The "serious" endeavors, like glasses and self-driving cars are not their core business. Not even search or email are. Their core business is advertising, and social media is what advertisers want today.
Google is largely associated with innovation and they make everything to keep this image, but at the bottom their business is actually pretty boring: finding ways to show you an ad.
Just because Google doesn't make its money on innovation directly doesn't mean the two can't be associated. Innovation rarely is a direct source of income, Google's ads would be worthless without all the innovation that comes out of Google, these innovations are search, maps, android etc.
I would say that indexing and making usable information in different contexts is their core competency (Search, Email, Maps, Desktop, Android, etc.) Advertising is a "tack on" to bring in the money, it's not where they are developing new value to the end user. Ad relevancy is really just a natural extension of their Search algorithm. If you're a business person you might say Ads is all Google is, but they still need to develop compelling products (core competency) to bring in views.
Advertising is your core business when almost 100% of your revenue comes from that. I wouldn't call what turned it from a dorm room project into a behemoth a "tack on", that's dismissing Eric Schmidt's contribution. What you do to achieve this goal doesn't matter as much. Amazon core business is e-commerce but they rent servers and sell portable devices.
Ad relevancy is really just a natural extension of their Search algorithm.
You can argue that advertising is a natural extension of everything they put their hands on, from search to social networks to maps to glasses with HUDs. Everything they develop lately has advertising potential, and are shutting down everything that doesn't.
AdWords predates Eric Schmidt joining the Google board, let alone becoming CEO.
The rest of your argument is just silly reductionist wankery. Whatever the "core" of their business really is, they do have people working on those things. If you're going to make an incentives argument, make it; arguing where to put the "core" label provides as little insight as repeating "you're the product" ad nauseam.
The GP is exactly right. Yes, you do have incentives to maximize for advertising revenue. But if you want to maximize revenue over any length of time beyond the next quarter, you neglect things like having a product that's actually useful, usability, intrusiveness of ads, trust in your ability to keep information private from advertisers and the NSA, etc etc at your extreme peril. You can have all the advertisers in the world and it does you no good if everyone stops showing up to look at their ads.
I wasn't attributing AdWords to Eric though, but the company growth. If I'm not mistaken, he was responsible for the company growth 2001 onwards, and focused on the cash cow.
Also, I was just pointing out the dichotomy between the core competency and core business (what you do well vs. your source of revenue).
Who are _advertisers_? I don't see the advertisers spending millions of dollars (coca-cola, car brands, medicals) on social networks. I do see them on TV, magazines, and search.
Never mistake a means for an end. Today, just like yesterday and tomorrow, advertisers want to make money and/or get publicity. What changes is how they can get there (or, many a time, how they _think_ they can get there). Today, that's through advertising on social media.
Comments
The "serious" endeavors, like glasses and self-driving cars are not their core business. Not even search or email are. Their core business is advertising, and social media is what advertisers want today.
Google is largely associated with innovation and they make everything to keep this image, but at the bottom their business is actually pretty boring: finding ways to show you an ad.
Just because Google doesn't make its money on innovation directly doesn't mean the two can't be associated. Innovation rarely is a direct source of income, Google's ads would be worthless without all the innovation that comes out of Google, these innovations are search, maps, android etc.
I would say that indexing and making usable information in different contexts is their core competency (Search, Email, Maps, Desktop, Android, etc.) Advertising is a "tack on" to bring in the money, it's not where they are developing new value to the end user. Ad relevancy is really just a natural extension of their Search algorithm. If you're a business person you might say Ads is all Google is, but they still need to develop compelling products (core competency) to bring in views.
Advertising is your core business when almost 100% of your revenue comes from that. I wouldn't call what turned it from a dorm room project into a behemoth a "tack on", that's dismissing Eric Schmidt's contribution. What you do to achieve this goal doesn't matter as much. Amazon core business is e-commerce but they rent servers and sell portable devices.
You can argue that advertising is a natural extension of everything they put their hands on, from search to social networks to maps to glasses with HUDs. Everything they develop lately has advertising potential, and are shutting down everything that doesn't.
AdWords predates Eric Schmidt joining the Google board, let alone becoming CEO.
The rest of your argument is just silly reductionist wankery. Whatever the "core" of their business really is, they do have people working on those things. If you're going to make an incentives argument, make it; arguing where to put the "core" label provides as little insight as repeating "you're the product" ad nauseam.
The GP is exactly right. Yes, you do have incentives to maximize for advertising revenue. But if you want to maximize revenue over any length of time beyond the next quarter, you neglect things like having a product that's actually useful, usability, intrusiveness of ads, trust in your ability to keep information private from advertisers and the NSA, etc etc at your extreme peril. You can have all the advertisers in the world and it does you no good if everyone stops showing up to look at their ads.
I wasn't attributing AdWords to Eric though, but the company growth. If I'm not mistaken, he was responsible for the company growth 2001 onwards, and focused on the cash cow.
Also, I was just pointing out the dichotomy between the core competency and core business (what you do well vs. your source of revenue).
Is it? I don't see any quality advertisement on Facebook or Twitter.
It doesn't matter. It's what advertisers want, and those are the ones paying the network.
Who are _advertisers_? I don't see the advertisers spending millions of dollars (coca-cola, car brands, medicals) on social networks. I do see them on TV, magazines, and search.
"social media is what advertisers want today."
Never mistake a means for an end. Today, just like yesterday and tomorrow, advertisers want to make money and/or get publicity. What changes is how they can get there (or, many a time, how they _think_ they can get there). Today, that's through advertising on social media.
i upvote you cause this was actually very funny!