3 ms·

So the article admits that 40% of revenue is directly from tech (Technology Products & Services, Software & Cloud Service, Data Analytics & Other Services) and

So the article admits that 40% of revenue is directly from tech (Technology Products & Services, Software & Cloud Service, Data Analytics & Other Services) and the remaining 60% is from Ads but clearly enabled by tech innovation (Google, Youtube...). Yep, it's a tech company.

JohnFen 3y ago
I fall onto the side of the author. Google is an ad company that invests heavily into tech. Or a martech company, if you prefer. Tech is certainly something Google puts a lot of investment into, but it isn't the company's primary focus or interest.
riku_iki 3y ago
you can also compare their traffic acquisition cost ($49B) with R&D ($39B), and decide they are traffic brocker and not tech product company.
quitit 3y ago
Where the author leans into the advertising, you lean into tech, but would it not be fair to say that it is a tech -and- advertising company. That would more fairly represent Google's relevance than limiting it to either tech or advertising alone. Meta could also possibly fall into this tech-advertising categorisation. There are many different ways to cut up how Google operate to present the idea that it is more of an ad company or more of a tech company - the fact that both of these are possible leans further into calling it an advertising and tech company. For example by looking at profit Google's ability to operate and exist comes from ads, on the other hand most staff at Google are from STEM fields and Google's aspirations are clearly tech driven, even if it uses ads as the means to an end. I feel the expression "Everything should be as simple as possible, but not simpler" applies here. Labelling Google as tech-only is as provably false, as is labelling it as an ad-only company.
- bionsystem 3y ago
  They are also categorized as "communication services" in most financial benchmarks, instead of software, just like META. Funnily enough, combined with META they represent 30% of this sector. There is definitely something to argue about. My point being, their capital structure is focused around the IP they own which is mostly tech stuff rather than ad stuff. When they don't build the stack themselves they acquire it, not merely purchase products, like some tv/radio network would do to create content and broadcast it. On the other hand when they spend on improving their ad monetization it's an expense, not an investment, which to me kind of proves my point.

JohnFen 3y ago

I fall onto the side of the author. Google is an ad company that invests heavily into tech. Or a martech company, if you prefer. Tech is certainly something Google puts a lot of investment into, but it isn't the company's primary focus or interest.

riku_iki 3y ago

you can also compare their traffic acquisition cost ($49B) with R&D ($39B), and decide they are traffic brocker and not tech product company.

quitit 3y ago

Where the author leans into the advertising, you lean into tech, but would it not be fair to say that it is a tech -and- advertising company. That would more fairly represent Google's relevance than limiting it to either tech or advertising alone. Meta could also possibly fall into this tech-advertising categorisation. There are many different ways to cut up how Google operate to present the idea that it is more of an ad company or more of a tech company - the fact that both of these are possible leans further into calling it an advertising and tech company. For example by looking at profit Google's ability to operate and exist comes from ads, on the other hand most staff at Google are from STEM fields and Google's aspirations are clearly tech driven, even if it uses ads as the means to an end. I feel the expression "Everything should be as simple as possible, but not simpler" applies here. Labelling Google as tech-only is as provably false, as is labelling it as an ad-only company.

bionsystem 3y ago
They are also categorized as "communication services" in most financial benchmarks, instead of software, just like META. Funnily enough, combined with META they represent 30% of this sector. There is definitely something to argue about. My point being, their capital structure is focused around the IP they own which is mostly tech stuff rather than ad stuff. When they don't build the stack themselves they acquire it, not merely purchase products, like some tv/radio network would do to create content and broadcast it. On the other hand when they spend on improving their ad monetization it's an expense, not an investment, which to me kind of proves my point.