They are obviously not only an ad company, but GP only claimed that they are an ad company "first". Can you please clarify which part you consider oversimplified?
Considering that the recent Google code leak only substantiated that Chrome is the honey pot for surveillance and data harvesting that people long suspected, even any supposedly not ad related work is technically also ad related work.
It’s something people have a really difficult time preaching logically, the veil of deception of many things. Another big example is TV, which are ad sales companies, not TV show distributors, even if they’ve successfully swindled people into a mindset where they actually pay the providers, for the privilege of being sold advertisement.
It’s really a rather interesting and eye opening segment of largely the US society that is both extremely dominant and has effectively been extremely damaging, and yet, people simply cannot see that they are like mindless drones, being programmed and reprogrammed with TV shows and advertisement.
> Considering that the recent Google code leak only substantiated that Chrome is the honey pot for surveillance and data harvesting that people long suspected
I'm vaguely aware of a code leak but haven't delved into the details; I'm curious if you have a link to details about this data harvesting?
Consider the case of a YouTuber who gets most of their revenue through superchats. They regularly upload videos, a couple times a week, and receive ad revenue and the od sponsorship deal. Once a week they do a livestream Q&A which is where the bulk of that superchat revenue comes from.
Are they a livestreaming "first" business-man/company/sole trader?
Revenue sources are not necessarily the be all and end all of determining what your key business concern is, or what your business should put first.
> Are they a livestreaming "first" business-man/company/sole trader?
Maybe, it depends on what they do next. Will they start uploading fewer videos and live-streaming more because they realised that’s where the money is?
> Revenue sources are not necessarily the be all and end all of determining what your key business concern is, or what your business should put first.
Agreed. But Google does put ads first. All the tracking, web proposals, Chrome, it’s all in service of ads. Perhaps you’re using an ad blocker and that’s making you forget, but Google’s services, like search and YouTube, are huge blobs of ads with a few bits of content sprinkled throughout and the ratio is getting worse in the ads’ favour. So yes, Google is an ad company. Not because it makes the most money from it, but because most of its effort is in expanding and defending their ad revenue. Heck, they literally spend billions of dollars just to make sure you search with their engine to see their ads.
True, but in addition to the revenue Google ALSO tailors all their products to facilitate their advertising products. It's sort of like a singer who sells merch. The merch makes money but it also props up the singers singing career and funds tours.
Chrome revolves around ads, android revolves around ads, maps revolves around ads, gmail revolves around ads. If you take a hard look at all their products their all linked to Google's advertisement offerings in one way or another. That, to me, means adtech is their main line of business.
They are the be all and end all in determining the incentives of a company from outside of it, though. If you sell ads I'm not going to trust any other product you have out of simple conflict of interest.
Not at all. In the hypothetical, without getting into the weeds of a business that doesn'tactually exist, if they stop producing the non-livestream content they could quickly find their livestream revenue dry up.
They could perhaps pivot, but at that moment, the superchats only exist because of the non-live content they put out.
So what you're saying is they will drive business decisions to ensure the viability of their livestream revenue stream. I feel like we're all in agreement.
Source: https://www.statista.com/statistics/266249/advertising-reven...
They are obviously not only an ad company, but GP only claimed that they are an ad company "first". Can you please clarify which part you consider oversimplified?