| 6:17 pm on Dec 17, 2005 (gmt 0)|
If you look at Microsoft you will see that the only divisions that make real money are Windows and Office related - two trick pony if you like. Everything else loses money, so from this point of view Google is not that much different from Microsoft, apart from the fact that Microsoft can afford to lose money on search where as Google can't.
| 6:29 pm on Dec 17, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Fair enough.. being a one trick pony ain't so bad as long as you can maintain your market share.
So is that the general consensus then?
Google is going to build tonnes of businesses then that they feed AdWords into?
It's a powerful conclusion, I'll give it that.
Basically it means that they can build something and give it away for free as long as it generates AdWords income to pay for it.
The more AdWords opportunities they develop, the more people will bid to get to the top of of the AdWords bid list, which makes it more profitable for them to embed their AdWords into free aps.
Basically the system feeds itself... cool idea.
I guess this is why Bill (or was it Ballmer?) are talking about the shift to free software supported by ads.
Still though, I can't imagine I'd run software with ads in my face all the time. I can't give up that kind of screen real estate, plus when I'm working, I have no desire to be distracted by marketing material.
So I think it's somewhat questionable that model is going to play out, though we shall see. It would be interesting to see how much GMAIL makes for Google and if it covers its costs.
| 1:10 pm on Dec 18, 2005 (gmt 0)|
You can't compare the two. Microsoft in entrenched in 95% of the world's PCs, Google is a few algo tweaks and a bookmark ahead of Yahoo and MSN. It takes much less in time and resources to pull a Google than to become Microsoft.
IF windows and Office stops being the cash cow, would it be that hard for MSFT to tighten up screws and turn at least some of the rest profitable? They have many options, but right now can afford to take a loss on make products because they are making a fortune in Windows, Office etc.
| 3:34 pm on Dec 18, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Well, Google has the advantage of just turning up the heat on adding more services to feed AdWords.
MSFT, unfortunately, has a cash cow it needs to protect. This makes them a lot less nimble.
I think the problem is fairly straightforward - can Google seriously find other ways to feed the hungry beast that is AdWords?
I don't actually think so. I think even if they were to give away apps for free or wireless for free I'm pretty sure the AdWords would just enter into a blindspot and would barely pay for the services.
One possibility, of course, are ads next to TV content.
I don't really see this as being entirely probable though.
No, I am inclined to think that growth on Google will be capped sooner rather than later.
I think MSFT didn't buy into AOL simply because they're not that particularly concerned about Google.
| 4:15 pm on Dec 18, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I think you may be missing the big picture.
You are looking at things as they exist today rather as they will exist 5 or 10 years from now.
Who would have thought 5 years ago that we would be dealing with this huge entity which is Google today.
TV was mentioned. Streaming TV on your computer could be more mainstream 10 years from now. What would be wrong with a running sidebar on your 30" monitor with AdWords based on your Internet search history?
There is stuff brewing behind the doors that we haven't even thought of yet.
| 3:09 am on Dec 19, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Google is a media company (albeit a technology-driven media company). If it were a one-trick pony, it never would have moved beyond AdWords on its SERPs.
| 2:13 pm on Dec 19, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I think TV is more of a push technology .. not really a pull technology. It's for entertainment - not information. Interactive ads won't work because they're not entertaining, they'd just be distracting and annoying.
My point above was that AdWords were their one trick - not their SERPs.
The question remains - how much can they flog AdWords?
I suppose we can start seeing AdWords on coke machines and at subway stations. Perhaps that's the next evolution. Perhaps that's why the big push into WiFi.
Maybe the company mission statement should be: "AdWords Everywhere"
| 4:16 pm on Dec 19, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|My point above was that AdWords were their one trick - not their SERPs. |
I think it would be more accurate to say that advertising is their one trick, as it is with many media companies. That isn't necessarily a bad thing or a sign of weakness.
| 4:30 pm on Dec 19, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Well, nothing is necessarily a bad thing :)
You prefer to see advertising - do you see them expanding outside of AdWords? I think anything they do they'll want make it a part of AdWords in order to leverage the network effect.