Google trying to be all things to all people

[fjtorres]

...and scaring Wall Street:
http://www.foxbusiness.com/technolog...ned-to-google/

It was nearly four and half years ago that Google CEO Eric Schmidt announced he would be stepping down and passing the keys to the search kingdom to co-founder Larry Page. I still remember Schmidt’s jubilant proclamation “Day-to-day adult supervision no longer needed!” echoing across the Twitterverse.

That’s when everything changed. It’s almost as if Page walked right into that corner office and flipped the switch marked “Fiscal Responsibility” from the “on” to the “off” position. At that point, Page abandoned Google’s second core philosophy, “It’s best to do one thing really, really well,” and started doing just about everything.

Since then, the company has given new meaning to the phrase “trying to be all things to all people.” Besides its core advertising products, Google also runs Android, Android Auto, Android Wear, Books, Chrome, Chromecast, Glass, Gmail, Google+, Google Now, Maps, Wallet and YouTube.

And that’s just the beginning.

Not only has Google announced its intent to become a wireless service provider, it’s well on its way to becoming a broadband ISP. The company already deploys fiber networks in a number of cities. It recently invested $1 billion in Elon Musk’s SpaceX for satellite based Internet service. And it has plans to relay wireless traffic via high-altitude balloons, if you can believe that.

Google has acquired Nest for home automation, Boston Dynamics for advanced robotics and Makani Power for airborne wind power. It led a massive $542 million funding round in virtual reality startup Magic Leap. It’s also working on a drone delivery service, an artificial neural network for machine vision (whatever that is) and, of course, those infamous self-driving cars. The company even wants to sell drivers car insurance.

What does the company have to show for all that and more? Besides a lot of bills, surprisingly little. Over the past four years, Google’s annual revenue growth has plummeted from 30% to 10% while expenses have ballooned from 69% to 75% of sales. And 90% of its $66 billion in sales still come from online advertising.

Much more at the source and here:
http://www.aftvnews.com/google-spent...s-big-keynote/

The fact that Android TV was virtually omitted from the presentation this year, when it was such a large part of last years keynote, doesn’t bode well for Google’s commitment to the platform. It’s not an indication of Google abandoning Android TV as a failure by any means, but I expected more than just a brief acknowledgement of its existence.

At Apple, diversification means a new product line every five years. At Microsoft, one every two-three years. Google seems to jumping in (and out of) five or six a year. And few of those ever mature enough to be truly world class.

A bit more focus and sticktoitiveness might be helpful.

[barryem]

Interesting criticism...they're being too creative.

I think Amazon has been doing the same thing. They're getting into so many areas in a big way that it's hard to keep track of them all. I guess companies can overdo that sort of thing and maybe they are but at least at the moment we're all a lot better off for it.

Barry

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by barryem

Interesting criticism...they're being too creative.

Barry

I dunno.
A lot of those efforts are me-too products.
(Auto insurance? Really? Might as well open a bank.)

One could just as easily say they're dumping money at any shiny thing that catches their eye.

There's no question they can afford to throw money on those ventures (for now) but unlike Apple, Microsoft, and even Amazon, they're not exactly building billion dollar businesses out of those investments. At some point Brin and Page may wake up wishing they had some of that money back.

[rcentros]

The article is misleading (at least the part quoted). Before Schmidt left Google had been doing a lot of research "just to see where it would go" -- kind of like the old Bell Labs. I think the difference is they started trying to make money on this research. And Google Chrome, Chrome OS, Google Maps, YouTube, Gmail, Books, Play Store and Android existed (and where integral to Google) long before Schmidt stepped down.

[fjtorres]

The quotes represent what the article says. There's no cherry picking here.

And the key point of the article is that all the spending isn't resulting in new businesses or reducing their dependence on desktop ads.

[barryem]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

I dunno.
A lot of those efforts are me-too products.
(Auto insurance? Really? Might as well open a bank.)

One could just as easily say they're dumping money at any shiny thing that catches their eye.

I don't know much about business or how to run one but a lot of people say diversifying is a good thing.

Barry

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by barryem

I don't know much about business or how to run one but a lot of people say diversifying is a good thing.

Barry

Diversifying means investing in businesses that generate revenue.
Not throwing money at an effort for a year and then ignoring it for two, before cancelling it.

Microsoft threw money at XBOX for five years before it started generating profits. By now it is a net gain over its 14 year history. Apple has stuck with Apple TV for 8 years despite modest returns until it's grown into a billion dollar business.

The issue isn't just that Google invests in many very different efforts but rather that they release them before they're ready and lose interest when they don't succeed immediately. That combination is not common in the tech world.

Oddly, it is common in the big publishing houses.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

The issue isn't just that Google invests in many very different efforts but rather that they release them before they're ready and lose interest when they don't succeed immediately. That combination is not common in the tech world.

[conan50]

Too bad Google is failing so miserbly. I hate that things have not worked out well for them. Like that Android operating system, oh wait...
And that Youtube failure...
And Chromebooks, everyone said those were stupid...
And Chromecast...
And all those cities who now have actual high speed Internet...
Yeah, those guys just can't keep from failing miserably at everything :-)

[fjtorres]

How many of these were innovative and how many were me-toos?
How many were given a chance to succeed?
And which ones were given a real chance to succeed?

http://gizmodo.com/all-the-google-pr...ed-d-665225668

As I said, Google is doing fine and can afford to waste money. For now.
That many not always be the case.
One day they may wake up and discover somebody else is doing search much better. Or worse, made search irrelevant.

[frahse]

I am waiting to see Google's new All Electric car that runs for free off Universal Long Range Wi-Fi.

[Barty]

Since I don't own Google stock I don't much care if they throw their money away. I prefer they keep investing in moon shots rather than me too services, though. In fact I'm kind of wary of using the lesser known google services, because I never know when they'll get tired of it and decide to pull the plug. See: Reader

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by Barty

Since I don't own Google stock I don't much care if they throw their money away. I prefer they keep investing in moon shots rather than me too services, though. In fact I'm kind of wary of using the lesser known google services, because I never know when they'll get tired of it and decide to pull the plug. See: Reader

Exactly.
Those moonshots (Google glass, for one) tend to be risky but they come with the potential to open entirely new markets and are *exactly* the kind of stuff a cash flush company *should* invest in. But it requires sticking with the effort, not giving up after a year or two.

Creating new markets can be pricey but the payoff is you get to *own* that market for as long as you outrun the inevitable me-too followers (c.f., Palm) but you can make more money and build up brand equity instead of friterring it on the tenth photo hosting or RSS reader app on the market.

Wave was risky, it was innovative, and it offered a way to move creative work online. Instead of working to show this, Google just killed it. Now Microsoft is coming in and looking to fill the same niche with Office 365. Not as ambitious, not as innovative, but since it's Microsoft's biggest cash cow, they're not likely to drop it and leave its users high and dry.

Or Glass:

http://www.cnet.com/news/google-glas...in-the-shower/

Again, ambitious. Needed support and reworking.
Instead, Google lost interest and moved on.
(Microsoft, which has been working on Hololens since before Glass was launched is still building it up slowly, focusing on specific uses and markets. A long shot but one that might hit.)

Now Google is promoting Android payment to compete with Apple and VISA and Amazon... Wouldn't surprise me if they did get into banking.

And while they run around all over the place, more focused competitors are quietly creating new markets all around them in home automation, wearables, internet of things...

[afv011]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

And while they run around all over the place, more focused competitors are quietly creating new markets all around them in home automation, wearables, internet of things...

Like project Brillo and Android Wear?

[Dopedangel]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Exactly.
Those moonshots (Google glass, for one) tend to be risky but they come with the potential to open entirely new markets and are *exactly* the kind of stuff a cash flush company *should* invest in. But it requires sticking with the effort, not giving up after a year or two.

Creating new markets can be pricey but the payoff is you get to *own* that market for as long as you outrun the inevitable me-too followers (c.f., Palm) but you can make more money and build up brand equity instead of friterring it on the tenth photo hosting or RSS reader app on the market.

Wave was risky, it was innovative, and it offered a way to move creative work online. Instead of working to show this, Google just killed it. Now Microsoft is coming in and looking to fill the same niche with Office 365. Not as ambitious, not as innovative, but since it's Microsoft's biggest cash cow, they're not likely to drop it and leave its users high and dry.

Or Glass:

http://www.cnet.com/news/google-glas...in-the-shower/

Again, ambitious. Needed support and reworking.
Instead, Google lost interest and moved on.
(Microsoft, which has been working on Hololens since before Glass was launched is still building it up slowly, focusing on specific uses and markets. A long shot but one that might hit.)

Now Google is promoting Android payment to compete with Apple and VISA and Amazon... Wouldn't surprise me if they did get into banking.

And while they run around all over the place, more focused competitors are quietly creating new markets all around them in home automation, wearables, internet of things...

Google already was into payment system with google wallet 5-6 years ago but the telcos in the US blocked access on their devices and built their own competing service which failed and Google has now bought that service.
Google's announced Glass is "graduating" from the Google X experimental projects incubator to become its own independent division — a division that will report into Nest's Tony Fadell. Current Glass head Ivy Ross will retain day-to-day authority, but she'll report to Fadell.
http://www.theverge.com/2015/1/15/75...orer-shut-down

Google is and has always been an artificial intelligence company all its products are targeted toward that goal. Wall Street expecting them to produce devices are just being stupid. Google does not want to build devices they just want access to devices from all manufacturers so that they can get the data. And if no one is manufacturing it or not working on it fast enough they start doing it themselves to push others to move faster.

Google Fiber made other providers start providing faster speeds at cheaper prices. Introduced chrome browser and made the whole web move forward. Made Google self driving cars and pushed the car industry forward who were thinking about it but at their pace it would not have not come before 2030-2040. Now they are going to provide cell phone service and make this industry move to faster speeds and cheaper prices. Google loon to provide cheaper internet to remote areas
All this Google has done is not to sell devices but to move more people information and data into the internet as it needs that for artificial intelligence. SKYnet is not far off with the way they are going