Being "well diversified" is subjective. But in freelance/contracting, the rule of thumb is to never have a customer account for more than 25% of your yearly income. You diversify your client base so when one walks away, it's never too big of a hit.
Ads make up 80% of their revenue. That's not diversified. That's an ad company that dabbles in other things. If Shell or BP's revenue was 80% oil and 20% solar, wouldn't you still call them oil companies that dabble in solar?
I'd like to see one for operating income, though, because I know AWS has a higher operating income than Amazon's Retail arm, even though Retail has a much higher revenue.
If it constitutes significantly less than 20% of their revenue, it's not a "hose that pours money out". So no, Google has not yet found a second hose, even if they've found other revenue streams.
That $36B doesn't come from a single source. Google Cloud is their single largest non-ad revenue stream, at $3.4B in Q3 (or 7.4% of total revenue). The rest of their non-advertising revenue ($5.5B, or 11.8% of total revenue) is lumped into the "other" category, which implies that they have a lot of smaller revenue streams that add up to a larger figure—not a single hose. So I guess you could maybe call Google Cloud a "hose" at ~$14B per year, but it certainly doesn't print money like their advertising business, and is a relatively small source of revenue for such a large company.
There's no posted evidence for the idea that Google only makes money on advertising, either. Can we have a discussion where we assume that everyone isn't an idiot who needs a link for every statement? Or do you seriously think advertising is the only way Google makes money? If so, sibling comment posted some nice links that one would do well to read.
They're publicly traded. Their revenue sources are open for the public to read. The other guy saying they're diversified linked to their quarterly to show 80% ad revenue. That's pretty much "they're an ad company".
A decade ago when the OP was an intern it was 100%! Non-ad revenue source have grown by infinity percent!
I made a very specific claim and I'm not sure what everyone's problem is. Google has found other sources of revenue and is actively trying to grow those sources. There are other hoses. I have never claimed it's not an ad company or that ads have somehow gone away. Because that would be dumb and factually wrong.
> They've mostly given up on the idea of a clever person finding a new money-hose. They just focus on the one they have now.
The financial numbers suggest they have not given up and have succeeded incrementally towards other sources since. How else do you correct the above statement?
Ads make up 80% of their revenue. That's not diversified. That's an ad company that dabbles in other things. If Shell or BP's revenue was 80% oil and 20% solar, wouldn't you still call them oil companies that dabble in solar?