4 ms·

I find this new world where $800 million in profit is "not so profitable" to be very bizarre. Equally bizarre is that these bloggers on both sides keep getting

by nknight 15y ago

I find this new world where $800 million in profit is "not so profitable" to be very bizarre. Equally bizarre is that these bloggers on both sides keep getting attention. It's just another holy war.

kylerbaxter 15y ago
Revenue isn't profitability. Profit is what you have left after you subtract your costs. You could have $100b of revenue and still not have a cent of profit. Or even lose money. Besides, $830m of revenue isn't significant when you're a $30b+ business, which Google is. And that's my point: whereas iOS has completely remade Apple and overwhelmed its prior businesses, Android hasn't even made a dent in Google's financial statements, and for all we know, may be hurting them, depending on how much Google has invested in developing Android.
- nknight 15y ago
  Apologies, seems one of your fellow bloggers was less clueful, the first post I'd read said "profit", not "revenue". Even so, you're still looking at this from a very narrow worldview. Not everyone thinks massive profits are necessary for success, and Google has made clear they don't seek profit above all else.
  - kylerbaxter 15y ago
    That's fine, but it's a business—and no matter what your actual goals are, being profitable is a necessary prerequisite for doing it long-term. Google certainly does want Android to contribute significantly to their profitability long-term, even if it's through ad revenue generated through those devices. Mobile is going to be the most important market, so it needs to if Google is going to continue to be such a profitable company, which I'm sure they have every intention of continuing (since profitability allows them to do all the other interesting and cool things they do). My point is, that if Android is contributing so little money relative to their size now, that's not good long-term—because it's not going to support their current size or growth rate.

by nknight 15y ago

I find this new world where $800 million in profit is "not so profitable" to be very bizarre. Equally bizarre is that these bloggers on both sides keep getting attention. It's just another holy war.

kylerbaxter 15y ago

Revenue isn't profitability. Profit is what you have left after you subtract your costs. You could have $100b of revenue and still not have a cent of profit. Or even lose money. Besides, $830m of revenue isn't significant when you're a $30b+ business, which Google is. And that's my point: whereas iOS has completely remade Apple and overwhelmed its prior businesses, Android hasn't even made a dent in Google's financial statements, and for all we know, may be hurting them, depending on how much Google has invested in developing Android.

nknight 15y ago
Apologies, seems one of your fellow bloggers was less clueful, the first post I'd read said "profit", not "revenue". Even so, you're still looking at this from a very narrow worldview. Not everyone thinks massive profits are necessary for success, and Google has made clear they don't seek profit above all else.
- kylerbaxter 15y ago
  That's fine, but it's a business—and no matter what your actual goals are, being profitable is a necessary prerequisite for doing it long-term. Google certainly does want Android to contribute significantly to their profitability long-term, even if it's through ad revenue generated through those devices. Mobile is going to be the most important market, so it needs to if Google is going to continue to be such a profitable company, which I'm sure they have every intention of continuing (since profitability allows them to do all the other interesting and cool things they do). My point is, that if Android is contributing so little money relative to their size now, that's not good long-term—because it's not going to support their current size or growth rate.