10 ms·

> Apple makes more in mobile from Google than google makes from Android more than likely. Oh, I'm absolutely sure that's the case. But basically every business

by jsnell 4y ago

> Apple makes more in mobile from Google than google makes from Android more than likely. Oh, I'm absolutely sure that's the case. But basically every business on earth is less profitable than the iPhone. Are you saying that every other product is a miserable failure due to that? Note they're totally different businesses. Apple primarily sells premium hardware, Google primarily licenses an OS to other phone manufacturers. > Amazon was a low margin retail company and was spending billions on infrastructure. So? Your argument is that Android is some kind of a product failure because it "only" made $26 billion in profit in its first six years. But what you're ignoring is that that is an absurd level of success. It's 8 times all of Amazon in the timeframe. What Amazon product had that kind of a growth curve from zero, ever? I would bet literally nothing. If you applied this logic consistently, you should be ripping into Amazon's decades-long failure at creating a hit product. But instead you're making excuses about "low margins". > Has Apple or any other BigTech company had to pay a direct competitor for placement? Yes, like all the time? E.g. I'm sure that all of Apple, Amazon and Microsoft have bought ads on Google and YouTube. It's not some kind of indication of business failure on their part [0]; they've determined that those ads have a positive ROI. [0] Though obviously Amazon's search engine did fail before being killed, like so many other Amazon products. > That number came from Google in court and wasn’t redacted. Ok, I'll stand corrected then. But I still have no idea of anyone could argue that's a failure.

scarface74 4y ago
> Note they're totally different businesses. Apple primarily sells premium hardware, Google primarily licenses an OS to other phone manufacturers. Microsoft licenses Windows to other PC manufacturers, the PC market was much smaller than mobile even back then, do you think they only made $26 billion in profit over the time period licensing Windows? In hindsight, “missing mobile” was the best thing that could have happened to Microsoft. If you were a company right now, would you rather be “Android, Inc” or “Windows, Inc”? > Yes, like all the time? E.g. I'm sure that all of Apple, Amazon and Microsoft have bought ads on Google and YouTube. It's not some kind of indication of business failure on their part [0]; they've determined that those ads have a positive ROI. Do you think either spends anywhere near the amount?
- jsnell 4y ago
  > do you think they only made $26 billion in profit over the time period licensing Windows Windows was at that point a 25 year old business, not one starting from zero. Why in the world would they have the same profit in that time period? Windows absolutely did not make $26 billion in the first 6 years of its life. Does that make Windows a failure? I have no idea of whether Windows is more profitable than Android right now. You don't either. But both are clearly incredibly successful products. Again: what product that successful has Amazon ever launched? Just a single example of something that made $26 billion of profit in its first 6 years. Should be easy to find, given Amazon has probably launched thousands of products, many in extremely lucrative high margin areas. And when you fail to name one, maybe consider that your theories on how good Amazon is at creating projects and how bad Google is might not be entirely correct? > Do you think either spends anywhere near the amount? Of course not. Why does that matter? Positive ROI is positive ROI.
  - scarface74 4y ago
    > Windows was at that point a 25 year old business, not one starting from zero. Why in the world would they have the same profit in that time period? Windows absolutely did not make $26 billion in the first 6 years of its life. Does that make Windows a failure? 6 years in the life of Windows , there was nowhere near the number of PCs being sold every year as Android devices. But I can guarantee you that even from the day that Microsoft license the first version of DOS to IBM that it made more per license sold than Google makes from each Android sold. > Again: what product that successful has Amazon ever launched? I see that you refuse to compare Android to its most realistic counterpart - Apple. The iPod, the iPhone, the iPad and even the Apple Watch (Cook said that Apple Watch revenues exceeded iPod revenue a couple of years ago) were all more successful in the first 6 years. The entire point is that Google hasn’t been able to diversify at all *profitably”.
    - jsnell 4y ago
      > I see that you refuse to compare Android to its most realistic counterpart - Apple. Uh, what? Of course the iPhone is more profitable than Android, and I have already said so in this discussion. If you think that a product needs to reach iPhone numbers to count as successful, I really don't know what to say. But I note that you are indeed incapable of naming a single Amazon product that was as successful as Android, while still maintaining that Android was somehow a commercial disappointment, while Amazon is a success story. You really don't see the disconnect?

by jsnell 4y ago

scarface74 4y ago

> Note they're totally different businesses. Apple primarily sells premium hardware, Google primarily licenses an OS to other phone manufacturers. Microsoft licenses Windows to other PC manufacturers, the PC market was much smaller than mobile even back then, do you think they only made $26 billion in profit over the time period licensing Windows? In hindsight, “missing mobile” was the best thing that could have happened to Microsoft. If you were a company right now, would you rather be “Android, Inc” or “Windows, Inc”? > Yes, like all the time? E.g. I'm sure that all of Apple, Amazon and Microsoft have bought ads on Google and YouTube. It's not some kind of indication of business failure on their part [0]; they've determined that those ads have a positive ROI. Do you think either spends anywhere near the amount?

jsnell 4y ago
> do you think they only made $26 billion in profit over the time period licensing Windows Windows was at that point a 25 year old business, not one starting from zero. Why in the world would they have the same profit in that time period? Windows absolutely did not make $26 billion in the first 6 years of its life. Does that make Windows a failure? I have no idea of whether Windows is more profitable than Android right now. You don't either. But both are clearly incredibly successful products. Again: what product that successful has Amazon ever launched? Just a single example of something that made $26 billion of profit in its first 6 years. Should be easy to find, given Amazon has probably launched thousands of products, many in extremely lucrative high margin areas. And when you fail to name one, maybe consider that your theories on how good Amazon is at creating projects and how bad Google is might not be entirely correct? > Do you think either spends anywhere near the amount? Of course not. Why does that matter? Positive ROI is positive ROI.
- scarface74 4y ago
  > Windows was at that point a 25 year old business, not one starting from zero. Why in the world would they have the same profit in that time period? Windows absolutely did not make $26 billion in the first 6 years of its life. Does that make Windows a failure? 6 years in the life of Windows , there was nowhere near the number of PCs being sold every year as Android devices. But I can guarantee you that even from the day that Microsoft license the first version of DOS to IBM that it made more per license sold than Google makes from each Android sold. > Again: what product that successful has Amazon ever launched? I see that you refuse to compare Android to its most realistic counterpart - Apple. The iPod, the iPhone, the iPad and even the Apple Watch (Cook said that Apple Watch revenues exceeded iPod revenue a couple of years ago) were all more successful in the first 6 years. The entire point is that Google hasn’t been able to diversify at all *profitably”.
  - jsnell 4y ago
    > I see that you refuse to compare Android to its most realistic counterpart - Apple. Uh, what? Of course the iPhone is more profitable than Android, and I have already said so in this discussion. If you think that a product needs to reach iPhone numbers to count as successful, I really don't know what to say. But I note that you are indeed incapable of naming a single Amazon product that was as successful as Android, while still maintaining that Android was somehow a commercial disappointment, while Amazon is a success story. You really don't see the disconnect?