3 ms·

Analyses such as this suffer from an overly simplistic model that is wholly detached from actual business reality. One where every company collapses down to one

Analyses such as this suffer from an overly simplistic model that is wholly detached from actual business reality. One where every company collapses down to one single thing they do. But that has never been the case for Google, or pretty much any company for that matter. This isn't "new", and Google has always been diverse. Do people remember what Google's original "business model" was (meaning "how can we scramble to pay the bills on the technology we've built")? They sold search appliances for business: You could buy little rack mount units that would build a search corpus of your network and allow in house searching. The search engine was largely just a demonstration that Google knew search. They grew from there. Over the years they've sold virtual machines, mail accounts, backup storage, computer cycles, smartphones, entertainment units, laptops, smart glasses, and eventually self-driving car technology and robotics. The Nexus line started as developer units, but it grew into a mainstream set of technologies that clearly Google wishes was much more successful and lucrative. Recall the ill-conceived Nexus Q. Because they're a big, diverse company. They want to make money however they can. While the common sentiment on the Motorola purchase is always the "for patents" line, is it not possible that they wanted to start benefiting more financially from Android, getting directly in the business that Apple was make so much money in? Success or failure is irrelevant, Google's actions have spoken loudly that they want Motorola to succeed as a device maker, benefiting Google in the long run. There is nothing new here. Company wants to leverage their strengths to make money. In the same way Apple has never been only a smartphone or computer hardware company -- they want to make a little coin on that app you purchase, the software you buy, the movies you watch, the music you listen to, the services you use, and even the ads they feed you. In the real world businesses tend to be like that.

andrenotgiant 13y ago
|Over the years they've sold virtual machines, mail accounts, backup storage, computer cycles, smartphones, entertainment units, laptops, smart glasses, and eventually self-driving car technology and robotics. All of these account for less than 3% of Google's Revenue, many probably operate at a loss. What this article is saying is that Google is finally putting together a SERIOUS challenger to their Ad revenue business in the form of consumer devices. The diverse products you listed were more about Google swimming in money, being open to new ideas, and having lots of clever and creative people.
- corresation 13y ago
  What this article is saying is that Google is finally putting together a SERIOUS challenger to their Ad revenue business in the form of consumer devices. Google is now "serious" because they bought a company with $300 million in annual revenue? If you must talk percentages, that is less than 1/2 of 1% of Google's revenue. It is 1/10th Motorola's revenue last year. That argument doesn't fly at all. Google bought Nest to continue the same strategy they've been using for many years, which is finding ways to leverage their technology and name[^1]. That Google makes enormous sums from advertising doesn't diminish those attempts, nor does it undermine the intention of the people behind them. ^1 - I've seen quite a few people talk about how "most" people are now concerned about Nest/privacy, etc, where their most is a minuscule sampling of their blogging and twittering peers. Among the mainstream public sentiments are extremely positive regarding Google, and I would wager that the overwhelming majority would see "A Google Company" on the box as a huge positive.
  - andrenotgiant 13y ago
    Serious because they invested $3.2 billion in cash, not 20% of a brilliant engineer's time or released a niche product for developers and techies. I'm not trying to diminish the importance of these, I'm just trying to clarify the difference between Google Glass (amazing technology, but not a huge investment or profitable endeavor for Google) and Nest (huge investment, already profitable and comparatively ubiquitous tech) I agree, and I think the author of the article agrees that Motorola was another step in this direction, except it also came along with an added bonus of a large patent portfolio.
    - corresation 13y ago
      Google is currently burning R&D cash at some $10 billion+ a year. This money goes towards developing things like smart glasses, self-driving cars, etc. Calling these niche products or flippantly discounting them as 20% activities misses the whole notion that Google has been diversifying, for a very large price tag, for as long as they've been Google. There is nothing at all new in this, doubly so given the much larger purchase of Motorola (which the article flippantly writes off as a panic purchase for patents. I said Motorola had 10x the revenue of Nest, when actually it has about ~28x the revenue). Have people not seen the mainstream Nexus 7 commercials? Chromebooks are being pitched to every-person. There are too many write ups like this that want to take a complex and shifting reality, melt it down, and then make clear delineations and pivot points. The world doesn't work like that.

andrenotgiant 13y ago

|Over the years they've sold virtual machines, mail accounts, backup storage, computer cycles, smartphones, entertainment units, laptops, smart glasses, and eventually self-driving car technology and robotics. All of these account for less than 3% of Google's Revenue, many probably operate at a loss. What this article is saying is that Google is finally putting together a SERIOUS challenger to their Ad revenue business in the form of consumer devices. The diverse products you listed were more about Google swimming in money, being open to new ideas, and having lots of clever and creative people.

corresation 13y ago
What this article is saying is that Google is finally putting together a SERIOUS challenger to their Ad revenue business in the form of consumer devices. Google is now "serious" because they bought a company with $300 million in annual revenue? If you must talk percentages, that is less than 1/2 of 1% of Google's revenue. It is 1/10th Motorola's revenue last year. That argument doesn't fly at all. Google bought Nest to continue the same strategy they've been using for many years, which is finding ways to leverage their technology and name[^1]. That Google makes enormous sums from advertising doesn't diminish those attempts, nor does it undermine the intention of the people behind them. ^1 - I've seen quite a few people talk about how "most" people are now concerned about Nest/privacy, etc, where their most is a minuscule sampling of their blogging and twittering peers. Among the mainstream public sentiments are extremely positive regarding Google, and I would wager that the overwhelming majority would see "A Google Company" on the box as a huge positive.
- andrenotgiant 13y ago
  Serious because they invested $3.2 billion in cash, not 20% of a brilliant engineer's time or released a niche product for developers and techies. I'm not trying to diminish the importance of these, I'm just trying to clarify the difference between Google Glass (amazing technology, but not a huge investment or profitable endeavor for Google) and Nest (huge investment, already profitable and comparatively ubiquitous tech) I agree, and I think the author of the article agrees that Motorola was another step in this direction, except it also came along with an added bonus of a large patent portfolio.
  - corresation 13y ago
    Google is currently burning R&D cash at some $10 billion+ a year. This money goes towards developing things like smart glasses, self-driving cars, etc. Calling these niche products or flippantly discounting them as 20% activities misses the whole notion that Google has been diversifying, for a very large price tag, for as long as they've been Google. There is nothing at all new in this, doubly so given the much larger purchase of Motorola (which the article flippantly writes off as a panic purchase for patents. I said Motorola had 10x the revenue of Nest, when actually it has about ~28x the revenue). Have people not seen the mainstream Nexus 7 commercials? Chromebooks are being pitched to every-person. There are too many write ups like this that want to take a complex and shifting reality, melt it down, and then make clear delineations and pivot points. The world doesn't work like that.