they had soemthing that attracted a lot of eyeballs, but nobody wanted to pay for.
using ads as a substitue for micro-transaction was a brilliant idea, made google possible.
and ever since then, no other venture/product coming out of google has reached even a fraction of that revenue. you could argue that the alphabet split is not honest enough. core google should have been the ad engine, that's it. the one real, tough business they're operating. the rest seems like a PhD playground with not a lot of accountability.
whoever at google really had the idea for ads is the true genius behind their success.
>> and ever since then, no other venture/product coming out of google has reached even a fraction of that revenue.
That's not true. They started with search ads, expanded successfully to various types of display ads, and now their video business(youtube) and the android app store making 15% of Google's revenues.
>> the rest seems like a PhD playground with not a lot of accountability
Maybe public(i.e wall street) accountability isn't the correct model for long term r&d.But technology wise, they do seem to get lots of work done, often in areas with few/no strong competitors, on problems that will be worth lots of and with time that could mean lots of revenue.And i don't know of a better way to judge the commercial value of long term r&d.
The flaw/problem with splitting the "ad engine" is that it won't survive on its own.
By ad engine, I'll assume you mean AdWords and Adsense combined. I'll call them Google Ads.
Businesses that rely on ads to survive (Maps, Docs, Android), and those that generate ad income (Search, YouTube) would be bogged down by admin and legal issues if they were unbundled.
Imagine Google Ads having to pay YouTube X per month for ads. Does YT get the same rate as everyone? What if some external advertiser comes in and offers YT lower rates? What stops YT from taking that offer? ABC can force transfer pricing between the two, but it's easier to make it notional instead of money flowing through separate companies.
Similar, Google makes money from Android through Play Store. Where does Play store live? In Android Inc? What about books, magazines, music? If Android gets ownership of them, why should they bother making apps for web and other platforms?
In a business where you have a lot of inter-dependencies between units, it's often better to keep those units together.
using ads as a substitue for micro-transaction was a brilliant idea, made google possible.
and ever since then, no other venture/product coming out of google has reached even a fraction of that revenue. you could argue that the alphabet split is not honest enough. core google should have been the ad engine, that's it. the one real, tough business they're operating. the rest seems like a PhD playground with not a lot of accountability.
whoever at google really had the idea for ads is the true genius behind their success.