Nope. You're just using a stupid metric.
Corporations use payout ratio to decide how reasonable the dividend is, which is the ratio of the dividends per share to the earnings per share.
That in this case is around 10%.
The most you'll ever see is about 40%- in any company.
So the most you could ever see from Alphabet is a yield of 0.48%, which wouldn't make one bit of a difference to you unless you had billions in their stock.

For a company to have a yield of 7%, they must have a very low valued stock.
That will generally be the case, because the stock's real money making capacity- it's growth- is low.

The yield is, but yield is not what companies set. They set payout ratio- dividend per share, as a percentage of the earnings per share.
That is 10%, which is in the normal range.
Yield is something wannabe daytraders look at.
IT stocks are not held for dividends. Do some quick math. You'd need a billion dollars in stock to even pull a mediocre income in dividends.
For a company like Alphabet to have a reasonable yield ratio (let's say, 3%, again, not something they would give a fuck about, as they don't set their free market share price) they'd need to be the most profitable company on the planet, about 5 times over.
0.12% yield of Alphabet isn't meaningfully worse than 0.57% for Apple, or 0.75% for Microsoft, unless of course you're got a cool billion in stock.

No, this is me mocking someone who is deflecting, and has resorted to tu toque reasoning because they've lost.
Now, stop deflecting.
I see you earned that bad karma ;)

That dividend yield is inversely correlated with stock price.

Don't deflect. You can do this. Look at it this way- you get to look at a pretty picture.

When your market cap is 5.5 J&J's, you print more shares.
Of course you don't have to, but in general, you do.

You seem like a somewhat average intelligence individual. You can quickly pull some data and plot dividend yields to stock price. If you need help identifying the correlation, let me know.

Exceptions don't disprove the rule.

The average stock price for the 9 highest dividend yields on the S&P 500 is $45.

0.57% is still a tiny yield.
It's so tiny in comparison to large yield holdings, that it's not even worth distinguishing between those two numbers.

You don't hold Apple or Google for dividends. You hold it for the stock valuation.

Dividend yield is calculated by stock price, but corporations do not set dividends by yield, because it's an absurd and meaningless number to them.
They set it by earnings per share.

It's a completely normal dividend for any high priced stock.
Why they bother? Because the stock performs 4x better than one with a higher dividend.

High-yield dividend stocks pay ~6%, or a payout ratio of ~40%. These are businesses that aren't expanding anymore.
And they've also had stable values for the last 30 years.

Apple pays 0.57%.
This is how I know you have no idea what you're talking about.

I don't see any way the Fairness Doctrine could exist, frankly.
The lines and networks these days are privately owned autonomous systems.
The only reason the US had the constitutional power to enforce the Fairness Doctrine, is because it only applied to a public resource- the airwaves.

It's a strange dynamic, for sure.

Again, the dividends and profit have nothing to do with share market value.
Dividend yield is a number used by those trying to see how much money they can make from their investment.
That's not the business' problem.

The dividend payout ratio on the stock is just fine. It's about 10% of the earnings per share.
Google would have to make a truly fucking stupid amount of money to have a yield ratio of anything appreciable. That's normal for any company with a high stock price.

Dividends and profit have nothing to do with share market value.

10%.
Little low, but not terrible.

Know how I know you're talking shit?
Because you don't know what a dividend payout ratio is ;)
It's not the fraction of the market value of the fucking stock lol