"Google doesn't create immersive experiences that you get lost in," says Ben Thompson." Let's see, Facebook and Pinterest will take over because of their 'immersive experiences' such as video news feeds,etc. Wow, I guess reading Google news and/or viewing You Tube won't have the qualities that are involved in the immersive experience one will surely enjoy at Facebook?
"According to Thompson the future of online advertising looks increasingly like the business of television." I'm confused because I read a couple of reader comments that suggested Mr. Thompson is a deep thinker. Here's the thing to remember. Mr. Thompson repeatedly suggests that the advertising model used on TV is a highly successful one with a proven track record. This suggests to me that he firmly believes that most TV viewers pay attention to ads. I'll tell you what Mr Thompson. Why don't you launch a channel of your own(May i suggest calling it 'Reality check) and offer two ways to watch it. One with no ads, one with ads. That should feed you enough information to clearly show you something i think you already know. The effectiveness of TV advertising is a myth generated by the people gettting the ad money. I actually pay attention to ads once a year. Yep, Superbowl Sunday.
Finally another quote from Mr Thompson to support the poster idea about Google peak; "To me the Microsoft comparison can't be more clear. This is the price of being so successful — what you're seeing is that when a company becomes dominant, its dominance precludes it from dominating the next thing. It's almost like a natural law of business." Yet the poster and Mr Thompson are both certain that Facebook could become the dominant player in the digital advertising world that they see forming up. Which begs the question; Isn't Facebook already a dominant fixture in a certain category? Google dominates search. Who is king of the social network?
If the poster or any of the people cited by him believe that an equivalent of a full page magazine ad placed in a news blog or a 60 second ad placed in the middle of a video feed are going to be met with different reactions than the same ads in the print and televison world I can only say no, no they won't. They won't be welcomed, they won't be watched or read. Sure, the ad agencies can and already are painting a rosy picture. Who cares? The real world of advertising bears little resemblance to reality.
It's quite interesting that Google is the one that has the 'real' numbers. Yet they are portrayed as almost stumbling to their massive profits, with little insight or knowledge about advertising. No, they just got lucky.
In one of the articles the poster linked to the author states, ; "Relatedly, and as hinted above, both IBM and Microsoft were found to have abused their monopolies in an attempt to dominate application software and browsers respectively; it’s increasingly plausible to argue, as The Information has reported, that Google is doing the same with Android and its increasingly onerous requirements around the inclusion of Google’s services." Uh, except that in the case of Google there is one SLIGHT variation. Google isn't trying to force you to take their browser as Microsoft did. Just the opposite. They are simply saying if you are an OEM and want the Play Store or Google apps on the phone you are selling, you must abide by the terms we dictate. It seems pretty reasonable to me. After all, I don't believe this is any way inhibits an OEM from running Android.