191–200 of 203 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's an excellent way to get people to switch away from Chrome. I love Chrome, use it all the time, but if I can't have any adblocking? No thanks.
Do you use Firefox over Chrome mobile ?
So, Google makes fantastic products. Much of our online interaction involves Google in some way or the other. And the only way these guys have figured to make money is ads. Why can't they sell products and be like an Apple, Oracle, Microsoft. I am guessing it's too much work to grow in such a massive pace without ads. Ads are a marketers/sales persons dream and these marketers are very likely to spend money. This ad…
"Anyway, I feel Google will be a much better company if it can get rid of dependence on ads" Do you feel like the NFL will be a better company once it rids itself of that pesky "football" dependence ? Will McDonalds finally break free of the hamburger racket and flourish as a company ? Google isn't some company that just happens to make a bunch of money from ads - they are an advertising company . Period. The end. On…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>>Email will no see decent progress thanks to gmail. I remember how great email was before GMail: 1. Every few days I had delete emails so that I can get new email. 2. Delete sent mail immediately to make space for new emails. 3. More than 50% of emails received are spam. Yeah right GMail was one that stopped progress of email :)
As I noted, Google makes great products including gmail. My point was that with gmail being free and good enough, there is nobody to compete with gmail. In 2016, nobody will start an email company even though there are lots of advancements that can be made.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How long did it take for Google to really start printing money? 5? Maybe 10 years? Think of those projects now not wildly profitable as the seeds of new, profitable businesses down the road. Short term thinking, that's the problem with the equities market.
> How long did it take for Google to really start printing money? 5? Maybe 10 years? Think of those projects now not wildly profitable as the seeds of new, profitable businesses down the road. What projects? The self driving car? The traditional car companies (that also work on that), Tesla, the Chinese, and even Apple who's verified to be working on such a project can possibly all kill them on that market. What else…
Long-term, I am not very bullish on Google/Alphabet. More than 90% of their profits come online advertising, something that can be easily blocked for life with a simple browser extension/plugin. Some worrying figures[1]: * US ad blocking grew by 48% to reach 45 million active users in 12 months up to June 2015. * Ad blocking grew by 41% globally in the last 12 months. * US ad blocking grew by 48% to reach 45 million…
> Long-term, I am not very bullish on Google/Alphabet. More than 90% of their profits come online advertising, something that can be easily blocked for life with a simple browser extension/plugin. Some worrying figures And yet frequently the press glorifies Google's "innovation" and is bullish on Apple, that has like 4-5 different sources of income (the PCs, the phone, the tablet, the watch, the tv, the cloud service…
>with more than one of them earning more profits than the whole of Alphabet put together.
Which would those be with the exception of the phone? As for those other other revenue streams you mentioned - they're just a blip on the radar (tvOS and cloud - really?)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If only ... If only there were cloud products and services that were dead simple and just did one little useful thing just the way you wanted it. If only ...
That is nice in theory but nobody really wants that. In practice I do not want to run my app on 40 different services potentially owned by different companies. If you mean that inside one company is fine than I believe ec2, s3 etc seperately already provide what you say: if you would make them simpler it would get annoying as you would have to set up yet more services (within the same portal, which is a bit better) t…
You know what, I think I will!
What should I call it ?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How long did it take for Google to really start printing money? 5? Maybe 10 years? Think of those projects now not wildly profitable as the seeds of new, profitable businesses down the road. Short term thinking, that's the problem with the equities market.
> How long did it take for Google to really start printing money? 5? Maybe 10 years? Think of those projects now not wildly profitable as the seeds of new, profitable businesses down the road. What projects? The self driving car? The traditional car companies (that also work on that), Tesla, the Chinese, and even Apple who's verified to be working on such a project can possibly all kill them on that market. What else…
Google Fiber. Note how profitable that is for Comcast as a monopoly. I'm confident Google can still reap double digit margins while keeping costs down for Google Fiber users through their knowledge of network management.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's an excellent way to get people to switch away from Chrome. I love Chrome, use it all the time, but if I can't have any adblocking? No thanks.
They could just use an js adblock blocker like wired&co. Sure, there are ways around that, but thats way too much trouble for the average user
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Long-term, I am not very bullish on Google/Alphabet. More than 90% of their profits come online advertising, something that can be easily blocked for life with a simple browser extension/plugin. Some worrying figures And yet frequently the press glorifies Google's "innovation" and is bullish on Apple, that has like 4-5 different sources of income (the PCs, the phone, the tablet, the watch, the tv, the cloud service…
Let's be realistic. The only real profitable revenue stream for Apple is the phone and app store. >with more than one of them earning more profits than the whole of Alphabet put together. Which would those be with the exception of the phone? As for those other other revenue streams you mentioned - they're just a blip on the radar (tvOS and cloud - really?)
The App Store, while big in itself, is insignificant to Apple's revenue stream. Which makes me think you are not really familiar with how it breaks down.
Apple's revenue is ~230 billion. Alphabet is around ~80 billion.
iPhone revenues were 68 of that, the iPad is 9%+, the Mac another 9%, services is 8% and other products (Apple TV, Apple Watch) around 5%.
You could kill the iPhone today and still have a killer company the size of Alphabet.
As for the "blip of the radar" regarding the Apple cloud services: http://appleinsider.com/articles/16/04/20/as-a-standalone-co...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The two are unrelated. They could spend all their cash on buybacks and the earnings would be the same.
Earnings are reported per share so stock buybacks are actually a pretty common way to make earnings look better. Of course, it doesn't change the total earnings but the number reported by techcrunch would indeed change.