Two big reasons why Google (Alphabet Inc.) might not survive the decade

“In 2014, Google’s ad revenue amounted to almost $59.06 billion, with advertising accounting for 89.5% of the Internet company’s total revenues. Not too shabby. But things change quickly in the world of technology, especially when it comes to seemingly invincible companies getting disrupted by competitors,” Vincent Bradley writes for TheStreet. “Even though it’s boasting big numbers and is one of the most admired companies in the world, Google has two huge problems — and they both begin with the letter ‘A’: Amazon and Apple.”

“Speaking from my own personal experience, when making a purchase, it’s much more efficient go directly to Amazon versus conducting an initial Google search for the product,” Bradley writes. “If mobile is the future, then Apple might own the future of search. The company has made great strides so that in just one step its smart phone users can find answers to almost any question. To find a place to eat or check the score of a game, opening Google in a mobile browser is a time-consuming process of the past for iPhone users. Now one can instead quickly ask Siri, which Apple has much improved since initial launch. Users’ second option is Apple’s new and improved home screen search, which includes local restaurants, where to shop, and even a review of the day’s most important news. It’s just one or two fewer taps, but that can make all the difference.”

Bradley writes, “Google is now a big fat company (too big, even, for its original name, as it now has a new corporate structure and goes by Alphabet) and if anything happens to that primary search stream, which accounts for nearly 90% of all revenue, then all that fat may start to pull it towards its death.”

Read more in the full article here.

MacDailyNews Take: Wishful thinking, but Google certainly blew it on the demographic front. The vast majority of people with money and the proven will to spend it use Apple products. As Apple moves their users away from Google, Google is left with the bottom of the barrel. As we explained years ago:

Android is pushed to users who are, in general:

a) confused about why they should be choosing an iPhone over an inferior knockoff and therefore might be less prone to understand/explore their devices’ capabilities or trust their devices with credit card info for shopping; and/or
b) enticed with “Buy One Get One Free,” “Buy One, Get Two or More Free,” or similar offers.

Neither type of customer is the cream of the crop when it comes to successful engagement or coveted demographics; closer to the bottom of the barrel than the top, in fact. Android can be widespread and still demographically inferior precisely because of the way in which and to whom Android devices are marketed. Unending BOGO promos attract a seemingly unending stream of cheapskates just as inane, pointless TV commercials about robots or blasting holes in concrete walls attract meatheads and dullards, not exactly the best demographics unless you’re peddling muscle-building powders or grease monkey overalls.

Google made a crucial mistake: They gave away Android to “partners” who pushed and continue to push the product into the hands of the exact opposite type of user that Google needs for Android to truly thrive. Hence, Android is a backwater of second-rate, or worse, app versions that are only downloaded when free or ad-supported – but the Android user is notoriously cheap, so the ads don’t sell for much because they don’t work very well. You’d have guessed that Google would have understood this, but you’d have guessed wrong.

Google built a platform that depends heavily on advertising support, but sold it to the very type of customer who’s the least likely to patronize ads.

iOS users are the ones who buy apps, so developers focus on iOS users. iOS users buy products, so accessory makers focus on iOS users. iOS users have money and the proven will to spend it, so vehicle makers focus on iOS users. Etcetera. Android can have the “Hee Haw” demographic. Apple doesn’t want it or need it; it’s far more trouble than it’s worth.MacDailyNews, November 26, 2012

“All men are created equal.”

Well, not when it comes to users of smartphones and tablets…

The bottom line: Those who settle for Android devices are not equal to iOS users. The fact is that iOS users are worth significantly more than Android settlers to developers, advertisers, third-party accessory makers (speakers, cases, chargers, cables, etc.), vehicle makers, musicians, TV show producers, movie producers, book authors, carriers, retailers, podcasters… The list goes on and on.

The quality of the customer matters. A lot.

Facile “analyses” that look only at market (unit) share, equating one Android settler to one iOS user, make a fatal error by incorrectly equating users of each platform one-to-one.

When it comes to mobile operating systems, all users are simply not equal.SteveJack, MacDailyNews, November 15, 2014

Poor man’s iPhone: Android on the decline – February 26, 2015
Study: iPhone users are smarter and richer than those who settle for Android phones – January 22, 2015
Why Android users can’t have the nicest things – January 5, 2015
iPhone users earn significantly more than those who settle for Android phones – October 8, 2014
Yet more proof that Android is for poor people – June 27, 2014
More proof that Android is for poor people – May 13, 2014
Android users poorer, shorter, unhealthier, less educated, far less charitable than Apple iPhone users – November 13, 2013
IDC data shows two thirds of Android’s 81% smartphone share are cheap junk phones – November 13, 2013
CIRP: Apple iPhone users are younger, richer, and better educated than those who settle for Samsung knockoff phones – August 19, 2013
iPhone users smarter, richer than Android phone users – August 16, 2011
Study: Apple iPhone users richer, younger, more productive than other so-called ‘smartphone’ users – June 12, 2009

[Thanks to MacDailyNews Reader “Arline M.” for the heads up.]


  1. Apple will handily beat Google’s 2015 yearly revenue with their Holiday Quarter Q1 2016.

    GOOGL/Alphabet PE of 35.20 is close to 3X Apple’s PE of 13.41. This means that investors value Google to grow 3x the rate of apple next year.

    Apple TV is more affordable than Wii, playstation or xbox, as well are the Games, electrical power consumption and total cost of ownership. For entry level casual gaming it’s a category killer.

    Google doesn’t have a set top box of this quality.

  2. I want to think that DOOM MONGERING about Gaggle means they’ve reached some sort of plateau equivalent to Apple, who has been consistently DOOM MONGERED since 1984. But no. I can’t think of anything worthy about Goggle, apart from their unsurpassed search engine. I do write stuff up on Blogger, but they bought that, and its HTML tools are a PITA at times.

    1. I’ve used Bing to replace Gaggle for 3 years without issue and now I’ve swapped to DuckDuckGo full time. I’d say I use Gaggle search MAYBE 4-5xs a year IF I don’t find what I’m looking for.

  3. Sorry, but Google is not going to disappear that quickly. They are generating loads of positive cash flow and have $75 billion in cash on hand. People seem to have lost perspective on how large a number 75 billion is.

    Even Microsoft, for all their strategic f**k ups over the past decade, is still making good profits and great cash flow. They have $100 billion in cash.

    This headline is click-bait for Google haters. Nothing more.

    Unfortunately, Google stock will not take a hit because of unsubstantiated FUD like APPL does.

  4. I deleted Google Earth the other day, fed up with all the ads which obscure what I am trying to find. I use Apple maps which suits me fine, especially now that it does transit options in Sydney.

    Google maps was full of ads for stores which no longer existed – updating this data outside the US was obviously a low priority for Google. Apple Maps has the same issue, but the ads are less obtrusive and I have learned not to rely on this data anyway.

    If Google disappeared completely I wouldn’t know unless I read about it.

  5. On the other hand if they agree to a deal with Google, then Google will insist on acquiring enormous amounts of data on Ford’s passengers. I don’t think that customers are likely to find that an attractive proposition. It’s a great way to turn people away from your products.

    Recall that In-Q-Tel was an investor in early Google — wiki In-Q-Tel for details — essentially an funding firm founded to invest in small or start-up companies that are working on promising tech solutions that can be applied to CIA and other intel agencies’ data gathering/sifting/interpreting, and other tech needs.

    Not well understood by J6P is Google’s continued relationship with western intel agencies post the In-Q-Tel investment, and the supreme inherent value of captured/willingly surrendered user data acquired over a long time-span — “there is gold in them-there hills” comes to mind, despite being poorly reflected/unmentioned in Google’s quarterlies — Google is not going in decline, if the western intel agencies and others have anything to say about such — above can also apply to Facebook and Amazon, too, who likely work very closely with western intel organizations providing specific data-mined or raw user data and data interpretations.


Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.