7 ms·

YouTube, Android, Chrome, Maps, Apps... it's going terribly

blahi 10y ago
Only YouTube was acquired (Android and Maps were too, but not really). YouTube does OK, the rest not so much. Just because they are popular doesn't mean they are profitable. And they are most definitely not independent. On the other hand, Waze, Orkut, Nest. They spent billions on those and all they got was a lousy t-shirt.
- Grazester 10y ago
  Android makes them billions in advertising and is profitable.
  - blahi 10y ago
    No, Adwords makes them billions in advertising revenue.
    - ethbro 10y ago
      And Android isn't helping ensure AdWords is fed with traffic despite what their competitors do? (E.g. a hypothetical MS or Apple monopolized mobile ecosystem who could choose to default to non-Google)
      - shostack 10y ago
        Android provides AdWords and Google Analytics with cross-device data, which is critical to advertisers who have lots of cross-device touchpoints before converting. Cookies break across devices, so having a device identifier and knowing pretty definitively who is logged-in lets them tie it back to the individual. This is the difference between mobile/tablet performance looking unprofitable vs. profitable because the conversions are attributed to them.
- danenania 10y ago
  Isn't Waze data incorporated into Google Maps? If that data significantly improves the product and helps them stay the market leader in maps, its value, while hard to quantify, has to be pretty huge. The Nest acquisition seems to be part of a long term robotics strategy, so probably too early to call on that one. Orkut I'll give you--Google seems to have basically thrown in the towel on social networking.
  - blahi 10y ago
    I think you guys are here just to argue and make excuses for google. I get it that you are fanboys, but please... The GP said that they are like Berkshire Hathaway - basically a conglomerate of profitable companies. This simply isn't true. Acquiring a company to incorporate their assets into yours is just M&A, nothing like BH. Nest is a miserable failure.
    - danenania 10y ago
      I'm definitely not a Google fanboy by any stretch. I agree they aren't really much like Berkshire Hathaway--was only taking issue with your assertion that all those acquisitions were worthless, which seems pretty unfounded to me. I don't know a whole lot about the Nest story--seems the consensus now is that it didn't go well, but if Google retains engineers and IP that help them down the line with their robotics push, it's still probably worth something to them, though perhaps that will wind up being a lot less than they paid in 2014.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- icebraining 10y ago
  Orkut was a 20%-time project, not an acquisition.
mikeryan 10y ago
I'm thinking of the non-acquisitions. Google Fiber, Verily, X. X who knows but they're supposed to be moonshots, but Fiber and Verily can hardly be called failures.

blahi 10y ago

Only YouTube was acquired (Android and Maps were too, but not really). YouTube does OK, the rest not so much. Just because they are popular doesn't mean they are profitable. And they are most definitely not independent. On the other hand, Waze, Orkut, Nest. They spent billions on those and all they got was a lousy t-shirt.

Grazester 10y ago
Android makes them billions in advertising and is profitable.
- blahi 10y ago
  No, Adwords makes them billions in advertising revenue.
  - ethbro 10y ago
    And Android isn't helping ensure AdWords is fed with traffic despite what their competitors do? (E.g. a hypothetical MS or Apple monopolized mobile ecosystem who could choose to default to non-Google)
    - shostack 10y ago
      Android provides AdWords and Google Analytics with cross-device data, which is critical to advertisers who have lots of cross-device touchpoints before converting. Cookies break across devices, so having a device identifier and knowing pretty definitively who is logged-in lets them tie it back to the individual. This is the difference between mobile/tablet performance looking unprofitable vs. profitable because the conversions are attributed to them.
danenania 10y ago
Isn't Waze data incorporated into Google Maps? If that data significantly improves the product and helps them stay the market leader in maps, its value, while hard to quantify, has to be pretty huge. The Nest acquisition seems to be part of a long term robotics strategy, so probably too early to call on that one. Orkut I'll give you--Google seems to have basically thrown in the towel on social networking.
- blahi 10y ago
  I think you guys are here just to argue and make excuses for google. I get it that you are fanboys, but please... The GP said that they are like Berkshire Hathaway - basically a conglomerate of profitable companies. This simply isn't true. Acquiring a company to incorporate their assets into yours is just M&A, nothing like BH. Nest is a miserable failure.
  - danenania 10y ago
    I'm definitely not a Google fanboy by any stretch. I agree they aren't really much like Berkshire Hathaway--was only taking issue with your assertion that all those acquisitions were worthless, which seems pretty unfounded to me. I don't know a whole lot about the Nest story--seems the consensus now is that it didn't go well, but if Google retains engineers and IP that help them down the line with their robotics push, it's still probably worth something to them, though perhaps that will wind up being a lot less than they paid in 2014.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
icebraining 10y ago
Orkut was a 20%-time project, not an acquisition.

mikeryan 10y ago

I'm thinking of the non-acquisitions. Google Fiber, Verily, X. X who knows but they're supposed to be moonshots, but Fiber and Verily can hardly be called failures.