4 ms·
This is a false dichotomy. Google has to pay to be in particular platforms because they're viewed as a competitor. Even nowadays Apple doesn't seem to have any
by coliveira 11y ago
This is a false dichotomy. Google has to pay to be in particular platforms because they're viewed as a competitor. Even nowadays Apple doesn't seem to have any interest in search technology. If Android didn't exist, Google could concentrate their efforts in being the known and trusted source for web search and partner with Apple and other companies, the same way this works for Facebook, Twitter, Yahoo, and so many other web-based companies.
- rogerbinns 11y ago> Even nowadays Apple doesn't seem to have any interest in search technology It is called Siri. Also Google isn't the only player in search, maps, video etc so competitors like Microsoft, Nokia, and Facebook could pay for placement. If Google was entirely dependent on other people's mobile platforms, then those platforms can make decisions based on payments, as well as on their competitive views such as not wanting to make Google stronger. The latter would harm Google's business and future prospects.
- brazzledazzle 11y agoWhen you don't own the platform you don't control the advertising. Facebook now competes with Youtube, even if there's not perfect overlap in the markets they target. Did Google+ fail? Certainly. But Facebook can leverage its way into things like competing with Youtube by using its existing user base. So just sitting around being the "best" at something doesn't mean squat. Your current partners might very well be your future competition when they see how much money there is to be made.