According to the lads at Tech Radar, Google's just today announced some rather admirable increases in profits; they've managed to pull in £900m in the second quarter of this year alone. Apparently, total revenues for the company were over £3.3 billion. This calculates down to meaning that Google must make about £10 million a day from web advertising alone.Google's CEO, Eric Schmidt, said that, "Google had a very good quarter, especially given the continued macro-economic downturn. While most of the world's largest economies shrank, Google's year-over-year revenues were up. Furthermore, he commented on the future of the recently announced Chrome OS, saying, "Our focus is building a truly new experience. We do not require each project to be individually profitable. Although Chrome is open source, there will be many opportunities to build profitable services on top of that platform." When asked about YouTube, a spokesperson for Google said, "We're really pleased by trajectory of YouTube and not too long in the future we see a profitable future for it."
Over half of the revenue that Google pulled in during Q2 of this year came from outside the United States; the company seems to be in a pretty comfortable place right now, especially considering that the amount of paid clicks has gone down by two percent over the second quarter. This has caused Google's core revenue to decrease by one percent, but yet, they're still making a bucketload of cash.
There are plenty of industries that make huge profits?? Maybe you think Microsoft should become an investment bank like Goldmann Sachs as well.
There has to be other reasons for Microsoft to get into search. And it has to be a good investment for them, or they will end up wasting money. It is not like Xbox or Zune division has turned a profit yet.
I think you would be amazed how $150 cash back would not even come onto their radar. The numbers are quite staggering.
There has to be other reasons for Microsoft to get into search. And it has to be a good investment for them, or they will end up wasting money. It is not like Xbox or Zune division has turned a profit yet.
I'm fairly sure the Xbox has turned a profit, and a good one at that. It would be far more publicized if they were making a loss with the Xbox, in the same way Sony losses from PS3 are very well known of. I just can't imagine with the units they have sold, how much it costs them to make now and Xbox Live subs that they have not turned a rather large profit.
There has to be other reasons for Microsoft to get into search. And it has to be a good investment for them, or they will end up wasting money. It is not like Xbox or Zune division has turned a profit yet.
I'm fairly sure the Xbox has turned a profit, and a good one at that. It would be far more publicized if they were making a loss with the Xbox, in the same way Sony losses from PS3 are very well known of. I just can't imagine with the units they have sold, how much it costs them to make now and Xbox Live subs that they have not turned a rather large profit.
The XBox itself did not make any profit. It did lose lot of money.
The 360 might have made some profit at the beginning when it was selling for a high price and was the only next gen console on the market. But with all the money MS spent lately repairing RROD for free i doubt in the long run the 360 is going to pull any significant profit. I know people who get their 360 repaired 3 times at MS expense. I personally don't know any 360 owners of first year model who did not get his 360 repaired at least once. I get mine repaired once last year because of a RROD.
This article was published almost 2 years after XBox was launched.
http://seattle.bizjournals.com/seattle/sto.../02/story7.html
According to filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission, Microsoft's Home & Entertainment division, where Xbox resides, lost $190 million in the fiscal quarter ended March 31, nearly twice the $97 million lost during the same period in 2002.
BTW XBox lost was well known by all people who follow console market closely. Everyone on Gamespot forum while i was a moderator there did know that the XBox was losing toons of money.
And this was not a problem for MS at all. At the price MS was selling the XBox it never planned to make any profit with it. The goal was to take the market and make money after. MS was close to achive this goal with the 360 but with the RROD plague we'll have to wait and see. I owned an XBox and a 360 both at launch time but after seeing so much people send their 360 for repair and mine starting to have some problems with its DVD drive after a RROD last year i'm thinking about getting a PS3 if the DVD drive completely stop reading discs.
Last edited by LaP on 20 Jul 2009 - 15:01
DAMMM it's $14 Million!!! A day! awesomeee.
16.38100 million US$
Keep It Up! Google
Don't know why but still, I don't Bing, I tried it few times to stop using Google as to experience what Microsoft has come up, but I think it's just something difficult for my brain and heart to accept.
Just replace the intercom with pro-google talk.
Strange, I don't see them!
Ya... writing that sentence reminded me of how much I need to reinstall AdBlock...
Neither do I. Amazing what a few bucks to help support the site makes you miss.
I don't even remember what it cost to become a subscriber, but I will never let it expire. This place is a dream without the ads, and I still support the site.
+10 for the subscription service! :p
I don't even remember what it cost to become a subscriber, but I will never let it expire. This place is a dream without the ads, and I still support the site.
+10 for the subscription service! :p
Haha, absolutely. Thanks Neowin.
I'm still not sure why people give into the ads anyway. Even if I see a somewhat interesting ad (almost never), I search for it myself. But, since I don't like ads in the first place I just block most of google's ad servers with my router. For those ads that still get through, haha, well if I really have to know more, I'll Bing it.
What is the point of saying this? Do you think that it is all a scam, and nobody clicks on those links? Do you think your circle of friends is in anyway indicative of the real world?
Most of the ads I've clicked are for known magazines and other known products. Sometimes the only way to get these promotions is to follow an ad.
Last edited by Lechio on 18 Jul 2009 - 05:55
You obviously don't know any non-geeks. Most non-geeks I know can't tell the difference between an ad and actual content.
Personally i can say that Google adsense was good but now is regular if not bad.
And if you want to complain then.. you can't, Google is running several services automatically (i.e. support-less). To send a email is futile and you can't phone call.
They are not making cute puppies...
and
They are NOT a technology company...
So, when you see the marketing money they make off of yoru GMail being datamined tied to your searches and collecting as much data as they can about you to sell to other companies to make $$, do you really want them making an OS tracking everything you do?
The only 'technology' Google has ever produced are tools to help their marketing and lock in consumers. It is funny to watch the OSS world embrace Google like an Uncle, yet not realize he is going to moleste them.
Even Google Apps is not a free 'let us help the world' project. It uses the data that users store in their online GoogleDocs (of course anonimously *wink wink*) and then uses that information to help focus their ads and sell their 'insight' into YOU the consumer to other companies for ad revenue.
It is like this, the best marketing company is the one that knows the consumer the best, and Google knows more about you than your mother, even if they just keep you referenced as a GMail address or number in their tracking system. This means great success for them, but at what cost to the consumers?
It is like the old saying, the greatest feat the Devil ever did was make people stop believing in the Devil. Google did the same with their fabulous motto of 'Do No Evil" or maybe internally it is spelled 'Do KNOW Evil'...
I don't like people looking over my shoulder to see what type of printer I might buy, and I certainly don't like Google doing it either and noticing that the Google ads on every freaking page start having reviews of the printer I was looking at, deals, or even trying to sell me another brand by telling me the printer I was looking is crap compared to what they want to sell me. Imagine if they get mad at Epson and decide they are evil, you will find all your ads filled with HP and Canon printer ads and reviews and even links about how horrible Epson is.
This is the kind of market power they already have, and do use at times. Microsoft offering IE and Windows for cheap on PCs is NOTHING compared what Google already does.
If people think Microsoft got evil in the 90s, they haven't seen what happens when a company hold all the cards and information. If Google is ever 'hurt' by another company, they have the power to strip their search results, filter them (as they already do), and even shift markets.
So whether you like Bing or some other search engine, do yourself a favor and use them once in a while, just so Google doesn't know EVERYTHING about you.
If you have a company, discourage your employees from using Google, as you would be surprised how much they will know about your company and how much power they can have over your company. Again, if you promote or let employees do searches on Google, Google knows more about your company and your employees than you do, is that really what you want? How about if a competitor wants to pay good money for GOOD ads to Google? Think that information won't be used in helping form the anti-YOURCOMPANY search results and ads people start seeing?
Think about their 'profits' from selling information about you, do you really like that?
(There is a reason the US Government fought Google over access to their information, as it contains a lot of things even the NSA wasn't good at sifting through. And although it appeared Google won, they made deals to give over data to the US Government already.Sweet dreams...)
They are not making cute puppies...
and
They are NOT a technology company...
You can say the same about Microsoft. Despite what everybody here belives, Microsoft does not produce superior software, they are just better at Marketing it (windows vs OS/2), combining it for a complete experience (office vs everything else) and getting everybody to pay when they don't even want it.
What a load of drivel. If you remember, the US gov wanted info from Yahoo, Microsoft and Google, and Google were the only ones to object. Google took them to court and one, the other two just handed over whatever the gov asked for.
They are not making cute puppies...
and
They are NOT a technology company...
You can say the same about Microsoft. Despite what everybody here belives, Microsoft does not produce superior software, they are just better at Marketing it (windows vs OS/2), combining it for a complete experience (office vs everything else) and getting everybody to pay when they don't even want it.
What a load of drivel. If you remember, the US gov wanted info from Yahoo, Microsoft and Google, and Google were the only ones to object. Google took them to court and one, the other two just handed over whatever the gov asked for.
1) Microsoft is HORRIBLE at marketing.
To this day people think Windows is still based on DOS and have no idea that with XP Windows for the consumers was moved to a new OS architecture. Even IT professionals don't seem to realize simple crap like this.
If Microsoft was good at marketing you wouldn't see people calling for Microsoft to re-write Windows, as XP was a new OS paradigm already.
Even take a product like Vista that had features like 'Previous Versions', most people to this day have no idea it exists, and it does EVERYTHING OS X Time Machine does, and goes the extra mile with volume level file versioning in addition to backup listing of previous versions. It also is a smoother and more integrated concept, as it is a right click on any file or folder to view it as it existed at any previous point in time.
Did you hear Microsoft sell this to people? Hell the Marketing department of Microsoft doesn't even realize half the features of Windows, let alone have a clue how to market them.
In contrast, there is hardly a person on the planet that doesn't know OS X is based on a new architecture and Apple abandoned the System 9 and back architecture. (Even though with the move to XP Microsoft did the SAME THING, only seamlessly without needing a System 9 VM like OS X did. Maybe if Win9x application HAD to run in VM people would have noticed. Microsoft's marketing sure as heck hasn't told people.)
Also find me a Mac user that doesn't know Time Machine exists in Leopard, then contrast with finding me 1 out of 100 Windows users that have a clue that Vista has the same feature.
Apple does the 300 feature list, and goes down to Menus added and Dialog Box changes, yet Microsoft's idiodic marketing trys to sell Flip 3D, and doesn't even mention the Vector Composer technology that makes it possible.
Microsoft should have done their own 'new feature' list for Vista - just like Apple did, except it is estimated if they went into detail like Apple did, the list would be over 10,000 changes from XP to Vista. YET Most of the world thinks Vista isn't much different or better than XP.
Is that what you call good marketing? Really?
**OS/2 failed because it was slower than Win 3.1 and less featured than NT. For average users, Win 3.1 was good enough and ran faster and people that wanted a real OS went with NT. Tech people rejected OS/2 for many reasons like it being a hybrid 32bit/16bit OS - as it shipped with 16bit drivers in even Warp 4.0.
It also had a had a single input messeging queue. Technical people that had any sense knew why this was flawed and ran from it. And this are many other technical differences from Security and ACLs to NTFS contrasted with HPFS. OS/2 was only good at running DOS - very good even - but DOS was dead.
If you think OS/2 was superior to NT, you don't have a clue about OS/2.
PS You do realize that Microsoft wrote Object Desktop and most of even OS/2 2.x right? IBM finished the project, but Object Desktop and the 32bit architecture of OS/2 2.x was Microsoft's work that IBM finished off. So next time you are admiring the coolness of Object Desktop and dragging colors to change a folder background, thank the MS UI team that designed it.**
2) Google did hand over information... Not as much as was requested, but they did. PERIOD.
Breakup
The collaboration between IBM and Microsoft unraveled in 1990, between the releases of Windows 3.0 and OS/2 1.3. Initially, at least publicly, Microsoft continued to insist the future belonged to OS/2. Steve Ballmer of Microsoft even took to calling OS/2 "Windows Plus".[9] However, during this time, Windows 3.0 became a tremendous success, selling millions of copies in its first year.[10] Much of its success was because Windows 3.0 (along with MS-DOS) was bundled with most new computers.[11] OS/2, on the other hand, was only available as an expensive stand-alone software package.
Little quote from Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OS/2
They are profitable... They just don't show up in a direct link to the bottom line.
GMail - Google STILL data mines all incoming and outgoing email. So if you send your Aunt Sarah an email saying that you are going to paint your house, you will start to see Google Ads on pages about house paint.
Google Apps - Write a document that you save in their cloud about your car club and that you like Mustangs, you will start to see Mustang and Auto Part ads on pages.
This is how they 'get to know you' and what makes their advertising successful in that they can get click throughs where other companies with generic 'page' contextual ads cannot.
Although I have never worked for Google, I have worked with them and information is the key to ruling the world, at least the advertising world at the moment, and so all this informaiton they gather about and the more they can get from you the better they can focus their advertising and more money it makes them.
If you look at EVERY Google project, they all have a side angle of gathering information about the people using it. Even use GoogleMaps to check out Paris, and you will start to see Ads with cheap deals to Paris from where you live.
For the most part this type of data collection is supposed to be anonymous and not harmful, but there are times, Google gets POed at someone and the searches and the Ads change to reflect this. So if United angers them, you will find deals from only other airlines and even find an alarming filter up of search links about how horrible United is or even Ads talking crap about United. (I am using United here, but have no idea if they have ever been treated this way by Google; however, I can name a few companies that have. Take Microsoft for example, you won't find the 'positive' reviews of Microsoft or Vista come up on Google very often, yet other engines seem to have a lot of articles from 2007 about Vista outperforming XP and why users should upgrade to Vista. Strange that Google's engine doesn't pick up very many of these uh?)
Sir, I just checked Google, Yahoo, and The Search Engine Formerly Known As Live using the term "Vista review". All three search engines' top results were 99% identical. They all led to CNet and PCMag. Furthermore, going deeper into the results, The Search Engine Formerly Known As Live had more links to CNet, while Google had a wider range of links. Google's results were BETTER, and I don't see any evidence of censorship or gaming.
You are correct about Google harvesting user data. But this is no different from what MS does with Live + Windows.
Yeah, but Google's method is more pervasive as far as I can tell. I see ads, but I don't want them to build a profile block about me based on my data.
Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!
Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.