[jon-wood]

> Google is successful in a few areas ..., but they've proven incapable of pushing into other major areas (streaming services...

Are we talking about the same Google here? The one that owns YouTube, which created an entire culture around video streaming online?

[codazoda]

The comment is talking about paid monthly services as YouTube Red vs Netflix. Sure Google has the worlds most popular (mostly free) video site, monetized by advertising, but it can't seem to beat Netflix at paid subscriptions. It hasn't been able to beat Facebook at social networking either. Keep in mind that YouTube was a purchase for Google, as was Instagram for Facebook. Both probably very important for them long term.

[omg_ketchup]

I'm loving Google Play Music, although the branding really sucks.

[hobarrera]

Sure, they have clients, but it's far from being a huge hit (contrary to, for example, Spotify).

The amount of people using it are extremely small, which is doubly bad when you consider it's almost-out-of-the-box on Android phones, which are so popular.

[munificent]

Don't you mean "Google Play Music All Access / YouTube Red bundle"?

[autokad]

> Are we talking about the same Google here? The one that owns YouTube, which created an entire culture around video streaming online?

they purchased youtube because their own video services was terrible

[Meegul]

YouTube was also _significantly_ smaller when Google purchased it. Perhaps they weren't able to create a properly competing platform, but they've certainly been wildly successful in growing it.

[autokad]

i think they were successful in making it profitable, but whether they were good at growing it is debatable. the founders of youtube complained that they couldnt get the proper talent because google would veto all their hires and force them to take google insiders.

during that time, youtube mostly stagnated in many ways. it failed to develop online streaming and developing original content in the way netflix did even though youtube had access to larger infrastructure and investment from google. even competitors like vine showed some success and innovation, where as youtube is mostly the same thing it was when purchased. they have a lot of users/views, but i do not see any of that attributed to google.

[polishTar]

Yea, this is nonsense. YouTube was founded in 2005 and acquired by Google in 2006. It was bought because the brand was better than "Google Video" at the time and that's pretty much it. Just about everything else about its success and state today is completely attributable to Google.

> even competitors like vine showed some success and innovation

what? Vine was shutdown precisely because it wasn't successful...

[petra]

Google excels at solving hard technical problems(scaling (youtube, building Android, Great cloud tech ). That's not the kind of challenge with most web businesses.

[Nerdfest]

The writers seem to be solid Apple fans and exaggerate their influence. With billions in free marketing from every media site on the planet, Apple would be pretty much irrelevant already.

[freyir]

> With billions in free marketing from every media site on the planet, Apple would be pretty much irrelevant already

So you think the media collectively conspired to prop up Apple, and their subpar, irrelevant products that nobody actually likes? Well, that's creative.

[idlewords]

Apple is the most valuable company in the world.

[Nerdfest]

... and you don't think all the free marketing is a large part of that? It's a little quieter lately, but they have a huge fan-base in the media world due to them using Apple kit for both audio and video editing for years. How many other phone manufacturers get multiple articles in the news when a new model is released?

[microtonal]

... and you don't think all the free marketing is a large part of that?

Ummm, no. It is people who are willing to pay more for the extra service, strong integration, and a business model that does not build on pushing advertising.

I pay the premium for a MacBook every 1 1/2 year or so, because if there is a problem, I can go to the Apple store and they'll typically have it fixed in two hours, no questions asked. I had a two-year leave to Android, but after the excruciating experience having to deal with Motorola twice, I'd rather pay a bit more.

Besides that, Apple hardware and software is typically extremely well integrated. E.g. I have a HiDPI screen, on the Mac it works without a problem. On e.g. Linux I had to hand-patch Mutter to get proper scaling and even then a lot of applications used the wrong scaling or UI elements are blown up and blurry.

Finally, let's also not forget that Apple is typically a company that pushes new technology first in an integrated fashion. E.g. a fingerprint reader that is not a toy and works across apps, 120Hz refresh rate on the iPad Pro, force touch.

tl;dr: people drop money on Apple because their product generally work great and they provide excellent service.

[zzalpha]

So, I built a Hackintosh recently, and in researching software recommendations, one thing stood out: even die-hard Apple fans had to admit that PCs were catching up (or, maybe more honestly, in a lot of ways Apple is losing momentum).

Windows 10 has come a long way from its roots. Windows laptops are getting remarkably good (the latest line of Dell and HP laptops are excellent, and Lenovo always stands out). And the smartphone gap has been rapidly closing for years, both the hardware and software. I think you can lay this at the feet of Apple elevating customer expectations.

Meanwhile, Apple hardware refreshes have been lackluster at best, particularly in the pro category. The OS doesn't feel like it has the edge it once had. And top notch software exclusives are increasingly rare as software goes cross platform or moves to the web.

Now, by all accounts Apple's support is still some of the best in the business. And the overall platform integration across devices is excellent. So a lot of the benefits you cite are still present.

But you have to wonder how long that'll last...

[hockley]

Marketing is a fool me once scenario. Quality products earn repeat purchases. You don't become the world's most valuable company with one-and-done sales.

[zzalpha]

That's not strictly true. Network effects due to tied services can result in barriers to switching. For example, if you're tightly tied to iCloud, migrating to Google Drive might be seen as an enormous PITA.

IMO, this is the principle reason all of these guys are building easy-to-use, tied services offerings... because the OS is becoming increasingly irrelevant as things move to the web or apps go cross-platform.

[idlewords]

I don't think free advertising gets you to 780B market cap. I think you're mistaking cause for effect.

[fhood]

Samsung and Google for one. I always see multiple articles on the newest Galaxy S whatever and the Pixel got a ton of coverage when it was released.