3 ms·
You're assuming that those products weren't capable of reaching scale without Google's intervention. By that logic, Bill Gates should have sold Microsoft to IBM
by quanticle 6y ago
You're assuming that those products weren't capable of reaching scale without Google's intervention. By that logic, Bill Gates should have sold Microsoft to IBM, because that is the only way Windows would have ever reached scale.
- im3w1l-alt 6y agoGoogle was willing to pay the most. This means it was more confident than anyone else of being able to scale the products.
- TuringNYC 6y agoI'd argue that indeed, many of these acquired companies could not reach scale w/o Google. Consider Youtube which was burning millions on hosting and always on the verge of bankruptcy if they couldnt raise more funding. Add in a company that can fund operations, provide user flow, provide a pool of advertisers, real compensation to engineers, and you have a real success. I give Google a lot of kudos on this. Do we really want another SUN Microsystems happenning?
- tomhoward 6y ago> By that logic, Bill Gates should have sold Microsoft to IBM False analogy, because: - Software provides the most utility, not the hardware, which is why IBM needed Microsoft more than vice versa, and why Android wouldn't have been nearly as much of a success if they'd been absorbed into a single phone hardware company. - Google in 2005-2010 was a very different company to IBM in 1980; i.e., much more innovative, fast-moving and highly motivated to grow fast to rival the iPhone.