.

However, your arguments have been really well formed and insightful...  so I think it's equally possible that during this unveiling Google will say that they won't take a cut, and instead rely on point-of-sale advertising/couponing to drive revenue for Android.  I like this model because it is significantly more aligned with the Android product offering - the search reassignment of revenue didn't do it for me (for reasons stated).  I can also see a similar advertising model applied to app store media, although I don't think it would be as effective as the traditional couponing model.

So, we'll see, but either way I appreciate you taking the time to debate the various revenue models with me.


Yup, tomorrow will be interesting.

Always good to get differing views of a holding because it forces you really think through your analysis. 

VAL9000

  • Guest
Re: GOOGL - Google
« Reply #36 on: May 26, 2011, 10:04:53 AM »
Yup, tomorrow will be interesting.

Always good to get differing views of a holding because it forces you really think through your analysis. 
I just saw that Google isn't making money on payments, so it looks like it's the couponing model.

Related, Groupon just got smoked.

txlaw

  • Lifetime Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3081
Re: GOOGL - Google
« Reply #37 on: May 26, 2011, 10:19:20 AM »
Yup, tomorrow will be interesting.

Always good to get differing views of a holding because it forces you really think through your analysis. 
I just saw that Google isn't making money on payments, so it looks like it's the couponing model.

Related, Groupon just got smoked.


Groupon should have taken the offer.  What a bunch of idiots. 

VAL9000

  • Guest
Re: GOOGL - Google
« Reply #38 on: May 26, 2011, 10:39:38 AM »
Groupon should have taken the offer.  What a bunch of idiots. 
Well at least Google Wallet explains what they were thinking, offering $6bn for Groupon.

Liberty

  • Lifetime Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9523
  • twitter.com/libertyRPF
    • twitter.com/libertyRPF
Re: GOOGL - Google
« Reply #39 on: May 26, 2011, 07:29:24 PM »
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-05-26/google-says-demand-surges-for-video-advertising-on-partner-website-network.html

Quote
Google Inc. (GOOG) said it has doubled the number of video ads that it places on partner sites in the past year, a sign it’s making headway in a push to expand display advertising.

Demand for video ads also has boosted Google’s AdMob network, which targets applications and websites on mobile devices. Requests for the spots have grown an average of more than 70 percent month to month since July, the company said.
"Most haystacks don't even have a needle." |  I'm on Twitter  | Watch this, please (new link)