E Marketing Google

For the exclusive use of M. Blut, 2016.

MH0029 1259420477 REV: MAY 7, 2015 FRANK T. ROTHAERMEL CHRISTOPHER K. ZAHRT DAVID R. KING

Google Inc. We know where you are. We know where you’ve been. We can more or less know what you’re thinking about. -Google CEO Eric Schmidt May 1, 2015—a green light appeared on the dashboard. Google’s CEO Larry Page relaxed, knowing that Google’s algorithms had taken control of the self-driving se lf-driving white Lexus RX450h SUV hurtling down the highway. highway. To his right, another new office building under construction flashed by. E-commerce and big data analytics, fields that Google’s technology had helped to create, were attracting an endless procession of Internet start-ups to Silicon Valley. “You can make an Internet company with 10 people and it can have billions of users. It doesn’t take much capital and it makes a lot of money—a really, really lot of money,” money,”1 he reflected. Even firms like Walmart and Ford were flocking to Silicon Valley in an attempt to bring their Old Economy business models into the 21st century. Both the physical and competitive landscape had changed dramatically since the co-founder helped take Google public in 2004. Subsequently, Google’s stock consistently went up—that is until early 2015 when it leveled off (see Exhibit 1). As Page’s SUV automatically swerved around some debris on the pavement, he sighed, contemplating the increasing complexity of managing Google and its external environment. Google is now far from a startup. In the last five years it has more than doubled its number of employees from roughly 24,000 in 2010 to more than 53,000 in 2014. The growth was helped by a com bination of acquisitions and internal development. Google is famous for bottom-up innovation, such as enabling employees to spend 20 percent of their time working on new ideas that represent roughly 50 percent of Google’s new products.3 However, analysts are increasingly questioning heavy Research & Development (R&D) investments, which soared in 2014 by 38 percent—close to $10 billion—with what they see as offering diminishing returns.4 The Google Glass project, an integrated camera and computer display that was to be worn like a pair of glasses, was abandoned in 2015—13 years after Page began tinkering with it.5 The duration of this venture led Google to set a two-year limit on development in order to force earlier decisions on projects.6 While pressure on more disciplined new product development increased, Google needed to identify new sources of revenue, which in 2014, was almost entirely dependent on search. At this time, 90 percent of Google’s $66 billion in revenue came from search advertising.7

Professor Frank T. Rothaermel, Research Associate Christopher K. Zahrt, and Professor David R. King prepared this case from public sources. This case is developed for the purpose of class discussion. It is not intended to be used for any kind of endorsement, source of data, or depiction of efﬁcient or inefﬁcient management. All opinions expressed, and all errors and omissions, are entirely the authors. © by Rothaermel, Zahrt, and King, 2015.

This document is authorized for use only by Markus Blut in 2016.

For the exclusive use of M. Blut, 2016. Google Inc.

On the external front, Google’s success in search drew increasing scrutiny from regulators, bringing it into contact with new competitors. U.S. regulators at the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) concluded in 2012 that Google used anticompetitive tactics and abused its monopoly power. After the FTC ended its investigation in 2013 and requested records following Google’s voluntary concessions, the FTC released its findings in a 160-page report in 2015.8 Subsequent to the news of the FTC report, the European Union (EU) antitrust regulators filed charges against Google, claiming Google used its 90 percent share of Europe’s search to promote its own services.9 While the ultimate outcome could take years to resolve, the EU could, in the meantime, impose sanctions on Google to stop behavior they deem as anticompetitive. As Google faces government regulation, it also faces increased competition from technology companies such as Apple, Amazon, Facebook, and Microsoft, as well as from firms in more established industries such as automotive, cable, telecommunications, and more. This rise in competition is a direct result of an increased convergence in technology and the ability of individuals to use technology to access information. The irony of his car knowing where it was going while he was uncertain of where Google was headed was not lost on Page. Will technology continue to converge and Google thrive, or will Google splinter from the growing complexity? The threat of EU antitrust charges underscores the latter problem for Google for it could be forced to dismantle like AT&T did in 1984 after the Department of Justice filed its antitrust lawsuit. Leaning back in his seat, Larry Page wondered: What kind of company should Google be in five years?

Google History Google founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin met in 1995 during a tour for students accepted into the PhD program at Stanford University. University. “We both found each other obnoxious,” recalls Brin only halfhal f jokingly,, “but we spent a lot of time talking to each jokingly each other, so there was something there.”10 Despite this rocky start, the pair quickly became inseparable friends. While working on a dissertation topic, Page realized that the number and quality of links to a website could be used as a proxy for the credibility of that website. However, at that time, there was no good way to determine what sites were linking to a web page. Page began working on a program called BackRub that would index links on the web and use this index to rank sites by relevance. Creating this index took a mammoth amount of bandwidth and computing power. It would “regularly bring down Stanford’s Internet connection” by the fall of 1996. Page, with Brin’s mathematical assistance, then created an algorithm within BackRub that used the index to sort web pages by relevance. He called this algorithm PageRank (named after himself, not web pages).11, 12 The first test of the PageRank system occurred in March of 1996. It became apparent to Page that his system would make an excellent search engine. Page and Brin, assisted by several classmates, began refining this search engine. In September of 1997, they decided to name their engine “Google,” which was a misspelling of the mathematical term googol: 1 followed by 100 zeros. On September 4, 1998, Google filed for incorporation and moved its rapidly growing collection of servers into a garage in nearby Menlo Park, CA. The web was exploding. By 1999, 100 million web searches occurred every day, and Google needed capital to continue purchasing servers and hiring computer scientists. 13 , 14 On June 7, 1999, Google announced that legendary Silicon Valley venture capital firms Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers (KPCB) and Sequoia Capital made a joint equity investment

2



of $25 million in the startup, contingent upon finding Larry and Sergey some “adult supervision.” As KPCB principal John Doerr observed, “It’s not saying anything negative about them, but I thought we would do a much better job of building a world-class management team if they had a world-class CEO. They agreed, and we closed the financing.”15 What would become a lengthy search for a new Google CEO had begun. On June 26, 2000, it was announced that Yahoo had licensed Google’s search engine. Jeff Mallett, president and CEO of Yahoo stated “Our web directory and navigational guide is critical to the essential set of services that we provide.” p rovide.”16 Despite this acknowledgement from Mallet, Google was allowed to insert a message below the search box stating that Google was providing the search results. This agreement introduced Google to Yahoo’s 180 million worldwide users who generated 900M average daily page views.17 More importantly, this vast increase in traffic allowed Google to fine tune its search engine.18 By performing statistical analysis on logs of hundreds of millions of user interactions, Google’s engineers were able to make its search engine understand contextual clues in search queries. Simply put, the more users searched, the better search results became. After more than two years, the search for the right Google CEO came to an end when Eric Schmidt accepted the position in August of 2001. Schmidt held a PhD in computer science from the UC-Berkeley. UC-Berkeley. He also had deep technology management experience, having served as an executive at both Sun Microsystems and Novell. “Most importantly for anyone taking on the CEO role at Google,” observed Page, “Eric is a natural fit with our corporate culture.”19 At the end of the 2001 fiscal year on December 31, another milestone was reached. Google had its first profitable year, reporting net income of $6.985 million.20 (See Exhibit 2.) It would never again have a net loss. “When we were still in the dot-com boom days, I felt like a schmuck,” recalled Sergey Brin, “I had an Internet startup, so did everybody else. It was unprofitable, like everybody else’s, and how hard is that? But when we became profitable, I felt like we had built a real business.”21 With a lucrative licensing agreement, a large capital infusion, a p roven method of generating profits, and experienced management in place, Google had indeed become a “real business.” For his first coup as CEO, Schmidt made an agreement with AOL to provide them with web search and paid contextual advertising services. The contract, signed on May 1, 2002, was a major defeat to rivals Inktomi and Overture, who had previously provided the service. At the time, AOL had 34 million subscribers, and its site handled 22 percent of all web searches.22 Google’s own site served 31.8 percent of worldwide searches, and through its license with Yahoo, it controlled another 36.3 percent of the market.23 Google was now a behemoth in search. Defeated Inktomi executive Vish Makhijani groused, “They’ll learn over time that Google takes your users; it doesn’t help you build your property.”24 At the time, Yahoo claimed the AOL deal did not impact their relationship with Google. However, Yahoo removed the Google logo from its homepage in 2002 and, in December of that year, Yahoo Yahoo purchased search provider Inktomi for $235 million.25 Google stock was initially offered to the public at $85 per share on August 19, 2004. The IPO was for 8 percent of the company, but only Class A shares were sold.26 At the time, Google had both Class A and Class B shares. Class B shares were entitled to 10 votes, whereas Class A shares were only entitled to one. This dual class stock structure allowed Page and Brin to retain control of the company while raising outside equity capital. Page and Brin further solidified control of Google with a stock split that gave investors a new class of stock without voting rights in 2014.27

3



In 2005, Microsoft began a nearly year-long campaign to lure AOL away from Google. Though AOL’s market share was declining, it was still the nation’s largest Internet service with more than 110 million unique visits monthly monthly..28 Google countered by giving AOL $300 million of o f advertising credit, as well as buying a 5 percent equity stake in AOL for $1 billion. bil lion.29 This prevented Microsoft from gaining what Harvard Business School professor David Yoffie termed its “single best way to gain market share.”30 It also preserved the value of Google ads.31 The defeat of Microsoft guaranteed Google’s primacy in search. In April 2011, Larry Page replaced Eric Schmidt as CEO o f Google with Schmidt remaining as executive chairman.32 Since then, Google has built upon this strategic advantage in online services through advertising and taking other steps at channel preservation. Online services, such as Gmail, attract users to Google’s sites. These sites, as well as the third-party sites located through the Google search engine, are monetized through advertising. Google has preserved its access to users through a number of initiatives to protect its channels, such as Android and Chrome. Google has evolved a sophisticated computational infrastructure both to answer its mammoth volume of queries as well as to offer increasingly innovative products.

Attracting Users with Online Services SEARCH Google is strongly associated with search, and in the US it holds a commanding lead with over 67 percent of search compared to 18 percent for Bing and 10 percent for Yahoo.33 Google and web search have literally been synonymous since 2006, when the term “to Google” was added to the MerriamWebster Collegiate Dictionary.34 The search engine is constantly being updated, being tweaked 665 times in 2012 alone.35 More relevant search results are important to keeping market share for search queries that help justify advertising. In 2015, Google made its most significant change in years to make its search algorithm favor websites that look good on smartphone screens.36 Google answered over 1.2 trillion search queries in 2012 and associated advertising generated 90 percent of Google’s $66 billi on in revenue in 2014.37, 38 (See Exhibit 3.) However, most searches do not earn revenue or attract advertisers. Microsoft’s online search engine Bing targets the areas with the most advertising revenue (shopping and travel) in a strategy to ceding unprofitable searches to Google. Meanwhile, Google’s large share of Internet searches has contributed to the company running up against government concerns. In 2014, Europe passed a “right-to-be-forgotten” law giving individuals the right to request the removal of results that appear when their names are searched.39 In 2015, the EU began the process of filing antitrust charges against Google for having a 90 percent market share in search in Europe that rivals allege favor Google’s services.40

MAPS MA PS Approximately 20 percent of all Google desktop searches s earches are for location information.41 Mobile technology makes this information even more crucial to Google’s mission. Google Maps got its start in October of 2004, when the company acquired Where 2 Technologies and Keyhole Corporation. Where 2 Technologies was an Australian mapping startup, and Keyhole was a startup, partially funded by the CIA,42 that used “a database of satellite images and aerial photos to create interactive 3-D maps.”43

4



Eric Schmidt characterized Keyhole as “too fundamental to let someone else control it.”44 Where 2 Technologies became Google Maps, and Keyhole became Google Earth. The next significant addition to Google Maps was Street View, a program that displayed photographs of locations based on street addresses. Street View launched on May 25, 2007. It was the fruition of a concept Page had been experimenting with since at least 2001, when he challenged students at the Stanford Computer Graphics Laboratory to summarize a video of the landscape he had taken while driving around the Bay Area.45 Street View was initially available for San Francisco, New York, Las Vegas, Miami, and Denver. The response was overwhelming. “We saw traffic go through the roof and about as high as we could serve, well we hit that limit immediately. What’s great about being at Google is you get to observe traffic and interest. The launch showed the interest,” recalls Luc Vincent, engineering director of Google Maps.46 To roll out Street View worldwide, Google equipped equippe d fleets of cars with panoramic p anoramic cameras and GPS units. These cars were then driven over 6 million miles of roads gathering massive amounts of data.47 The maps team publishes more imagery every two weeks than Google possessed in total in 2006.48 The GPS tracks of the Street View cars update and verify the accuracy of Google maps. Furthermore, OCR (optical character recognition) technology allows computers to “read” road signs and incorporate this information into the map. In 2013, Google Maps was further bolstered by the $1.1 billion acquisition of Waze, an Israeli firm. Waze, a crowd-sourced navigation app, allowed its 50 million users to post information such as traffic jams, road construction, and speed traps in real time.49 One of the motivations behind the acquisition was to keep the capability from Apple after it removed Google Maps from its operating syste m in 2012. This also drove Google to create a map application for Apple devices.50

E-MAIL Gmail, Google’s free e-mail service, uses algorithms to “read” a user’s e-mail, determine the subject of the correspondence, and then display relevant advertising when the e-mail was read. Gmail was used in-house for several years before being made available to the public on April 1, 2004. At first, capacity limitations forced Google to offer Gmail by invitation only. This lent Gmail an air of exclusivity. “It was hailed as one of the best marketing decision in tech history, but it was a little bit unintentional,” admitted Georges Harik, a manager who oversaw the development of Gmail.51 By 2014, Gmail had become the second most popular e-mail client, after Apple’s iPhone, reflecting a shift to people reading e-mail on mobile devices, which hurt Microsoft’s Outlook.52

CLOUD STORAGE Google solidified its cloud strategy through the acquisition of Ups tartle in March of 2006. Upstartle’s main product was Writely, a web-based word-processing program. Writely co-creator Sam Schillace followed his creation to Google, where he helped transform it into Google Docs. At the time, public opinion was divided on the subject of cloud computing. However, Google engineers were quick to grasp its benefits. “Ninety-five percent of the company was using it in, like, a month, with no pushing at all recalled Schillace.”53 The Google Docs and Spreadsheets service was publicly announced on October 11, 2006.

5



In 2012, Google Docs was integrated into a new cloud storage service called Google Drive. Drive was offered as a “freemium” service. Each user was initially allotted 5GB of free storage, with the ability to add more for a monthly fee. Drive allowed Google to collect user specific information in order to offer more targeted advertising.54 Primarily targeted at consumer users, Google Drive at the end of 2014 had 240 million users compared to DropBox and Microsoft with 300 million and 250 million users respectively.55

SOCIAL NETWORKING Google is playing catch-up in social networking as Facebook dominates this area. Launched in 2004 by Harvard undergraduate Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook users create profiles with photos and information about themselves and connect with others. In 2010, Facebook overtook Google search as the Internet’s most popular destination, and Facebook’s share of U.S. online advertising surged.56 Google has struggled with social networking beginning with its first attempt, Orkut. Despite being launched a month before Facebook, Orkut never gained widespread acceptance and it was shut down in September of 2014.57 Its next attempt, Google Buzz, resulted in a class action lawsuit and a FTC complaint over privacy issues. Google Buzz was shut down in late 2011 in order to “focus instead on Google+.”58 Google+, launched on June 28, 2011, was Google’s third attempt at establishing a viable social networking site. While the photo sharing and video conferencing features of Google+ attracted positive reviews, it lagged significantly behind Facebook. In 2014, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and Pinterest all had more users than Google+.59 In 2014, the Google+ organizational structure was shaken, and Vic Gundotra, the executive in charge of Google+, departed soon afterward.60 It is likely that Google+ will be integrated across Google’s other platforms rather than being a social network targeted specifically at consumers.61

Monetizing Users through Advertising Advertising is the primary way that Google is able to p rovide its services to consumers. By providing services free, Google gains market share that enables it to sell more advertising. Google’s worldwide share of worldwide online advertising has held steady at roughly 31 percent since 2012.62 However, since 2012, Facebook has seen the largest increase in advertising revenues with its display ad revenue increased 65 percent to $11.5 billion in 2014.63 Facebook’s growth largely results from its ability to match user information with advertisements. Other firms competing for advertising dollars include Microsoft, Yahoo, Twitter, Amazon, LinkedIn, and Apple. Given the relevance of iPhones and iPads bought at premium prices, Apple has more than 27 percent of mobile search and its iAd program commands the highest price for advertising.64 While Apple also gets revenue from selling hardware, Google remains largely dependent on advertising revenues. The high dependence of Google on advertising has led to some questionable decisions. For example, in 2011, Google agreed to a $500 million settlement in a U.S. criminal probe over selling advertising for Canadian pharmacies that confirmed Larry Page knew about and had approved the ads.65 Still, Google pursues advertising revenue in multiple ways.

6



ADWO AD WORD RDS S Google introduced AdWords AdWords in October of 2000.66 AdW AdWords ords made advertising more effective by displaying advertisements that were contextually relevant to a user’s user ’s search query. query. Advertisers bid on key search terms, called “keywords,” in AdWords AdWords auctions. AdWords AdWords determines the winner of the auction based both on the advertiser advertiser’s ’s bid amount and on o n the probability p robability that a Google user will click on the ad. This probability is determined by an algorithm. Then, when a Google user submits a search query containing the keyword of the winning bidder, that bidder’s advertisement is displayed alongside the search results. AdWords AdWords was the key to making Google profitable.

ADSE AD SENS NSE E Google announced the acquisition of Applied Semantics on April 23, 2003 for $102 million in cash and stock. At the time, it was Google’s largest acquisition.67 Applied Semantics most important product was AdSense, a program that could distill the content of a website into a handful of keywords. AdSense, when combined with exiting Google technology, opened the entire web to Google advertising in the following manner: A third party would provide space on their site for advertisements. AdSense algorithms would match the context of the website to appropriate advertisements in the Google inventory. Advertising revenue was then split between Google and the third party. Sergey Brin called AdSense a “two billion dollar opportunity opportunity.” .”68

DOUBLECLICK Google diversified its online advertising capabilities with the $3.1 billion acquisition of DoubleClick in 2007. DoubleClick was a leading ad server, delivering display and video ads to third-party websites. This was a key acquisition for Google because, as Group Product Manager Alex Kinnier observed, “Google . . . has been a minor player in display advertising.”69 The acquisition was also motivated by the deep relationships DoubleClick had developed with both advertisers and web publishers.70 By October of 2010, Google claimed that its display advertising business was bringing in $2.5 billion annually, though much of this revenue was derived from YouTube.71

YOUTUBE Google announced the acquisition of online video clip provider YouTube in October 2006. “This is the next step in the evolution of the Internet,” enthused Eric Schmidt.72 The purchase of YouTube allowed Google to extend its reach into the nascent yet rapidly growing field of online video. YouTube had been in operation less than a year but had already garnered an estimated 50 million viewers.73 With an acquisition price of $1.65 billion, it was Google’s largest deal to date. YouTube allowed Google to offer advertisers yet another outlet to consumers. YouTube YouTube reached a billion regular visitors a month in 2013 and generated an estimated $5.6 billion in revenues.74, 75 While YouTube YouTube offers a volume of users and a variety of content, the addition of channels offers advertisers a way to deliver more relevant advertising.

7



Channel Protection ANDR AN DROI OID D In April 2005, pioneering smartphone maker Research in Motion reported that its BlackBerry subscriber base had doubled to 2.5 million users and that “we believe we are still in the early days of this market.”76 Therefore, Google had to determine its strategy in the rapidly burgeoning mobile field even as it wrestled with Microsoft for AOL’s AOL’s user base. As Larry Page recalled, “At the time ti me it was extremely painful developing services for mobile devices. We had a closet full of more than 100 phones and were building our software pretty much device by device. It was nearly impossible for us to make truly great mobile experiences.”77 T To o remedy this problem, Google purchased a Silicon Valley startup called Android in August 2005. Android became an open source, Linux-based operating system for mobile devices. Because software is a significant cost for smartphones, Google ensured that it would be adopted by handset manufacturers by making it open source. This adoption, in turn, ensured that users could access Google through their mobile devices. As author Steven Levy observed, “Android would be a Trojan horse for Google’s consumer apps, chief among them mobile search.” Still, Google’s open-source strategy has additional limitations, including making it more susceptible to malware and modification. For example, Chinese search company Baidu has negotiated with smartphone manufacturers to remove all references to Google in Android and replace it with Baidu.78 Even though it is open source, Android is not free to firms using it. Both Apple and Microsoft successfully sued Google for Android’s operating system infringing on their intellectual property in 2011, leading firms that adopt Android to pay licensing fees to Apple and Microsoft.79 Concerns over patents contributed to Google spending $12.5 billion to acquire Motorola Mobility and then turning around and selling it to Lenovo for $2.9 billion in 2012, though Google kept Motorola’s patents.80 Adopters of Android also pay Google to have access to other Google services, such as Google Maps and Google Play.

CHROME Disparagingly nicknamed “chrome” by programmers, Google Chrome was launched on September 2, 2008. A stripped-down browser designed for speed, Chrome eschewed the complicated visual interfaces that slowed other browsers down. The motivation for developing Chrome was plain. As KPCB principal John Doerr explains, “I was quite nearly panicked that Google was getting to all the world’s people through Microsoft’s browser.”81 In 2014, Google’s Chrome browser became the second-most used behind Microsoft’s Internet Explorer (IE) with 20 percent market share.82 At some point in 2015, as part of the update to its operating system, Microsoft plans to end support of IE with a new browser called Edge.83 In 2011, after two years of development, Chrome evolved into an operating system (OS) for laptops sold by Acer.84 However, Chrome OS has not been widely adopted. The predominant OS is Windows 7, which combines with other Microsoft operating systems to represent approximately 90 p ercent of the world’s computers.85 Microsoft’s Windows OS represents its primary product and source of revenue. Interestingly, Google has phased out the use of Microsoft operating systems on employee computers citing security concerns; exceptions require the approval of the CIO (chief information officer).86

8



GOOGLE FIBER AND WIRELESS Increasing Internet access for all has become a primary concern for Google, since the increase in searches and associated advertising revenue depends on growing the number of people online. On February 10, 2010, Google announced plans to build its own experimental fiber optic network in a city ranging from 50,000 to 500,000 people. The goal of the experiment was to deliver 1 gigabit per second Internet speeds to residential customers. More than 1,000 cities applied to receive Google Fiber.87 Kansas City, City, Kansas was selected, based upon its offer of free rights of way, way, expedited permitting, permi tting, office 88 space, and other free perks. Google Fiber then announced plans to build networks in Provo, Utah and Austin, Texas. AT&T activated its own gigabit Internet service in Austin, ahead of Google Fiber’s anticipated start in December 2014.89 In 2015, Google attempted to integrate into the U.S. wireless service, an industry dominated by a few players: AT&T, Verizon, Verizon, T-Mobile, and Sprint.90 Currently, Google is able to offer wireless service cheaper than established industry players as it can supplement wireless subscriptions with advertising. Initially, the service is only available by invitation and via Google’s Nexus 6 phone. However, contrary to industry practice, Google plans to credit customer accounts when they do not use all of their data. Google’s service will default to Wi-Fi hotspots and default to Sprint or T-Mobile networks if Wi-Fi is not available.

Data Center Infrastructure In order to both answer a huge volume of search queries and to index the exponentially growing number of websites around the world, Google began building a network of large data centers in 2005. Google purchased 30 acres in The Dalles, Oregon for its first data center.91 These data centers were designed to be 50 percent more efficient than the current state of the art. More data centers soon followed. By 2013, it had more than one million servers.92 Google’s infrastructure demands were so large l arge that its in-house server production “probably [made] us one of the largest hardware manufacturers in the world,” according to Google CFO Patrick Pichette.93 As a result of these data centers requiring huge amounts of electricity to operate (more than 2 million megawatt m egawatt hours were consumed in 2010), Google began investing in renewable energy. energy.94, 95

Internet of Things (IoT) The “Internet of Things” (IoT) is a catch-all phrase used to describe the ecosystem of devices connected to the Internet. Traditionally, Traditionally, the online world was reserved only for computers and cell phones. However, because of IPv6, the latest version of how Internet Protocol addresses are assigned, and a dramatic decrease in chip costs, a virtually limitless number of IP addresses have allowed devices as prosaic as door locks and coffee makers to feature Internet connectivity connectivity.. 96 A recent study by McKinsey estimated that 20 billion to 30 billion devices could be connected by the year 2020.97 By then, the value of the IoT market is expected to exceed $7 trillion.98 Because the real value is more about the connections of things than the items themselves, the real battleground in IoT is over network standards, for which both closed and open standards have been proposed.

9



The best known closed IoT standard is Apple’s HomeKit with the first HomeKit certified devices debuting at the 2015 Consumer Electronics Show.99 A closed standard is consistent with Apple’s previous policy of maintaining control of its hardware and the software running on it. “Apple takes the approach that having a totally closed ecosystem allows it to create a more perfect experience for their customer, and it’s hard to argue with the success they have had,” observes Mark VandenBrink, leader of worldwide engineering for Frog Design.100 It also enables better monetization of its customers by controlling access to them and their purchasing decisions (e.g., apps, music). For open standards, multiple solutions are vying for primacy pri macy.. The first from AllSeen Alliance, based on Qualcomm’s AllJoyn software, represents a consortium of LG Electronics, Panasonic, Qualcomm, Sharp,101 Sony Sony,, Microsoft, and others. AllSeen unveiled its first products at the 2015 Consumer Electronics Show. Rivaling the AllSeen Alliance is the Open Internet Consortium (OIC), which counts Samsung, Intel, Cisco, and General Electric among its members. OIC terms its standard IoTivity. Both standards are based on Linux, leading IoTivity steering-group chair Mark Skarpness to state, “In the end, it would be great for the industry if they the y would merge, and I’m still stil l hoping to influence that.”102 Meanwhile, Google is working to provide another option for an open standard. In 2011, Google unveiled its own smart home platform called [email protected] After Android@Home failed to gain widespread adoption, Google purchased Nest Labs for $3.2 in 2014 and it has been using Nest’s Linux-based operating system as its IoT platform. Google opened the Nest platform to developers in June 2014.104 In addition to standards options, IoT can also be divided into industrial- and consumer-facing applications.

Industrial Internet The Industrial Internet, a term coined by GE CEO Jeff Immelt in 2012, encompasses a wide variety of industrial applications.105 One example is the “smart grid.” Electrical distribution networks can be made more efficient through the use of connected sensors. Further, these sensors will enable homeowners to feed excess electricity generated by solar arrays or windmills back to the grid in what is termed distributed generation.106 Predictive maintenance of capital assets and smart factories also fall under the umbrella of the Industrial Internet. The anticipated impact of increased efficiency in industrial operations is anticipated to be large. Morgan Stanley, Stanley, for instance, estimated that the Industrial Internet could lead to $500 billion in global savings for manufacturers.107 The potential savings is causing a sea change in thinking in traditional manufacturing firms. For example, Dr. Stefan Ferber, Director of Business Development of the Internet of Things & Services at Bosch Software Innovations GmbH observes: What we have, then, is a competitive arena full of Old and New Economy companies, all jostling for position and attempting to shape the future. Long-standing producers in traditional industrial fields—whether they make coffee machines, cars, air conditioners, home gym equipment, or shoes—are suddenly not only competing with companies of their own breed; they are also confronting players the like of which they have never faced before.108

The result is that “Old Economy” manufacturers are finding that they can make much higher margins on providing analytic services on their capital goods than they can on the goods themselves.109 The problem is that others are already working to leverage their products to provide associated information, which Bill Ruh, Vice President of GE Software, summarizes thusly:

10



Industrial people who aren’t in the game today today,, who are not making the kind of investments we’re making, it’s like someone in the retail sector now saying, “We want to be like Amazon too.” But you can’t be like Amazon. It’s too late. And in the industrial sector, you have to take the risk now. Because by the time it’s obvious, which is a few years from f rom now, now, it’s going to be too late. 110

The increased emphasis on the Industrial Internet underscores the potential need for Google to shift its focus from consumer search to better consider the needs and applications of business customers.

Consumer IoT Applications Google has consistently focused on consumers, and it has a presence in all three categories of consumer IoT: (1) wearables, (2) the connected home, and (3) the autonomous vehicle.

WEARABLES Wearables are connected devices that are small enough to be worn comfortably on one’s body for extended periods of time. The increased competition in wearables can be seen by different companies introducing multiple products (see Exhibit 4). Wearables Wearables can be further classified into two broad areas of hands-free Internet access and the monitoring of personal fitness or other applications that have implications for Google and more broadly corporations as a whole. A controversial, hands-free Internet access device was Google Glass. Glass was developed by the company’s Google X research lab. Its launch in 2012 was similar to that of Gmail, in that it was first distributed to a specially selected group of “Explorers” for testing before being released to the general public in 2014. Users gave Glass tepid reviews due to its short battery life and its limited functionality. The public reaction was even worse. The awkward design led some to refer to Glass as “a Segway 1111 for your face.”11 The device was often seen as a sign of pretension, spawning the derogatory term 112 “Glasshole.” People feared they were being surreptitiously filmed by Glass wearers, leading The Atlantic magazine to observe that, “very few people are willing to be viewed as walking, talking invasions of privacy.”113 Google removed Glass from the consumer market in early 2015, but planned to continue its development under Nest Lab founder Tony Fadell. Emerging technologies such as LED micro displays and contact lenses that can magnify projected images may allow glasses-type interfaces to become more useful and less obtrusive in the future.114 An earlier and more successful product category involves health monitoring. In 2007, Fitbit ushered in the era of wearable devices with the Fitbit Tracker, a miniature accelerometer that tracks people’s exercise habits. As the pioneer, Fitbit continues to enjoy the largest market share in this category (see Exhibit 5) with competing health tracker, such as the Jawbone UP not being introduced until 2011. Still, newer offerings have increased functionality, such as tracking heart rate, altitude, body temperature, sleep patterns and more. For example, Jawbone users have logged more than 130 million nights of sleep, 1.6 trillion steps, and 180 million items of food.115 User data is becoming more valuable than the devices themselves, as Jawbone VP of Data Monica Rogati says: “You take all that data, and you can see interesting patterns emerge.”116 Jawbone CEO Hosain Rahman agrees, stating “I think of hardware as a customer-acquisition device. We’ll know similar things to Facebook.”117 To that aim, Jawbone purchased data analysis company Massive Health in order to make sense of the flood of information pouring into Jawbone’s servers.118

11



So far, Google has largely focused on providing apps under Google Fit that use sensors in other devices to track user fitness goals. It appears Google entered this space in response to Apple’s Health application, and it highlights increased competitive contact with Apple on desktop and mobile operating systems, maps, etc.119 The competition will likely heat up as Apple offers Apple Watch, which combines hands-free Internet access, synced with a cell phone, that alerts users of incoming texts, e-mails, and status updates, as well as integrating health tracking. The acceptance of smartwatches is unknown, as the first smartwatch, Sony’s LiveView that was unveiled in 2010, failed to garner many sales. Samsung introduced its Gear watch in late 2013. A review of the Gear in the New York Times opined that “Nobody will buy this watch, and nobody should.”120 However,, the release of the Apple Watch in April 2015 was significant in that it made wearables more However fashionable. Robert Brunner, the designer of the Beats by Dre headphone, observes that, “Capturing people’s imagination in a way that makes them want to put your stuff on their body is a skill set that not many people have. It definitely doesn’t exist in many large corporations.”121 This has forced technology firms to recruit talent from the fashion industry, such as Angela Ahrendts, the former CEO of Burberry who became Apple’s head of retail in 2014. Another limitation of wearables involves battery life. For example, a concern about the Apple Watch is its battery life that is advertised as 18 hours but could only last 3 hours of talking paired to an iPhone and a recharge time of 2.5 hours.122 In 2012, Google formed a team led by a former Apple employee to help Google control more of its destiny with over 20 projects that depend on batteries.123 While multiple concerns about wearable devices remain, Goldman Sachs expects the market to be worth nearly $20 billion by 2017.124

CONNECTED HOME The addition of Internet connectivity to household appliances offers the ability to operate devices remotely. This enhanced control allows homeowners to perform a host of household activities anywhere, such as unlocking doors with their smartphones, adjusting the thermostat from their cars, or viewing live-streaming security camera footage from their tablets. By the end of 2014, 13 percent of homes with a broadband connection were estimated to have at least one smart-home device.125 Goldman Sachs estimated that the connected home market would be valued at over $12 billion by 2017.126 Because the market for connected home devices is so broad, the space has become crowded. Appliance makers such as LG Electronics and Whirlpool have introduced new lines of connected products. Startups are also targeting the connected home. Microsoft Corporate Vice President Steven Guggenheimer observed that, “The Internet of Things, and home automation in particular, is rapidly emerging. With consumer demand growing for solutions that are intuitive, connected and affordable, there are tremendous opportunities for new players in the space.”127 To capitalize on these opportunities, Microsoft recruited 10 startups to its IoT business accelerator in 2014. Google has pursued a similar strategy, purchasing thermostat-maker Nest for $3.2 billion in January of 2014. Five months later, Nest purchased home security device provider Dropcam for $555 million. Apple has taken a different approach, concentrating on its HomeKit software platform. By focusing on software, Apple is not exposed to the risk and expense of manufacturing physical devices for which there is uncertain demand.128

12



AUTO AU TONO NOMO MOUS US VE VEHI HICL CLES ES IoT also extends to vehicles, and the integration of Internet connectivity into vehicles is termed “telematics.” Telematics depends on software to enhance driver convenience, such as enabling the vehicle to be unlocked with the driver ’s cellphone, starting a car without a key key,, and allowing vehicles to diagnose and report problems to a mechanic before the car arrives at the garage. Telematics-equipped vehicles can also be used as Wi-Fi hotspots, allowing media streaming and web browsing (collectively termed “infotainment”) while the vehicle is in motion. Internet connectivity is one of the enabli ng technologies for autonomous vehicles, due to the massive amount of data and detailed maps these vehicles vehi cles require. Lux Research estimates that by 2030 the market for autonomous cars could reach $87 billion.129 Because connectivity is achieved through the cellular network, some of the biggest players in the space are cellular carriers. For example, Verizon has partnered with Mercedes-Benz and Volkswagen, among others. Not to be outdone, AT&T has announced deals with eight different automakers.130 AT&T also launched its telematics telemati cs research laboratory, laboratory, called Drive Studio, in Atlanta, Georgia in 2014. Glenn Gl enn Lurie, president of Emerging Enterprises and Partnerships with AT&T Mobility, stated, “Our goal is to be the best carrier for connected car innovation in the world.”131 Telematics is forcing major automakers to expand into unfamiliar technologies.132 Bill Ford, the Chairman of Ford Motor Company, admits: “The reality is that we will not own, or develop, most of these technologies. So we have to be a thoughtful integrator of other peoples’ technologies and understand where we add value. Because if we’re not careful, we could become like some mobile-handset makers, where all the value is added by someone else.”133 This recognizes that technology firms are becoming increasingly active with automobiles. Microsoft, Google, and Apple each have projects in automobile projects. Microsoft has taken a collaborative approach to partner in developing different telematics platforms for Kia (UVO), Toyota (Entune), Fiat (Blue&Me) and Ford (SYNC). “SYNC is absolutely impacting our top line revenue in terms of improved vehicle sales, net transaction pricing, and incremental revenue from SYNC services,” states Ford’s Paul Mascarenas, VP of Engineering for Global Product Development. Meanwhile , Google publicly began its autonomous car program in 2009. Sebastian Thrun, who led the effort, stated, “Our goal is to help prevent traffic accidents, free up people’s time and reduce carbon emissions by fundamentally changing car use.”134 This is a real concern as human error contributes to approximately 90 percent of all traffic accidents that are responsible for 1.24 million mil lion deaths worldwide annually annually..135 At the start of 2015, Apple was rumored to have begun development of an electric car that resembles a minivan under the code name “Titan.”136 The interest in autonomous vehicles goes beyond reduced traffic fatalities. A direct benefit of reduced accidents are insurance firms that can also use telematics to gather information about how a car is driven to more accurately price policies with products termed “usage based insurance” (UBI). Allstate’s Drivewise and Progressive’s Snapshot are two examples of UBI. UBI allows drivers to obtain discounted premiums by providing insurers with information obtained from a telematics device. In 2013, Allstate claimed that 7 out of 10 drivers received a discount through Drivewise, which on average was 13 percent.137 However, consumers have voiced privacy concerns, and only 8 percent of U.S. drivers signed up for UBI through July 2014; still, this is twice the acceptance rate in 2013.138

13



Another benefit that autonomous vehicles could deliver is significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. Drivers seeking parking spaces are responsible for 30 percent of urban, vehicle-related pollution.139 Barcelona is realizing $67 million in annual savings through the use of embedding sensors that allow drivers to locate vacant parking spaces.140 This figure will go up considerably once the vehicle is able to deliver the driver to her destination and then park itself. Vehicle-to-vehicle communication (V2V) will allow so-called “adaptive cruise control” to maintain more constant vehicle speed by better anticipating changing traffic conditions. One study estimated that a 20 percent reduction in in speed fluctuation could lead to a 5 percent reduction in fuel consumption.141 V2V would also allow vehicles to travel in closely spaced “platoons.” The aerodynamic benefit of platooning yielded a 15 percent reduction in truck fuel consumption in one Japanese test.142 Vehicle to infrastructure communication (V2I) will allow vehicles to interface with traffic signals, reducing both the number of stops and the amount of idling at stoplights. Andy Palmer, executive vice president of Nissan Motor Company, estimates that autonomous vehicle technology could reduce CO2 emissions by 300 million metric tons a year.143 Despite these obvious benefits of autonomous vehicles and p otential benefits to personal productivity, significant roadblocks to widespread adoption remain. Perhaps the biggest hindrance is concern over liability. Once driving is controlled by software, liability will pass from the driver to the creator of that software. Similarly, state laws must be amended to allow the operation of autonomous vehicles. Price is another concern. The cost of Google’s Googl e’s autonomous equipment has been estimated at $80,000 per 144 vehicle. Finally Finally,, while Google’s test cars have logged hundreds of thousands of miles, the technology is not yet ready to scale. The highly accurate maps required by the car have only been prepared for a few thousand miles of road.145 Furthermore, Google does not allow autonomous vehicles to operate in challenging weather conditions, such as snow, ice, and dense fog, or in certain road conditions such as roundabouts and railroad crossings that are not signaled.146 Companies with autonomous vehicle aspirations are undeterred by these roadblocks. Reasons for optimism include a growing demand for automobiles, a better understanding of the required technology, technology, and potential savings. Worldwide demand for automobiles is expected to expand e xpand 147 from 80 million a year in 2014 to 107 million in 2020. In comments, Renault-Nissan CEO Carlos Ghosn observed: “I don’t see any impossible obstacle. I think this is something you are going to see on the horizon of 2020 because the technologies are getting mature.”148 Tesla CEO Elon Musk estimates that, while the technology will be ready by 2020, regulatory issues will prevent wide-scale deployment at that time.149 It is estimated that autonomous vehicles could save the U.S. economy $450 billion annually150 with savings coming primarily from the more efficient use of cars. Currently, cars sit unused for a majority of the time. While reliable data on personal car utilization is not tracked, rental car company fleets are rented around 70 percent of the time.151 This drives a higher cost for personal automobiles than public transportation, but the cost is often paid to enable flexibility. A fleet of autonomous vehicles could change that and expand growing interest in car sharing, such as ZipCar, Lyft, or Uber. For example, Uber has announced it is starting to work on autonomous cars to remove the cost of taxi drivers.152 Combining autonomous cars with mobile apps for payment and reserving rides in them would offer both flexibility and higher utilization of o f vehicles.

14



The Road Ahead As his car drove itself to his destination, Page furrowed his brow. There was literally trillions of dollars of value to be realized in information technology as everything from coffee makers to diesel locomotives went online. However, this tantalizing valuation was spurring a bevy of competing firms to make large R&D investments (see Exhibit 6). The result was several companies with diverse capabilities vying to succeed in what was increasingly the same competitive space. For Page, this meant leading Google into unfamiliar territory, such as consumer goods and industrial products, with decidedly mixed results. At the same time, Google’s foundation in search continued to provide the majority of Google’s revenue at the same time the EU was exploring a legal remedy to limit that dominance. Both the shifting sands of technology and government regulation were threats that could not be ignored. Tapping his finger while listening to a song streaming from his Google Play Music collection, Page wondered: What strategy could provide the guidance needed for Google to maintain both its reputation for technology innovation and healthy profitability?

15



EXHIBIT 1 Google Stock Price and NASDAQ, 1/1/2004–4/30/2015

GOOGL Price % Change Change Apr 30 ‘15 NASDAQ 100 Level % Change Apr 30 ‘15 1.05K% 950.0%

953.7%

850.0% 750.0% 650.0% 550.0% 450.0% 350.0% 250.0%

226.2%

150.0% 50.00% -50.0% 2006

2008

2010

2012

Source: Author’s depiction of publicly available data using YCHARTS, http://ycharts.com/

16


2014


EXHIBIT 2

Google Net Income and Key Events, 1998–2014

16000

Nest Labs acquired Waze acquired

14000

Larry Page becomes CEO, Google+ launches

12000 ) s n o i l l i m $ ( e m o c n I t e N

10000

Autonomous car unveiled

AdSense acquired 8000 6000 4000 2000

AdWords unveiled, first AOL deal First Profitable Year

Launch of Google Drive & Google Play

Chrome browser launch

Google Fiber announced

Android acquired, second AOL deal

Yahoo licenses search engine

DoubleClick acquired YouTube acquired

0 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Year

Source: Depiction of publicly available data drawn from Yahoo.

17



EXHIBIT 3 Google Financial Data, 2010–2014 (in $ millions, except EPS data) Fiscal Year

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

Cash and short-term investments

34,975

44,626

48,088

58,717

64,395

Receivables (total)

5,002

6,172

8,585

9,390

11,556

Inventories (total)

0

35

505

426

Property, plant, and equipment (net total)

7,759

9,603

11,854

16,524

2,3883

Depreciation, depletion, and amortization (accumulated)

4,012

4,797

5,843

7,313

8863

Assets (total)

57,851

72,574

93,798

110,920

13,1133

Accounts payable (trade)

483

588

2,012

2,453

1,715

Long-term debt

0

2,986

2,988

2,236

3,228

Liabilities (total)

11,610

14,429

22,083

23,611

26,633

Stockholders’ equity (total)

46,241

58,145

71,715

87,309

104,500

Sales (net)

29,321

37,905

50,175

59,825

66,001

Cost of goods sold

9,036

11,351

17,633

21,885

20,711

Selling, general, and administrative expense

8,523

12,475

16,284

19,912

23,814

Income taxes

2,291

2,589

2,598

2,282

3,331

Income before extraordinary items

8,505

9,737

10,788

12,214

13,928

Net income (loss)

8,505

9,737

10,737

12,920

14,444

Earnings per share (basic) excluding extraordinary items

26.69

30.17

32.97

36.7

20.61

Earnings per share (diluted) excluding extraordinary items

26.31

29.76

32.46

36.05

20.27


18



EXHIBIT 4

Google’s Stock Price and Selected Product Introductions

GOOGL NASDAQ 60%

January 14, 2014 Nest aquisition announced

October 29, 2014 Microsoft releases Band fitness tracker

50% September 3, 2013 Samsung unveils Gear smartwatch

40% n r u t e R

30%

April 15, 2013 Glass Explorer Program launch

20% June 2, 2014 Apple iOS 8 with HomeKit announced

10%

January 15, 2015 Google removes Glass from consumer market

0% 4/15/13

8/15/13

12/15/13

4/15/14

8/15/14

12/15/14

Date


19



EXHIBIT 5 Fitness Band Market Share Q3–Q4 2013

Other 7.6% Nike 13.7%

Fitbit 57.6% Jawbone 21.1%

Source: Canalys.

20



EXHIBIT 6

Top 20 R&D Budgets, 2014

Rank

Company

IoT Strength

R&D Budget ($B)*

1

Volkswagen

Automotive

13.5

2

Samsung

Operating system, devices

13.4

3

Intel

Integrated chip sets

10.6

4

Microsoft

Data analytics, cloud platform, operating system, devices

10.4

5

Roche

N/A

10

6

Novartis

N/A

9.9

7

Toyota

Automotive

9.1

8

Johnson & Johnson

N/A

8.2

9

Google

Data analytics, cloud platform, operating system, devices, proven autonomous vehicle technology

10

Merck

N/A

7.5

11

GM

Automotive

7.2

12

Daimler

Automotive

7

13

Pfizer

N/A

6.7

14

Amazon

Data analytics, cloud platform, devices

6.6

15

Ford

Automotive

6.4

16

Sanofi-Aventis

N/A

6.3

17

Honda

Automotive

6.3

18

IBM

Technology services

6.2

19

GlaxoSmith Kline

N/A

6.1

20

Cisco

Networking

5.9

8

*R&D spend data is based on the most recent full-year figures reported prior to July 1st. Source: Adapted from PwC Strategy& “The top innovators and spenders” www.strategyand.pwc.com/global/home/ www.strategyand.pwc.com/global/home/ what-we-think/global-innovation-1000/top-innovators-spenders

21



Endnotes 1 Waters, Richard. “FT interview with Google co-founder and CEO Larry Page.” Financial Times. 31 October 2014. 2 http://www http://www.statista.com/statistics/273744/numb .statista.com/statistics/273744/number-of-full-time-google-employees/ er-of-full-time-google-employees/ 3 Johnson, S. 2010. Where good ideas come from: The natural history of innovation . Riverhead Books, New York. 4 Alistair Barr. 2015. “Google lab puts a time limit on innovations, The Wall Street Journal. 31 March 2015. 5 Levy, Levy, Steven. “Google’s Larry Page Pa ge on Why Moon Shots Matter Matter.” .” Wired. 17 January 2013. 6 Alistair Barr. 2015. “Google lab puts a time limit on innovations, The Wall Street Journal. 31 March 2015. 7 Winkler, Winkler, Rolfe. “Google gives boost to mobile-friendly sites,” The Wall Street Journal , 21 April 2015. 8 Brody Mullins, Winkler, Rolfe, and Kendall, Brent. “Inside the U.S. antitrust probe of Google” The Wall Street Journal. 19 March 2015. 9 Valentinia Pop, and Fairless, Tom. “Europe to pull trigger on Google” The Wall Street Journal . 15 April 2015. 10 Battelle, John. “The Birth of Google.” Wired. August 2005. 11 Ibid. 12 Levy, Steven. (2011), In the Plex (New York, NY: Simon & Shuster). 13 “Google Receives $25 Million in Equity Funding.” Google. 7 June 1999. 14 In the Plex. 15 Ibid. 16 http://www http://www.google.com/ .google.com/googlefriends/alert2_2000.html googlefriends/alert2_2000.html 17 Yahoo 2000 Annual Report. 18 In the Plex. 19 “Google Names Dr. Eric Schmidt Chief Executive Officer.” Officer.” Google. 6 August 2001. 20 “2003 Financial Tables.” Google Investor Relations. 21 In the Plex. 22 Gallagher, David F. “AOL Shifts Key Contract to Google.” The New York Times. 2 May 2002. 23 Teather, David. “How Google got it so right.” The Guardian. 5 May 2002. 24 Mangalindan, Mylene and Angwin, Julia. “Google Lands Pact with AOL, Strengthening IPO Prospects.” The Wall Street Journal. 2 May 2002. 25 “Google turns 10: A look back” Fortune. 5 September 2008. 26 Ritter, Jay. “Google’s IPO, 10 Years Later.” Forbes. 7 August 2014. 27 Floyd Norris. “The man classes of Google stock” The New York Times. 2 April 2014. 28 Vise, David. “Google to Buy 5% of AOL for $1 Billion.” The Washington Post. 17 December 2005. 29 “AOL-Google: Who Gets What.” Business Week. 20 December 2005

22



30 Hansell, Saul, “AOL’s Choice of Google Leaves Microsoft as the Outsider.” The New York Times. 19 December 2005 31 Edelman, Benjamin and Eisenmann, Thomas (2010), “Teaching Note: Google Inc. and Google Inc. (Abridged) (5-910-0505),” Harvard Business School, June 1. 32 Liedtke, M. 2011. “Has Page learned from first stint as Google CEO?” Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: 3 April, p. 3D. 33 http://search http://searchenginewatch.com/ enginewatch.com/sew/study/2345837/google-searc sew/study/2345837/google-search-engine-market-share-nears-68# h-engine-market-share-nears-68# 34 Thaw, Jonathan. “To Google: Merriam-Webster Defines ‘Google’ as a Verb (Update1).” Bloomberg. 6 July 2006. Accessed 15 Nov 2014. 35 “Inside Search.” Google.com. Accessed 15 November, 2014 36 Winkler, Winkler, Rolfe. “Google gives boost to mobile-friendly sites,” The Wall Street Journal , 21 April 37 “Zeitgeist 2012.” Google. Accessed 15 November 14, 2014 38 Winkler, Winkler, Rolfe. “Google gives boost to mobile-friendly sites,” The Wall Street Journal , 21 April 2015. 39 http://www http://www.wsj.com/articles/go .wsj.com/articles/google-starts-removing-searc ogle-starts-removing-search-results-under-europes-right-t h-results-under-europes-right-to-be-forgoto-be-forgotten-1403774023 40 Pop, Valentina, and Fairless, Tom. “Europe to pull trigger on Google.” The Wall Street Journal. 15 April 2015. 41 Fisher, Adam. “Google’s Road Map to Global Domination.” The New York Times Magazine. 11 December 2013. 42 In the Plex. 43 “Google Acquires Keyhole.” The Wall Street Journal. 27 October 2004. 44 In the Plex. 45 http://www http://www.graphics.stanford.edu/ .graphics.stanford.edu/projects/cityblo projects/cityblock/ ck/ Accessed 14 November 2014. 46 Olanoff, Drew. Drew. “Inside Google Street View: From Larry Page’s Car to the Depths of the Grand Canyon.” TechCrunch. 8 March 2013. Accessed 14 November 2014. 47 Fisher, Adam. “Google’s Road Map to Global Domination.” The New York Times Magazine. 11 December 2013. 48 Madrigal, Alexis. “How Google Builds Its Maps—and What It Means for the Future of Everything.” The Atlantic. 6 September 2012. 49 Womack, Womack, Brian. “Google Buys Waze in Push Pus h to Expand in Mobile Mapping.” Bloomberg. 11 June 2013. Accessed 15 November 2014. 50 Letzing, J., Lessin, J. “New detour to Google Maps.” The Wall Street Journal, 14 December 2012. 51 McCracken, Harry. “How Gmail Happened: The Inside Story of Its Launch 10 Years Ago.” Time. 1 April 2014. 52 https://litmus.com https://litmus.com/blog/53-of-emails-opened-on /blog/53-of-emails-opened-on-mobile-outlook-opens-dec -mobile-outlook-opens-decrease-33 rease-33 53 In the Plex. 54 Griffith, Erin. “Who’s winning the consumer cloud storage wars?” Fortune. 6 November 2014. 55 http://fortune. http://fortune.com/2014/1 com/2014/11/06/dropbox-go 1/06/dropbox-google-drive-microsoft-o ogle-drive-microsoft-onedrive/ nedrive/ 56 Fowler, G. 2011. “Facebook’s web of frenemies,” The Wall Street Journal , 11 February, p. B1.

23



57 Huet, Ellen. “Google Finally Shuts Down Orkut, Its First Social Network.” Forbes. 30 June 2014. 2014 . Accessed 16 November 2014. 58 Google Official Blog. “A fall sweep.” 14 Oct. 2011. Accessed 16 November 2014. 59 http://www http://www.usnews.com/ne .usnews.com/news/articles/2014/04/30/has-facebook ws/articles/2014/04/30/has-facebook-beaten-google-plus -beaten-google-plus 60 Winkler, Rolfe. “Google+ Chief Vic Gundotra Departs.” The Wall Street Journal. 24 April 2014. 61 http://www http://www.usnews.com/ne .usnews.com/news/articles/2014/04/30/has-facebook ws/articles/2014/04/30/has-facebook-beaten-google-plus -beaten-google-plus 62 http://www http://www.statista.com/statistics/193530/market-shar .statista.com/statistics/193530/market-share-of-net-us-online-ad-reven e-of-net-us-online-ad-revenues-of-google-since-2009/ ues-of-google-since-2009/ 63 Rolfe Winkler and Marshall, Jack. “Google imitates Facebook with email marketing” The Wall Street Journal. 15 April 2015. 64 http://www http://www.operasoftware.co .operasoftware.com/press/releases/ge m/press/releases/general/2015-02-03 neral/2015-02-03 65 Catan, T., Efrati, A. 2011. New heat for Google CEO, The Wall Street Journal : 27-28 August, B1. 66 Guth, Robert. “Microsoft Bid to Beat Google Builds on a History of Mis ses.” The Wall Street Journal. 16 Jan. 2009. 67 Elbaz, E. “Ten Years Years Later: Lessons From the Applied Semantics’ Google Acquisition.” Allthingsd.com. 22 April 2013. Accessed 26 October 2014. 68 In the Plex. 69 Google Official Blog. “Why we’re buying DoubleClick.” 26 June 2007. Accessed 16 November 2014. 70 Berman, Dennis et al. “Google to Pay $3.1 Billion for Web Firm DoubleClick.” The Wall Street Journal. 14 April 2007. 71 Stone, Brad. “Is DoubleClick Clicking for Google?” Bloomberg Businessweek Magazine. 10 March 2011. Accessed 16 November 2014. 72 Liedtke, Michael. “Google Snaps Up YouT YouTube ube for $1.65B.” The Washington Post. 9 October 2006. 73 Sorkin, A. and Peters, J. “Google to Acquire YouT YouTube ube for $1.65 Billion.” The New York Times. 9 Oct. 2006. 74 Bradshaw, T. “YouTube reaches a billion users milestone.” Financial Times. 21 March 2013. 75 Worstall, T. “Google’s YouTube Ad Revenues May Hit $5.6 Billion in 2013.” Forbes. 12 December 2013. 76 “Annual Report 2005.” Research in Motion. 77 Page, Larry. “Update from the CEO.” Google Official Blog. 13 March 2013. Accessed 1 November 2014. 78 http://searchen http://searchengineland.com/baidu-squeezing-go gineland.com/baidu-squeezing-google-out-on-chinese-andr ogle-out-on-chinese-android-phones-74887 oid-phones-74887 79 Ramstad, E. “Microsoft-Samsung Deal strikes a blow at Google” The Wall Street Journal : 29 September 2011. 2 011. Vascellaro, J. “Apple ruling hits Android” The Wall Street Journal : 20 December 2011. 80 http://www http://www.bbc.com/n .bbc.com/news/technology-29833131 ews/technology-29833131 81 In the Plex. 82 http://www http://www.forbes.com/sites/ .forbes.com/sites/antonyleather/2014/08/04/ antonyleather/2014/08/04/ google-chrome-browser-market-share-tops-20-leaves-firefox-in-its-dust/

24



83 http://www http://www.cnet.com/new .cnet.com/news/meet-microsoft-e s/meet-microsoft-edge-the-replacement-for dge-the-replacement-for-internet-explorer/ -internet-explorer/ 84 Efrati, A., Shear, I. 2011. Google sets laptop foray, The Wall Street Journal : 12 May, B5. 85 http://www http://www.statista.com/statistics/268237/glob .statista.com/statistics/268237/global-market-share-held-by-operating-systems-since-2009/ al-market-share-held-by-operating-systems-since-2009/ 86 Gelles, D., Waters, R. 2010. “Google phases out Windows for employees over security concerns,” Financial Times: 1 June, p. 1. 87 Stone, Brad. “Google’s Smoking-Fast Fi ber Network.” Bloomberg Businessweek. July 26, 2012. Accessed 16 November 2014. 88 Fung, Brian. “Here’s why big cities aren’t getting Google Fiber a nytime soon.” The Washington Post. 20 Feb 2014. 89 Grisales, Claudia. “AT&T: “AT&T: Web fight won’t affect Austin customers.” Austin American-Statesman. 12 Nov 2014. 90 Barr, Alistair, and Knutson, Ryan. “Google wireless service undercuts phone plans,” The Wall Street Journal . 23 April 2015. 91 In the Plex. 92 “Steve Ballmer: Worldwide Partner Conference 2013 Keynote.” Microsoft News Center. 8 July 2013. Accessed 16 Nov 2014. 93 McMillan, Robert. “Google: We’re We’re One of the World’s Largest Hardware Makers.” Wired. 22 June 2012. 94 https://gigaom.c https://gigaom.com/2011/09/ om/2011/09/08/google-reveals-electricity-use-aims-for 08/google-reveals-electricity-use-aims-for-a-third-clean-power-by-2012/ -a-third-clean-power-by-2012/ 95 http://www.google.com/green/bigpicture/ 96 “What Is the Internet of Things?” Macroeconomic Insights. Goldman Sachs. September 2014. 97 Bauer, Harald et. Al. “The Internet of Things: Sizing up the opportunity.” opportunity.” McKinsey & Co. December 2014. 98 Wood, Wood, Molly. Molly. “At the International CES, the Internet of Things Hits Home.” The New York Times. 4 January 2015. 99 Tilley, Tilley, Aaron. “Apple Emerges as a Promising Internet of Things Platform at CES 2015.” Forbes. 9 January 2015. 100 Sherr, Ian and Totty, Totty, Michael. “Is It Better for Businesses to Adopt Open or Closed Platforms?” The Wall Street Journal. 15 November 2011. 101 Linux_Foundation. “Technology “Technology Leaders Establish the AllSeen Alliance to Advance the ‘Internet of Everything.’” Linux_Foundation. 10 December 2013. 102 Clark, Don. “Internet of Things Spurs Rival Consortia.” Digits-The Wall Street Journal Blog. 15 January 2015. Accessed 23 January 2015. 103 Waters, Richard. “Apple seeks to work Jobs magic on the Internet of things.” Financial Times. 29 May 2014. 104 Barr, Alistair and Winkler, Winkler, Rolfe. “Google’s Nest Labs Opens Its Platform to Outside Developers.” The Wall Street Journal. 24 June 2014. 105 Gertner, Jon. “Behind GE’s Vision for the Industrial Internet of Things.” Fast Company. July/August 2014. 106 “Wiser wires.” The Economist. 8 October 2009. 107 Ray, Tiernan. Tiernan. “Apple, Crown Castle, Splunk: Gaggle of Internet of Things Players in Morgan Stanley Report.” Barron’s . 3 April 2014. Accessed 10 January 2015 .

25



108 Ibid. 109 Ferber, Stefan. “How the Internet of Things Changes Everything.” Harvard Business Review. 7 May 2013. 110 Gertner, Gertner, Jon. “Behind GE’s Vision for the Industrial Internet of Things.” Fast Company. July/August 2014. 1111 Stone, Brad. “Inside Google’s Secret Lab.” Bloomberg Businessweek. 22 May 2013. 11 112 Honan, Mat. “I, Glasshole.” Wired. 30 December 2013. 113 Swearingen, Jake. “How the Camera Doomed Google Glass.” The Atlantic. 15 January 2015. 114 Metz, Rachel. “Google Glass Is Dead; Long Live Smart Glasses.” MIT Technology Technology Review. 26 November 2014. 115 Walsh, Bryan. “The Doctor on Your Wrist.” Time. 14 November 2014. 116 Ibid. 117 Lashinsky, Lashinsky, Adam. “Jawbone: The trials of a 16-year-old can’t-miss startup.” Fortune. 22 January 2015. 118 Olson, Parmy. “A Massive Social Experiment on You Is Under Way, and You Will Love It.” Forbes. 21 January 2015. 119 http://readw http://readwrite.com/2015/03/24/goo rite.com/2015/03/24/google-fit-vs-apple-health gle-fit-vs-apple-health 120 Pogue, David. “A Watch That Sinks Under Its Features.” The New York Times. 2 October 2013. 121 Wasik, Bill. “Why Wearable Tech Will Be as Big as the Smartphone.” Wired. 17 December 2013. 122 http://www http://www.zdnet.com/article/ .zdnet.com/article/apple-watch-official-battery-data/ apple-watch-official-battery-data/ 123 Barr, A. “Google joins the better-battery parade” The Wall Street Journal: 11-12 April 2015. 124 “What Is the Internet of Things?” Macroeconomic Insights. Goldman Sachs. September 2014. 125 Clark, D. “The Race to Build Command Centers for Smart Homes.” The Wall Street Journal. 4 January 2015. 126 “What Is the Internet of Things?” Macroeconomic Insights. Goldman Sachs. September 2014. 127 Ravindranath, M. “10 start-ups join Microsoft’s Internet of Things accelerator accelerator.” .” The Washington Post. 13 August 2014. 128 Lapowsky, I. “Why Apple Wants to Make a Remote Control for Your Home.” Wired. 27 May 2014. 129 http://www http://www.luxresearchinc.c .luxresearchinc.com/news-and-event om/news-and-events/press-releases/read/ s/press-releases/read/ self-driving-cars-87-billion-opportunity-2030-though-none-reach 130 Reuters. “Connected Cars: Is AT&T Leaving Verizon in Its Rear-V Rear-View iew Mirror?” The New York Times. 29 September 2014. 131 Seward, Christopher. “AT&T Drive Studio opens to develop ‘connected car.’” Atlanta Journal-Constitution. 16 January 2014. 132 Gao, Paul, Hensley Hensley,, Russell and Zielke, Andreas. “A road map to the future for the auto industry.” McKinsey Quarterly. October 2014 133 Kaas, Hans-Werner and Fleming, Thomas. “Bill Ford charts a course for the future.” McKinsey Quarterly. October 2014. 134 Thrun, Sebastian. “What we’re driving at.” Official Blog. Google. 9 October 2009. Accessed 14 Nov 2014.

26



135 “Look, no hands.” The Economist. 20 April 2013. Gao, Paul, Hensley, Russell and Zielke, Andreas. “A road map to the future for the auto industry.” McKinsey Quarterly. October 2014. This doesn’t seem to be linked to a note in the text. Does it belong to #135? 136 Wakabayahshi, D, and Ramsey, Ramsey, M. 2015. “Apple secretly gears up to create car,” The Wall Street Journal, February 14, p. A1. 137 “Allstate Courts Third Party Developers for Driver Monitoring Mobile Platform.” The Wall Street Journal. 16 January 2015. 138 Yerak, Becky. Becky. “More consumers say ‘no way’ to driver-monitoring programs.” Chicago Tribune. 15 January 2015. 139 Chambers, John and Elfrink, Wim. “The Future of Cities.” Foreign Affairs. 31 October 2014. 140 Ibid. 141 Fagnant, Daniel and Kockelman, Kara. “Preparing a Nation for Autonomous Vehicles: Vehicles: Opportunities, Barriers and Policy Recommendations.” Eno Center for Transportation. Washington Washington DC. October 2013. 142 Heine, Max. “Mercy sakes alive, looks like we got us a robot convoy.” convoy.” www.overdriveonline.co www.overdriveonline.com m 11 April 2013. Accessed 26 September 2014. 143 “A New Leaf.” The Economist. 30 August 2013. 144 “In the self-driving seat.” The Economist. 31 May 2014. 145 Gomes, Lee. “Hidden Obstacles for Google’s Self-Driving Cars.” MIT Technology Technology Review. 28 August 2014. 146 Harris, Mark. “How Google’s Autonomous Autonomous Car Passed the First U.S. State Self-Driving Test.” IEEE Spectrum. Posted 10 September 2014. Accessed 19 September 2014. 147 “Gloom and boom.” The Economist. 20 April 2013. 148 “Look, no hands.” The Economist. 20 April 2013. 149 Ramsey, Ramsey, Mike. “Tesla CEO Musk Sees Fully Autonomous Car Ready in Five Fi ve or Six Years.” The Wall Street Journal. 17 September 2014. 150 Fagnant, Daniel and Kockelman, Kara. “Preparing a Nation for Autonomous Vehicles: Vehicles: Opportunities, Barriers and Policy Recommendations.” Eno Center for Transportation. Washington, Washington, DC. October 2013. 151 http://ir http://ir.avisbudgetgroup.co .avisbudgetgroup.com/secfiling.cfm?filingID=723612-14-41&CIK= m/secfiling.cfm?filingID=723612-14-41&CIK=723612 723612 152 http://money http://money.cnn.com/2015/02/03/ .cnn.com/2015/02/03/technology/innov technology/innovationnation/uber-self-driving-c ationnation/uber-self-driving-cars/ ars/

27


E Marketing Google

Recommend Documents