5 ms·

This might be a case few years ago, but google is clearly trying to diversify its business with the high speed internet, self-driving cars, robotics. It's hard

by amaks 13y ago

This might be a case few years ago, but google is clearly trying to diversify its business with the high speed internet, self-driving cars, robotics. It's hard to justify these investments for the sake of ads.

joelrunyon 13y ago
High Speed Internet --> To have more data & serve you more ads throughout your whole internet experience (not just google). Cars --> Oh, have more time while you're not driving? Spend it on your tablet / computer / device & see more ads. Robotics --> Time freed up around the house? Spend more time online. Need to have your robot run errands for you? Approve these coupon offers at nearby grocery stores & have your robot pick them up. Glass --> Like the outfit that person is wearing? Here's a coupon to buy it right now. Google is an ad company. They have cool tech - but they it comes back to ads.
- eonil 13y ago
  I had a big expectation on Boston Dynamics, but not anymore because Google purchased them.
- krisoft 13y ago
  About self driving cars: I just want to know if you gave serious consideration to the idea of licensing the technology, and making piles of cash that way? If you did, then I assume you concluded that the advertisement possibility is an even bigger revenue source? Or you don't think that, but you believe that google has a company wide blind spot for that solution? I don't want to put words in your mouth, just want to understand deeper your reasoning. So, could you please elaborate on why do you think self driving cars will be monetized through ads?
  - joelrunyon 13y ago
    They invested 258 million into Uber[1]. I doubt Google . Google's mission is to "organize the world's information." Given that's their MO, once they've figured out the textual information of the web, they're moving to mapping the world & taking typically "offline" data - online. With a bunch of driverless cars roaming the streets - they could be collecting all sorts of contextual data on people / locations / businesses that I imagine many, many people would be willing to pay for. They might not be ads in the same way you think about typical "search" ads, but they're still ads nonetheless. Google doesn't tend to like to build actual "paid" services. Rather they create free services that draw in people / eyeballs & use that information to push their index of information even further. http://techcrunch.com/2013/08/22/google-ventures-puts-258m-into-uber-its-largest-deal-ever/ http://techcrunch.com/2013/08/22/google-ventures-puts-258m-i...
    - gfodor 13y ago
      Or, you know, they can just license the technology to literally every automotive company in the world, for tens (hundreds?) of billions of dollars of recurring annual revenue. This is technology that is only possible through their insane lead in all the work on Google Street View. It will take years or decades for people to catch up. Then again, there is only one Google, so perhaps nobody ever will. They have all the PhDs and the patents. They have all the ground-level data about every nook and cranny on American roadways and beyond, and a system in place that keeps this up-to-date. They have a huge economic moat on this. Who else can do this? It's a $1t+ projected future cash flow imho. You think they really give a shit about the secondary increase in advertising revenue from people surfing their web in the car, enough to give the golden goose away for free? What you say sounds clever but really it's pretty simple: Google will have a product that everyone wants, a product that will provide a massive ROI even at a high price, and nobody else will be able to duplicate it for a very long time, if ever. No need for higher dimensional chess here. If they pull it off it will eclipse anything you or I have lived through in terms of upside for a single company.
      - giovannibajo1 13y ago
        I think that Google DNA is against making money out of licensing consumer software. They give out everything for free, they release lots of open source libraries, they even released the most important mobile operating system in the world for free, giving it out for free so that other companies can make companies selling mobiles. When they were forced to get into hardware with the Nexus line, they decided not to make a profit selling them, so that people can benefit from cheap top-tier phones. Lots of people think of Google has some kind of hero of free software and free services for consumers and I think it kinds of match their DNA and their mission. They did started monetizing the B2B/power users services more aggressively (Google Apps doesn't have a free version anymore, Google Drive space raised three times prices now, GAE got lots more expensive, etc.), but consumer market is where scale is. They want to organize the world information and making it freely and easily accessible. My feeling is that they won't patent and license driverless cars exactly for this reason. I think the business model they will choose for Google Glass will tell us more about this.

by amaks 13y ago

joelrunyon 13y ago

High Speed Internet --> To have more data & serve you more ads throughout your whole internet experience (not just google). Cars --> Oh, have more time while you're not driving? Spend it on your tablet / computer / device & see more ads. Robotics --> Time freed up around the house? Spend more time online. Need to have your robot run errands for you? Approve these coupon offers at nearby grocery stores & have your robot pick them up. Glass --> Like the outfit that person is wearing? Here's a coupon to buy it right now. Google is an ad company. They have cool tech - but they it comes back to ads.

eonil 13y ago
I had a big expectation on Boston Dynamics, but not anymore because Google purchased them.
krisoft 13y ago
About self driving cars: I just want to know if you gave serious consideration to the idea of licensing the technology, and making piles of cash that way? If you did, then I assume you concluded that the advertisement possibility is an even bigger revenue source? Or you don't think that, but you believe that google has a company wide blind spot for that solution? I don't want to put words in your mouth, just want to understand deeper your reasoning. So, could you please elaborate on why do you think self driving cars will be monetized through ads?
- joelrunyon 13y ago
  They invested 258 million into Uber[1]. I doubt Google . Google's mission is to "organize the world's information." Given that's their MO, once they've figured out the textual information of the web, they're moving to mapping the world & taking typically "offline" data - online. With a bunch of driverless cars roaming the streets - they could be collecting all sorts of contextual data on people / locations / businesses that I imagine many, many people would be willing to pay for. They might not be ads in the same way you think about typical "search" ads, but they're still ads nonetheless. Google doesn't tend to like to build actual "paid" services. Rather they create free services that draw in people / eyeballs & use that information to push their index of information even further. http://techcrunch.com/2013/08/22/google-ventures-puts-258m-into-uber-its-largest-deal-ever/ http://techcrunch.com/2013/08/22/google-ventures-puts-258m-i...
  - gfodor 13y ago
    Or, you know, they can just license the technology to literally every automotive company in the world, for tens (hundreds?) of billions of dollars of recurring annual revenue. This is technology that is only possible through their insane lead in all the work on Google Street View. It will take years or decades for people to catch up. Then again, there is only one Google, so perhaps nobody ever will. They have all the PhDs and the patents. They have all the ground-level data about every nook and cranny on American roadways and beyond, and a system in place that keeps this up-to-date. They have a huge economic moat on this. Who else can do this? It's a $1t+ projected future cash flow imho. You think they really give a shit about the secondary increase in advertising revenue from people surfing their web in the car, enough to give the golden goose away for free? What you say sounds clever but really it's pretty simple: Google will have a product that everyone wants, a product that will provide a massive ROI even at a high price, and nobody else will be able to duplicate it for a very long time, if ever. No need for higher dimensional chess here. If they pull it off it will eclipse anything you or I have lived through in terms of upside for a single company.
    - giovannibajo1 13y ago
      I think that Google DNA is against making money out of licensing consumer software. They give out everything for free, they release lots of open source libraries, they even released the most important mobile operating system in the world for free, giving it out for free so that other companies can make companies selling mobiles. When they were forced to get into hardware with the Nexus line, they decided not to make a profit selling them, so that people can benefit from cheap top-tier phones. Lots of people think of Google has some kind of hero of free software and free services for consumers and I think it kinds of match their DNA and their mission. They did started monetizing the B2B/power users services more aggressively (Google Apps doesn't have a free version anymore, Google Drive space raised three times prices now, GAE got lots more expensive, etc.), but consumer market is where scale is. They want to organize the world information and making it freely and easily accessible. My feeling is that they won't patent and license driverless cars exactly for this reason. I think the business model they will choose for Google Glass will tell us more about this.