[Jtsummers]

> If anything, 'this business' showed us what you need to do is grow to a level where you can throw not 10, but 100 rocks against the wall, and once one of them hits, get another 4 dozens and hurl them at the same spot immediately.

Isn't this pretty much what Google does? Outside their core areas of search and advertisement, they try numerous projects until something gains friction. When something does, they work on variations on the theme (to their detriment perhaps, see their numerous chat offerings now). If it doesn't, or it isn't profitable, they scrap it.

[theandrewbailey]

> When something does, they work on variations on the theme (to their detriment perhaps, see their numerous chat offerings now). If it doesn't, or it isn't profitable, they scrap it.

Even if it does gain traction, they'll do it for a little while, then kill it anyway. And make another messaging platform/app.

[bryanlarsen]

The interesting question: is that what Apple does too? Where "hitting" is defined as "Tim Cook thinks it would be good enough for Steve Jobs".

[microtonal]

Your sibling comment mentions that Google depends for 90% on search (and webpage) advertisement. For Apple, the iPhone was 65% of their revenue in the last quarter, but the remaining 35% is divided among other products (with some dependency of 'services' on iPhone).

It's still not healthy, but their bets are spread quite a bit better than Google's.

(I think there is quite a bit of monetization potential for Google in Google Apps and Chromebooks. They could move to a position/market that Microsoft was in. But it takes time to grow that business.)

[bryanlarsen]

My question is more about the process. Everybody knows that Apple does a lot of internal R&D that never sees the light of day. For example, the heavily rumoured Apple TV.

My question is: do they do a small number of internal R&D projects, or do they do a large number that gets continuously filtered?

[exelius]

Apple approaches R&D a bit differently than Google does. Apple sees R&D as primarily a means to achieve operational efficiency and/or supplier independence. Product development is driven by customer needs and is tightly controlled at the executive level.

Apple likely has a half-dozen products sketched out that they can't release until some technology / market hurdle is overcome. So they focus their R&D on the technology hurdles, and their lobbying/PR efforts on the market ones.

[ZanyProgrammer]

Doesn't Android bring in $$ for Google?

[T-A]

Primarily indirectly, by keeping users on its advertising network. Its 30% cut of Play Store sales has been estimated to be worth ~$10 billion/year [1].

[1] http://www.androidauthority.com/how-does-google-make-money-f...

[douche]

They missed the boat on office in the cloud... Despite nearly a decade of lead, they've essentially lost the GoogleDocs vs Office 365 battle. Google Docs hasn't really moved the needle in almost ten years, while Microsoft's offering is almost as good as the desktop version.

[wmeredith]

What fascinates me about Google is literally nothing else has stuck to the wall and they've thrown a LOT of rocks. Selling ads against search, the initial hit, still accounts for over 90% of their revenue.

[bryanlarsen]

Google doesn't break out their ad revenue numbers. Current estimates are that Youtube & Google Play ads contribute >15% of their ad revenue. I would argue that "ads against search" and "ads on Youtube" are two different businesses even if they do seem similar. Google is not a one trick pony: they have 5 billion dollar businesses: ads against search; ads against their web properties like Gmail, network ads (DoubleClick), ads on YouTube, Android.

[jerf]

Yes and no; if general faith in Internet advertising tumbles those businesses will all be affected.

And I do mean "yes and no". There are ways in which they are different, but there's also significant ways in which the performance is significantly correlated in a way that would concern me as a CEO.

[samfisher83]

http://www.wsj.com/articles/viewers-dont-add-up-to-profit-fo...

You tube does not make much money according this article. If youtube was making money wouldn't google make a not of it in their 10k or 10q instead of not breaking it out.

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1652044/000165204416...

[gaius]

Google didn't want Youtube. They just wanted no one else to have it.

[lgieron]

Some of the projects which don't directly generate revenue are still useful - they gather data on users and/or pose as extra ad space.

[Jtsummers]

This is a good point. They're driven by advertising revenue (primary revenue) and collecting market data (to better target advertising, making them a good option for buyers of advertising). Social networks, chat, flight data, search, video watching (youtube), aggregated shopping data, all allow them to deliver advertising or collect data on users.

Looking at the services that have been killed over the years or stagnated, they don't allow enough data collection or ad delivery to justify spending money by Google. Either because they simply weren't well geared towards it, or because they didn't get enough uptake in the market.

[geodel]

Yea, but that itself is a very big deal. Along the way they made, browser, mobile OS, programing language, all highly successful. Their cutting edge ad platform which Yahoo despite being much longer in business and multiple tries could not beat.