Live data from Hacker News

Google Makes So Much Money, It Never Had to Worry About Financial Discipline

bloomberg.com

421–430 of 463 posts

Re: Google Makes So Much Money, It Never Had to Worry About Financial Discipline

#421
post #406

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What Punch said, basically its a maturing of the Internet Advertising market, the early enthusiasm for lots of metrics on engagement being dampened by a gradual understanding of click fraud. This is reflected in Google's financials as a falling 'cost per click' (what Google gets for an ad click). The other factor is that Google search has been slowly losing its quality edge on its competitors and so services like Mic…

Here is Google's net profit margin for past 4 years [1]: 2013: 22.9% 2014: 21.4% 2015: 21.7% 2016 (9 months): 22.0% It doesn't look like profit margins are under strong downward pressure. But a better metric would probably be 'revenue per search query' - I don't have any recent statistics, but if Bing can close that gap it will reduce Google's margins when bidding for search traffic from Apple and Firefox (and maybe…

It is so much more nuanced than that. That number is essentially manufactured for the street (and before anyone jumps down my throat about being some sort of conspiracy nut let me explain).

Early in Google's life there was an article which asked the question "Is Google's gross margin 100%?" It went on to observe that Google had overhead, staff, facilities, and monthly recurring costs like electricity and phone bills, but every advertisement they 'served' cost them essentially no delta in their overhead, so their "cost of goods" when looking at the business through the lens of the goods economy[1] was zero. And any revenue they generated by selling a "click" (their stand in for a widget) was 100% gross profit. As a result, using old school goods economy accounting rules, profit is entirely a function of how many clicks they "ship" and there are many knobs to adjust which boost how many clicks they ship. They include, but are not limited to, putting more ads on their own pages and buying traffic to point at their pages with ads on them.

But when you evaluate their business using the principles of information economics[1] you see that they do have costs and their core product's value is eroding.

To understand that statement, you have to ask "what does Google actually sell to advertisers?" An 'ad unit' or an 'ad word' is the name but what is it really? My claim is that what they really sell is a piece of very valuable information that is hard to get. They sell "this person has just looked for this good or service, now who wants to respond?" They create that information by providing a portal that people can write in a question.

This "solves" for advertisers their biggest ask, that a consumer looks at their advertisement exactly when they need the good or service that advertisement is promoting. You can put an ad for a sports car in a magazine about cars, you can put an ad for a sports car on a television show about cars, but that pales in comparison to the idea of putting your ad for a sports car in front of someone who has just asked "What's the best sports car?".

I think that it is pretty easy to see the value there to advertisers, they would rather spend money advertising to people looking for their products then advertising to everyone and hoping that some of them want their products. What is more is that it works well and that is why it has become a major force in advertising. It is also an interesting measure of the value too advertisers.

Advertisers will constantly evaluate what it costs to advertise against product sales or market penetration or market visibility. They have a limited budget to spend and they want to make it count. That sets up the traditional economic forces which demands they allocate their ad spend capital wisely to get the most impact. Google, unlike a television network or magazine, brought into wide use the notion of an auction that happens at the decision point, between potential advertisers on what they would pay to have their ad shown, and where it would be shown, in the search results for a given query. In an information economic sense this gives us the fundamental value of the information that Google sells.

The key being that all of the knobs that Google has at its disposal will eventually be turned to their maximum point, and if CPC keeps falling their profit margin will too. Because Microsoft's CPC number is going up their margins will continue to increase. At Google's current rates they will eventually be buying so much traffic and putting so many ad slots on their own sites that non-"free" services will appeal to more and more people which reduces the number of eye-balls on a Google ad which reduces its value to advertisers still further. If Google reaches the point where they are no longer able to adjust their traffic mix to achieve their numbers, they will be in a very tight spot.

[1] The "goods economy" is the system of directing capital into the production of goods. The "information economy" is the system of directing capital toward the disclosure of information.

Re: Google Makes So Much Money, It Never Had to Worry About Financial Discipline

#422
post #350

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What Punch said, basically its a maturing of the Internet Advertising market, the early enthusiasm for lots of metrics on engagement being dampened by a gradual understanding of click fraud. This is reflected in Google's financials as a falling 'cost per click' (what Google gets for an ad click). The other factor is that Google search has been slowly losing its quality edge on its competitors and so services like Mic…

Chuck, just want to say your detail and insightful comments are a tremendous asset to the community! I do have to disagree though: MSFT has office and windows as major cash cows, maybe azure will also start turning some big profit in 2017 as well (tbd). So they can afford those r&d style projects without nearly as much risk as "Alphabet". I do agree with your assessment of goog though: the heat is turning up and I do…

I agree, Google really needs their version of 'office' or to make their cloud offering competitive in order to survive long term. I see them trying to extract more and more revenue from Android as one of their strategies.

Re: Google Makes So Much Money, It Never Had to Worry About Financial Discipline

#423
post #291
post #76

I always wondered if Google just fired all their engineers except a few top guys, and focused on their core money making products like search / ads / etc. and tried to stay as lean as possible (lean being a relative term), how much profit they could make.

I concur. But then I tried to classify Google projects in 3 categories and find for "obviously useless things that only exist so engineers can have fun", and I didn't find so many obvious things: - Obviously productive ones: Gmail, Google Analytics, Android, Android TV, Maps, Youtube, OpenSocial, Chrome, because they all participate to "universally trackable users", - Skeptical projects: Fiber, Flights, Google Schola…

> - Skeptical projects: TensorFlow

I have to disagree. TF is Google's internal ML system, so the waste here is minimal, on top of that the luck they had in adoption means that lots of people they hire are already quite familiar with their internal systems and their internal system is now very common for deep learning research, and plenty of people are writing systems compatible with their internal tech.

Re: Google Makes So Much Money, It Never Had to Worry About Financial Discipline

#424
post #373

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm going to ignore the whataboutism you spew. Also, Elon musk has done amazing work with electric cars, sustainable energy and space travel. No doubt about that. But this is about Autopilot, a collection of driver assistance program. Not sure about OP, but my spite with Tesla is that they are pushing the above-mentioned driver assistance programs as self-driving features. This over-selling is going to kill people. A…

Please don't call names ('you spew') in arguments. If someone is wrong, explain so civilly. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html

How is "you spew" namecalling?

I was the one personally attacked in this thread, not the other way around. Just because my comment doesn't fit the Musk Worship narrative doesn't make me wrong.

Was someone not killed by a malfunctioning / underprepared Tesla? What am I missing here????

Re: Google Makes So Much Money, It Never Had to Worry About Financial Discipline

#425
post #383

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you cite where Android is a loss leader to drive traffic? Their Play store makes more than enough to fund Android development.

Plus in-app ads and the fact that ad-blocking basically doesn't exist on mobile. I'd guess that Android is what actually ensured the success of Google. Controlling the ecosystem is incredibly important, even if you don't directly make money from it.

> ad-blocking basically doesn't exist on mobile

What do you mean? https://adaway.org/

Re: Google Makes So Much Money, It Never Had to Worry About Financial Discipline

#426
post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As well as a diversity / community aspect. For every chef, barista, waitress, cleaner etc they hire, there is a chance to alter the hiring clique from (hyperbole) rich, snotty nosed, Ivy leaguers to include people with different backgrounds. I know that may seem like a small thing, but providing jobs for the less educated off sets at least some of the problems these companies face with gentrification, gender and raci…

Unfortunately, I think this has backfired. Instead, it has created a caste society. The service jobs are dominated by minorities (especially latinos), while the engineering jobs are dominated by whites, chinese, and indians. The difference between rich and poor has never been more stark.

Totally, and that's the problem with numbers like this - they are easy to manipulate without solving the underlying problem.

Re: Google Makes So Much Money, It Never Had to Worry About Financial Discipline

#427
post #406

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here is Google's net profit margin for past 4 years [1]: 2013: 22.9% 2014: 21.4% 2015: 21.7% 2016 (9 months): 22.0% It doesn't look like profit margins are under strong downward pressure. But a better metric would probably be 'revenue per search query' - I don't have any recent statistics, but if Bing can close that gap it will reduce Google's margins when bidding for search traffic from Apple and Firefox (and maybe…

It is so much more nuanced than that. That number is essentially manufactured for the street (and before anyone jumps down my throat about being some sort of conspiracy nut let me explain). Early in Google's life there was an article which asked the question "Is Google's gross margin 100%?" It went on to observe that Google had overhead, staff, facilities, and monthly recurring costs like electricity and phone bills,…

>The key being that all of the knobs that Google has at its disposal will eventually be turned to their maximum point

I wonder what this would exactly look like. As a side note, I wonder what would happen if for example an economic collapse happened and Google's ad revenue was significantly reduced.

Re: Google Makes So Much Money, It Never Had to Worry About Financial Discipline

#428
post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Over 40% of the titles on Steam have been added in the past year alone. The floodgates need to close, now. As someone who has voted on hundreds of Greenlight titles, Greenlight is an abject failure IMO. It's flooded with garbage, the first few waves of approvals gave us some great titles that otherwise would have never seen the platform, but now it's a nightmare. There are no more approval lists. What's worse, it's t…

> The floodgates need to close, now. Why? The internet itself is an open, uncurated platform. The basic ability to publish things and finding good content are two separate problems. Don't try to solve one by restricting the other.

Steam != The internet. No one is preventing people from marketing their crappy games on their own. I have to dig through a mountain of shit in hopes of _possibly_ finding something worth playing. It's bad for users.

Re: Google Makes So Much Money, It Never Had to Worry About Financial Discipline

#429

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why does it seem like every review I read is basically a joke by someone with 1500 hours in a game saying simply "it's pretty good" or conversely someone with 2 hours in a game that writes an entire novel about how let down they were when they barely scratched the surface? I will admit that at least having the verifiable length of time a reviewer played a game helps, but I don't find the reviews themselves to be all…

Why does there even need to be a full review when someone has spent 1500 hours of their life playing it? If it was worth 1500 hours of the reviewer's time then it's probably worth 10-50 of a potential buyer's. Inversely, I don't need to play a bad game for 1500 hours to decide that it's bad. I played 60 minutes of No Man's Sky and you'd have to pay me to play a single one more. Does that mean I should be discredited…

I realized I was starting to rant about NMS, so instead I want to try to be more constructive about the problem-space and avoid that game as a topic.

The return system and the achievement system should probably be integrated. Likely there should be some sort of achievement related to 'escaping the tutorial'. They might even call it "Almost bought the farm" or something.

Playing to that point should give a player a good idea what kind of game it is, and what sort of plot (if any) is happening in the game.

From /that/ point they should have maybe 30-60 min of 'game runtime' to return the game or not.

Functionally this would be an in-product demo.

Re: Google Makes So Much Money, It Never Had to Worry About Financial Discipline

#430

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is, a human driver wouldn't have had any trouble avoiding that accident -- the truck was visible for some distance. It's not just about the overall fatality rate per mile. Self-driving cars also need to not have any accidents that humans would have easily avoided. Until they demonstrate that, they're not going to be widely accepted.

> Self-driving cars also need to not have any accidents that humans would have easily avoided. Why? If they're overall much safer, then that seems like a net win to me—even if their failure modes are not identical to human ones.

I could be wrong, but I just don't think people are going to accept that. It's related to the illusion of control that driving provides: everyone thinks they're a safer-than-average driver. So even if self-driving cars are safe enough for everyone else, they're not safe enough for me.

There will, of course, be exceptions, as we've already seen (poor guy).

Post reply on HN