4 ms·

Chrome and Android are both a huge success. Google takes a long-term view which doesn't require every product to immediately pay for itself, which is very smart

by paul 16y ago

Chrome and Android are both a huge success. Google takes a long-term view which doesn't require every product to immediately pay for itself, which is very smart. The long term value of owning these platforms is immense. Also, your notion that "Wave was not a risk" is similarly mistaken. The opportunity cost of having a large team of smart people working for several years is enormous.

ohashi 16y ago
Do you think such a long term view is allowed because of the legacy of figuring out search engine advertising?
- paul 16y ago
  Clearly the money is coming from somewhere :) Using that advantage to invest in the future is the right way to build a long-term business. Focusing only on milking the current business is what leads a company to eventual disruption and collapse (because something new will come along that hurts the old business).
  - ohashi 16y ago
    I do wonder about dividends, returning value to the shareholders. Should they start issuing dividends? If not, when and why should a company?
jdp23 16y ago
There's a big difference between "opportunity cost" and "risk". Wave had huge potential upside and I completely agree that it's a good example of Google looking to go big; but they approached it in a risk-averse way, and it didn't work out.
demallien 16y ago
If you want to argue that we should take the long view with respect to Chrome and Android making money, then I would counter with needing to take the long view with respect to their being a success as well. The OP was (IMO) correct - a product's success, when done by a private company, is whether or not it improves the company's bottom line. I don't think that that claim can be made about Chrome or Android at the moment. I certainly doubt whether the little money they are currently making out of Android would not be largely blown aware by another allocation of that energy and resources. That's not to say that in the long term these products don't end up being major successes, but until they start making money, that claim can't be made.
- bad_user 16y ago
  You should read some material on microeconomics and about complementary products. That's not arguing, it's how the economy currently works. a product's success ... is whether or not it improves the company's bottom line Microsoft controlling the platform through Windows and IExplorer hasn't improved their bottom line? RedHat paying high wages to highly skilled kernel hackers to work on (get this, open-source software) hasn't improved their bottom line? until they start making money, that claim can't be made Because, you know, Apple and Microsoft installing Bing alternatives (Maps / Search) on their phone operating systems wouldn't affect Google in no way whatsoever. http://www.businessweek.com/print/technology/content/jan2010/tc20100119_759795.htm http://www.businessweek.com/print/technology/content/jan2010... I find it quite baffling actually that so many people are criticizing investments made by Google, Apple or Microsoft; These are big companies that grew to unimaginable levels in just a few years (with respect to oil mining which can take a few generations to reach a fraction of that size). You should really learn from them, because not so many companies can achieve what they did ;-)
  - demallien 16y ago
    You're not replying to my point. I didn't say that Android and Chrome wouldn't end up being critical products that add to Google's bottom line. I said that right at the moment, that's not the case, and until it does become the case, you can't claim that they're a success. It's important to read what is written, not what you think is written ;) (yeah, I find the winky smiley annoying when it's placed after a condescending remark)

by paul 16y ago

ohashi 16y ago

Do you think such a long term view is allowed because of the legacy of figuring out search engine advertising?

paul 16y ago
Clearly the money is coming from somewhere :) Using that advantage to invest in the future is the right way to build a long-term business. Focusing only on milking the current business is what leads a company to eventual disruption and collapse (because something new will come along that hurts the old business).
- ohashi 16y ago
  I do wonder about dividends, returning value to the shareholders. Should they start issuing dividends? If not, when and why should a company?

jdp23 16y ago

There's a big difference between "opportunity cost" and "risk". Wave had huge potential upside and I completely agree that it's a good example of Google looking to go big; but they approached it in a risk-averse way, and it didn't work out.

demallien 16y ago

If you want to argue that we should take the long view with respect to Chrome and Android making money, then I would counter with needing to take the long view with respect to their being a success as well. The OP was (IMO) correct - a product's success, when done by a private company, is whether or not it improves the company's bottom line. I don't think that that claim can be made about Chrome or Android at the moment. I certainly doubt whether the little money they are currently making out of Android would not be largely blown aware by another allocation of that energy and resources. That's not to say that in the long term these products don't end up being major successes, but until they start making money, that claim can't be made.

bad_user 16y ago
You should read some material on microeconomics and about complementary products. That's not arguing, it's how the economy currently works. a product's success ... is whether or not it improves the company's bottom line Microsoft controlling the platform through Windows and IExplorer hasn't improved their bottom line? RedHat paying high wages to highly skilled kernel hackers to work on (get this, open-source software) hasn't improved their bottom line? until they start making money, that claim can't be made Because, you know, Apple and Microsoft installing Bing alternatives (Maps / Search) on their phone operating systems wouldn't affect Google in no way whatsoever. http://www.businessweek.com/print/technology/content/jan2010/tc20100119_759795.htm http://www.businessweek.com/print/technology/content/jan2010... I find it quite baffling actually that so many people are criticizing investments made by Google, Apple or Microsoft; These are big companies that grew to unimaginable levels in just a few years (with respect to oil mining which can take a few generations to reach a fraction of that size). You should really learn from them, because not so many companies can achieve what they did ;-)
- demallien 16y ago
  You're not replying to my point. I didn't say that Android and Chrome wouldn't end up being critical products that add to Google's bottom line. I said that right at the moment, that's not the case, and until it does become the case, you can't claim that they're a success. It's important to read what is written, not what you think is written ;) (yeah, I find the winky smiley annoying when it's placed after a condescending remark)