4 ms·

Yeah but they're not dominant in anything else. Microsoft was different.

by vilmosi 9y ago

brucephillips 9y ago
Google is dominant in mobile operating systems.
- AgentIcarus 9y ago
  Do you think they would be if they charged?
  - brucephillips 9y ago
    It doesn't matter. They derive much value from their market dominance.
    - simonh 9y ago
      They make about twice as much money from mobile ads iOS as they do from Android, hence they pay Billions to Apple to be the default search provider on iOS. That can’t be a comfortable position to be in, and hardly looks like a position of dominance no matter how much you squint.
      - mcny 9y ago
        > They make about twice as much money from mobile ads iOS as they do from Android, hence they pay Billions to Apple to be the default search provider on iOS. That can’t be a comfortable position to be in, and hardly looks like a position of dominance no matter how much you squint. Here's one way to squint: they'd have to pay a lot more if they didn't have Android.
  - rafiki6 9y ago
    They do charge. The Android most manufacturer's sell with google's services isn't free. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-01-21/google-s-android-generates-31-billion-revenue-oracle-says-ijor8hvt https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-01-21/google-s-...
    - bduerst 9y ago
      The article you link to refers to advertising and play store revenue from users, not licensing revenue from manufacturers.
marcosdumay 9y ago
They pretty much dominate mobile OSes, they have the top used browser, they dominate email.
- simonh 9y ago
  But those are not their business. They make no (ok little) money from them. Apple makes as much money from dongles and charger cables. Their business is still AddWords.
  - pishpash 9y ago
    That's a strategic choice, I feel, and how you do accounting. Now facebook, on the other hand, ...
- RandomOpinion 9y ago
  > They pretty much dominate mobile OSes, they have the top used browser, they dominate email There's no direct value in any of those. Google gets very little direct revenue from the things you list nor could they ever hope to transform any of them a significant revenue source in the event their primary revenue stream (ads) went into a downturn.
  - sf_rob 9y ago
    I don't think you can say the services listed don't drive revenue. Google's growth model for quite a while was to attract and lock in users so that you would have advertiser revenue tomorrow. You could certainly argue that some of their services do this much more effectively than others but maintaining an ecosystem has value in it's own right.
    - mcny 9y ago
      > I don't think you can say the services listed don't drive revenue. Google's growth model for quite a while was to attract and lock in users so that you would have advertiser revenue tomorrow. You could certainly argue that some of their services do this much more effectively than others but maintaining an ecosystem has value in it's own right. In my view, Chrome and Android are part of a defensive strategy. Imagine a Google without Chrome or Android. Microsoft and Apple (or someone else) would own the devices that users use to access Google services. They could easily choke Google off if they wanted to. Remember how Apple decided Google Voice should be a web app? As much as people say Google is vulnerable, it would be much more vulnerable. Chrome and Android are worth every penny Google spends on them even if they make zero revenue. Plus, with Chrome and Android, Google not only gets a seat in the table for discussions on how to steer the web forward, Google pretty much drives the discussions on how to steer the web forward. For all the talk about Microsoft et al. using sponsorship money to influence FOSS projects like Maria DB, it is far more effective to do things in house (Google Chrome) as opposite to paying an outsider (Mozilla Firefox).

Yeah but they're not dominant in anything else. Microsoft was different.

brucephillips 9y ago

Google is dominant in mobile operating systems.

AgentIcarus 9y ago
Do you think they would be if they charged?
- brucephillips 9y ago
  It doesn't matter. They derive much value from their market dominance.
  - simonh 9y ago
    They make about twice as much money from mobile ads iOS as they do from Android, hence they pay Billions to Apple to be the default search provider on iOS. That can’t be a comfortable position to be in, and hardly looks like a position of dominance no matter how much you squint.
    - mcny 9y ago
      > They make about twice as much money from mobile ads iOS as they do from Android, hence they pay Billions to Apple to be the default search provider on iOS. That can’t be a comfortable position to be in, and hardly looks like a position of dominance no matter how much you squint. Here's one way to squint: they'd have to pay a lot more if they didn't have Android.
- rafiki6 9y ago
  They do charge. The Android most manufacturer's sell with google's services isn't free. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-01-21/google-s-android-generates-31-billion-revenue-oracle-says-ijor8hvt https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-01-21/google-s-...
  - bduerst 9y ago
    The article you link to refers to advertising and play store revenue from users, not licensing revenue from manufacturers.

marcosdumay 9y ago

They pretty much dominate mobile OSes, they have the top used browser, they dominate email.

simonh 9y ago
But those are not their business. They make no (ok little) money from them. Apple makes as much money from dongles and charger cables. Their business is still AddWords.
- pishpash 9y ago
  That's a strategic choice, I feel, and how you do accounting. Now facebook, on the other hand, ...
RandomOpinion 9y ago
> They pretty much dominate mobile OSes, they have the top used browser, they dominate email There's no direct value in any of those. Google gets very little direct revenue from the things you list nor could they ever hope to transform any of them a significant revenue source in the event their primary revenue stream (ads) went into a downturn.
- sf_rob 9y ago
  I don't think you can say the services listed don't drive revenue. Google's growth model for quite a while was to attract and lock in users so that you would have advertiser revenue tomorrow. You could certainly argue that some of their services do this much more effectively than others but maintaining an ecosystem has value in it's own right.
  - mcny 9y ago
    > I don't think you can say the services listed don't drive revenue. Google's growth model for quite a while was to attract and lock in users so that you would have advertiser revenue tomorrow. You could certainly argue that some of their services do this much more effectively than others but maintaining an ecosystem has value in it's own right. In my view, Chrome and Android are part of a defensive strategy. Imagine a Google without Chrome or Android. Microsoft and Apple (or someone else) would own the devices that users use to access Google services. They could easily choke Google off if they wanted to. Remember how Apple decided Google Voice should be a web app? As much as people say Google is vulnerable, it would be much more vulnerable. Chrome and Android are worth every penny Google spends on them even if they make zero revenue. Plus, with Chrome and Android, Google not only gets a seat in the table for discussions on how to steer the web forward, Google pretty much drives the discussions on how to steer the web forward. For all the talk about Microsoft et al. using sponsorship money to influence FOSS projects like Maria DB, it is far more effective to do things in house (Google Chrome) as opposite to paying an outsider (Mozilla Firefox).