3 ms·

Google's core business is making services that people like to use. That they monetize some of those services via advertisements is a function of the industry th

by personZ 12y ago

Google's core business is making services that people like to use. That they monetize some of those services via advertisements is a function of the industry that they operate in: There was no market for a pay search engine, or even a pay consumer mail provider: Those genres had long been supported by ads, and users expected that. Anything else was a non-starter.

mwfunk 12y ago
Their core business is that monetization, by definition. Making services that people like to use is what they do to feed that core business, not vice versa. They are constantly scrambling to find different ways to make money because they are a company run by extremely wealthy and intelligent people who would love for all of the great things they do to be in service of some core business other than selling targeted ads. So far they haven't had the same level of success in any of those other endeavors, but I completely understand why they keep trying.
- personZ 12y ago
  Their core business is that monetization, by definition. The NFL is primarily sponsored through network agreements, which themselves are primarily sponsored through advertisers. Is the "core business" of the NFL, then, advertising? Of course it isn't. Such an argument is specious to the point of uselessness, and only appears in the form of rhetoric. The NFL's core business is making an entertaining sports product that people like watching, and then they find ways to monetize from that.
  - hrjet 12y ago
    Google sells ads on third-party website properties. The parent's argument is certainly not specious.
    - personZ 12y ago
      The discussion is what Google's "core business" is. Google makes less than 1/5th of their revenue from their ad network in third party products and sites. The overwhelming majority of their money comes from monetization of their own services. Apple operates and promotes its own ad network, and its lack of success in that market doesn't somehow separate it from that reality. No one would claim that Apple's core business was iAds.
- DCKing 12y ago
  Your redefinition of 'core business' is confusing. IBM's core business is monetization, by definition. Making services that enterprises like to use is what they do to feed that core business, not vice versa. Walmart's core business is monetization, by definition. Selling goods that people like or need is what they do to feed that core business, not vice versa. Toyota's core business is monetization, by definition. Selling cars that people like or need is what they do to feed that core business, not vice versa. The local florist's core business is monetization, by definition. Selling flowers that people like is what they do to feed that core business, not vice versa. Every for-profit's core business is monetization, by definition. Performing a large variety of things that make money is what they do to feed that core business, not vice versa.

by personZ 12y ago

mwfunk 12y ago

Their core business is that monetization, by definition. Making services that people like to use is what they do to feed that core business, not vice versa. They are constantly scrambling to find different ways to make money because they are a company run by extremely wealthy and intelligent people who would love for all of the great things they do to be in service of some core business other than selling targeted ads. So far they haven't had the same level of success in any of those other endeavors, but I completely understand why they keep trying.

personZ 12y ago
Their core business is that monetization, by definition. The NFL is primarily sponsored through network agreements, which themselves are primarily sponsored through advertisers. Is the "core business" of the NFL, then, advertising? Of course it isn't. Such an argument is specious to the point of uselessness, and only appears in the form of rhetoric. The NFL's core business is making an entertaining sports product that people like watching, and then they find ways to monetize from that.
- hrjet 12y ago
  Google sells ads on third-party website properties. The parent's argument is certainly not specious.
  - personZ 12y ago
    The discussion is what Google's "core business" is. Google makes less than 1/5th of their revenue from their ad network in third party products and sites. The overwhelming majority of their money comes from monetization of their own services. Apple operates and promotes its own ad network, and its lack of success in that market doesn't somehow separate it from that reality. No one would claim that Apple's core business was iAds.
DCKing 12y ago
Your redefinition of 'core business' is confusing. IBM's core business is monetization, by definition. Making services that enterprises like to use is what they do to feed that core business, not vice versa. Walmart's core business is monetization, by definition. Selling goods that people like or need is what they do to feed that core business, not vice versa. Toyota's core business is monetization, by definition. Selling cars that people like or need is what they do to feed that core business, not vice versa. The local florist's core business is monetization, by definition. Selling flowers that people like is what they do to feed that core business, not vice versa. Every for-profit's core business is monetization, by definition. Performing a large variety of things that make money is what they do to feed that core business, not vice versa.