Nexus 7 advert appears on Google's homepage

Google has used the front page of its Google.com website to celebrate some cool birthdays and anniversaries by turning its normal logo into interactive experiences. One of the more recent Google "doodles" was a working virtual Turning machine.

Today, Google has turned the front page into something a bit more commercial; while the logo remains the same, the page now displays an image where the top of the recently released Nexus 7 tablet pops up from "under" the Google.com search bar.

This isn't the first time that Google.com has been turned into a very large (and high traffic) ad banner. The page also featured an ad for the original Droid smartphone from Motorola (now a part of Google) back in 2009. It did the same with the launch of its own Nexus One smartphone in early 2010.

Google might be using its main page today to push the fact that the Nexus 7 is now available in more countries. The Google Play store has now opened up for residents of Germany, France, and Spain to purchase the 8 GB version of the tablet for 199 euros and the 16 GB version for 249 euros.

Source: Google.com | Image via Google

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Office 2013 Click-to-Run install plans detailed

Next Story

Natural Selection 2 adding Exosuit to game

28 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

I'd be almost interested in pointing this out to my Mom for her but its doesn't appear to be in a 32GB version which is rather weak since I think that extra space is important.

Google should not do that since their market share of the search engine is very close of a monopoly.

I did not care too much about Chrome advertising cause well one of their main competitor in this field used a monopoly for ages to push their own browser.

But in this case this is not okay at all for other competitors like Samsung and such.

LaP said,
Google should not do that since their market share of the search engine is very close of a monopoly.

I did not care too much about Chrome advertising cause well one of their main competitor in this field used a monopoly for ages to push their own browser.

But in this case this is not okay at all for other competitors like Samsung and such.

then, Microsoft should have shown WP7 ads in Microsoft.com when Windows/office are popular product and are monopoly.

then, Apple shouldn't have displayed Iphone ads in Apple.com when mac was popular device at iphone release in 2007.

so where do you think they should advertise?? or are saying they shouldn't advertise their flagship tablet at all?? sorry, the Internet revolves around advertising their products.

LaP said,
Google should not do that since their market share of the search engine is very close of a monopoly.

I did not care too much about Chrome advertising cause well one of their main competitor in this field used a monopoly for ages to push their own browser.

But in this case this is not okay at all for other competitors like Samsung and such.

It's their website, if they want to advertise another one of their products why shouldn't they?

They have a monopoly because they earned it by being the best search engine.

Samsung should have no right to even think that they should be able to advertise their products there.

LaP said,
Google should not do that since their market share of the search engine is very close of a monopoly.

Not sure what your point is. Are they forcing you to buy it? Pushing their products might irritate some for sure though.

There's this tiny little peep in the back of my mind somewhere concerned about the ethics of advertising their products here, but I can easily see two sides to the issue:

1) Are a majority of Google searches these days done from search bars? How many people are still actually going to google.com, unless it's their browser home page?

vs.

2) If Google has a monopoly on search (totally okay, because monopolies are legal), and is leveraging that monopoly influence to pursue dominance in another market, they could get hit extremely hard by the Sherman Act (monopolies won by using other monopolies as leverage are NOT legal). The only free pass is if they can prove all of their decisions were made solely for the benefit of consumers--which is tough for Google, where the users tend to be, you know, the product.

Joshie said,
There's this tiny little peep in the back of my mind somewhere concerned about the ethics of advertising their products here, but I can easily see two sides to the issue:

1) Are a majority of Google searches these days done from search bars? How many people are still actually going to google.com, unless it's their browser home page?

vs.

2) If Google has a monopoly on search (totally okay, because monopolies are legal), and is leveraging that monopoly influence to pursue dominance in another market, they could get hit extremely hard by the Sherman Act (monopolies won by using other monopolies as leverage are NOT legal). The only free pass is if they can prove all of their decisions were made solely for the benefit of consumers--which is tough for Google, where the users tend to be, you know, the product.

1) doesn't matter if they search on search bar or not but people who go to Google.com get to know about Nexus 7.
Google.com search is still popular than the mobile bar search.

2) Its their website and its their flagship product.. so i don't see why they shouldn't. if you go to Microsoft.com you would see Windows 8, WP7 and IE ads.. Google.com is the only domain they use for all services.
The top banner you see are in fact like ads to the other services they provide like Gmail calendar. Is that wrong? No.
"and is leveraging that monopoly influence to pursue dominance in another market" with Android they are trying to make people use search more. Other people ads shown in Google.com is ethical but showing their own ad is not ethical???

If Google have shown ads in Google.com right when they started Google it wouldn't be a problem for people now showing ads but when they shows it rarely it becomes ethical.

every website promote their own products. its what everyone do.
the only reason this made it to news is because the last time they did was 2009 and all other website do it everyday.

still1 said,

1) doesn't matter if they search on search bar or not but people who go to Google.com get to know about Nexus 7.
Google.com search is still popular than the mobile bar search.

2) Its their website and its their flagship product.. so i don't see why they shouldn't. if you go to Microsoft.com you would see Windows 8, WP7 and IE ads.. Google.com is the only domain they use for all services.
The top banner you see are in fact like ads to the other services they provide like Gmail calendar. Is that wrong? No.
"and is leveraging that monopoly influence to pursue dominance in another market" with Android they are trying to make people use search more. Other people ads shown in Google.com is ethical but showing their own ad is not ethical???

If Google have shown ads in Google.com right when they started Google it wouldn't be a problem for people now showing ads but when they shows it rarely it becomes ethical.

every website promote their own products. its what everyone do.
the only reason this made it to news is because the last time they did was 2009 and all other website do it everyday.


Who are you arguing with? Are you arguing against the Sherman Act itself? Because I was just communicating the law. I even said that having a monopoly is perfectly legal. I pointed out the fact (yes, fact) that using one monopoly as leverage to achieve a monopoly in a different market is ILLEGAL.

If you're somehow suggesting that 'google.com' is not a product, I don't think you understand what Google is. If you're suggesting that the product 'google.com' does not have a monopoly on search, I don't think you understand what a monopoly is. If you're suggesting that the Nexus 7 product is not a separate market from the 'google.com' product, I don't think you understand what business Google is in.

Joshie said,

Who are you arguing with? Are you arguing against the Sherman Act itself? Because I was just communicating the law. I even said that having a monopoly is perfectly legal. I pointed out the fact (yes, fact) that using one monopoly as leverage to achieve a monopoly in a different market is ILLEGAL.

If you're somehow suggesting that 'google.com' is not a product, I don't think you understand what Google is.


I am not arguing with you but answering where you had '?' in your post.

and i was suggesting google.com search is a product. i was not saying otherwise.

Joshie said,
There's this tiny little peep in the back of my mind somewhere concerned about the ethics of advertising their products here, but I can easily see two sides to the issue:

1) Are a majority of Google searches these days done from search bars? How many people are still actually going to google.com, unless it's their browser home page?

vs.

2) If Google has a monopoly on search (totally okay, because monopolies are legal), and is leveraging that monopoly influence to pursue dominance in another market, they could get hit extremely hard by the Sherman Act (monopolies won by using other monopolies as leverage are NOT legal). The only free pass is if they can prove all of their decisions were made solely for the benefit of consumers--which is tough for Google, where the users tend to be, you know, the product.

they did it with chrome (on both google.com AND youtube) and nobody bats an eyelash. And I guess they would have to take it a step further for it to be considered unlawful. i.e., if they REQUIRED people to use chrome to use google services or youtube, that would be wrong. if they automatically installed chrome without the people knowing just because they're browsing google, that would be wrong.

it's just an ad, of one of their products, on their homepage. and it's not an entirely different market. the whole 'ecosystems' thing are more entangled than ever.

Still waiting for mine to be shipped even though I ordered it on Friday!! Seeing all of these Nexus 7 ads isn't helping things!!

I agree warwagon. Got one for my wife and one for myself, they get hours of use every day. Best bang for the buck I've seen in a while.

riot said,
I agree warwagon. Got one for my wife and one for myself, they get hours of use every day. Best bang for the buck I've seen in a while.

This is where many companies fail at. The quality of their marketing campaigns. Go to apple.com and you'll be presented by a beautiful ipad/iphone/macbook that you'll want to buy. Go to apple surface's website... ugly, boring, if your monitor is too wide the image looks awful and you need to install Silverlight to see the video. Google's ad animation is cheap and blurry and takes you directly to the store. But that's my opinion anyway

You are right. though, even if it's "just your opinion". There's something to be said about Apple's marketing technique that others just don't have.

O5M3L said,
This is where many companies fail at. The quality of their marketing campaigns. Go to apple.com and you'll be presented by a beautiful ipad/iphone/macbook that you'll want to buy. Go to apple surface's website... ugly, boring, if your monitor is too wide the image looks awful and you need to install Silverlight to see the video. Google's ad animation is cheap and blurry and takes you directly to the store. But that's my opinion anyway

my first thought was: why does clicking on this ad take me to the play store? it would better if I was taken to the nexus website (google.com/nexus) and shown the features right away. its much more polished and the store is just a typical spec sheet with a purchase button.

drazgoosh said,
Is this only for the USA? I'm not seeing it here in the UK.

seems like it from comments above. It would make sense to display it in UK,France,Germany and Spain since Nexus 7 is available at these countries.