3 ms·
Has Google *ever* successfully entered and taken over an existing market?
by ryandvm 11mo ago
Has Google *ever* successfully entered and taken over an existing market?
- QuercusMax 11mo agoSearch, back in the late '90s
- darkmarmot 11mo agoBesides search, Android kinda killed Nokia and friends for the consumer phone market.
- wiseowise 11mo agoiPhone did it, not Android.
- dotancohen 11mo agoWith Nokia specifically, I would say that Windows Phone killed it.
- Wowfunhappy 11mo agoI truly believe Nokia committed suicide. Meego-Harmattan was really good and early enough that iOS and Android weren’t completely entrenched yet. Or perhaps it would be most correct to say Microsoft assassinated Nokia by sending in Stephen Elop as a double agent?
- dotancohen 11mo ago> most correct to say Microsoft assassinated Nokia by sending in Stephen Elop That is exactly how I see it. It also makes perfect sense for all parties involved.
- abirch 11mo agoTo be fair, Microsoft killed Nokia.
- mksreddy 11mo agoSearch, browser, Mobile.
- Aspos 11mo agomaps as well. email client in the browser.
- cpa 11mo agoChrome?
- ghc 11mo agoYou mean like web search, webmail, internet ads, maps, calendars, browsers, smartphone operating systems, online document editing, and translation? I mean, I'm not even including stuff they acquired early like YouTube. Google was the most feared company for a decade or more for a good reason: they absolutely devoured competition in what were thought to be mature markets.
- rvnx 11mo agoDo you have a source for that ? Because according to official papers submitted by Google to the court this is absolutely not the case
- Towaway69 11mo agoThere are official court documents where google disowns google search? Or for what do you need a source? Google spreadsheet was another amazing product back in the day.
- rvnx 11mo agoMh ? https://static01.nyt.com/newsgraphics/documenttools/f6ab5c368725101c/43d7c2a0-full.pdf https://static01.nyt.com/newsgraphics/documenttools/f6ab5c36... > Plaintiffs maintain that Google has monopoly power in the product market for general search services in the United States. > According to Plaintiffs, Google has a dominant and durable share in that market (general search), and that share is protected by high barriers to entry. > Google counters that there is no such thing as a product market for general search services. > What exists instead, Google insists, is a broader market for query response. (+ yes obviously, products like Sheets or Maps were amazing, and are still very much the best. It was a joke to say that even Google denies its own success, the same way as the earlier comment).
- fl0ki 11mo agoPutting aside that several of these were acquisitions, these are all great examples of things where Google introduced something for free because it would make the money through advertising, both directly and through ecosystem effects. Even the paid enterprise versions of these services were a tiny % of Google's overall gross revenue. Prior to the push into Cloud computing, Ad revenue was well over 90% of all Google gross income, and Cloud was the first big way they diversified. GCP is definitely a credible competitor these days, but it did not devour AWS. Other commercial Google services didn't even become credible competitors, e.g. Google Stadia was a technically exceptional platform that got nowhere with customers. The question now is whether Google carves out an edge in AI that makes it profitable overall, directly or strategically. Like many companies, there seems to be a presumption of potentially infinite upside, which is what it would take to justify the astronomical costs.
- gcr 11mo agoGoogle's definitively taken over search, ads, e-mail, maps, office (for small/medium business). They're struggling on cloud, AI, ISP, videoconferencing, and others...
- hirako2000 11mo agoThey clearly don't want to fold on AI.