Categories
Google

Search Like You Talk on Google Drive

Google is making it a lot easier to find things saved in .
The  now supports Natural Language Processing for search, which “is a fancy way of saying [you can now] ‘search like you talk,'” Google DriveProduct Manager Josh Smith wrote in a Tuesday . So, when you’re looking for a specific file in Drive on the Web, you can now, for instance, type things like “find my budget spreadsheet from last December,” or “show me presentations from Anissa.”

“Drive will understand what you mean,” and use the keywords you type to find what you’re looking for. This feature will get better the more you use it, so go ahead and give it a try next time you need to find something.
You don’t have to worry about spelling everything perfectly, either. Drive now has a new autocorrect feature that suggests corrections to misspelled search terms — just like when you’re searching the Web via Google. This new feature should “really help when your brain is moving faster than your fingers,” Smith wrote.
Finally, Google has added a few other “small but mighty” features in Docs to help you out, including the ability to split your document into multiple columns. Just head over to the “Format” drop-down menu and choose “Columns” to take advantage of this new formatting option.
Finally, Docs should now play nicer with all types of file formats. Now, when you open, convert and edit non-Google files in Docs, Sheets and Slides, the program will save a copy for you. That way, you’ll be able to view or download the non-Google source file in its original format right from the document’s Revision History on the Web.
These features are rolling out now, and should reach everyone at some point soon.
It comes after Google in December  a “new search experience” for Drive. For instance, you can now narrow your search to a specific file type — like PDFs, text documents, spreadsheets, photos, presentations or videos — right from the search box on ,  and the Web.

Categories
Google

Google Case Analysis

Google is simply one of the most successful companies—in terms of profits, technological innovation, and cultural impact—that the world has ever seen. Google’s success, challenges, and future are all subjects worthy of thick books. Here, we’ll briefly discuss a few questions. We first look at the online search industry through the lens of Porter’s five forces model, and see a few reasons why Google has been successful. Second, we recommend Google continue expanding in ways that support its core philosophy of providing information. Third, we predict continued success for Google’s Android operating system.
Fourth, we discuss why Google’s culture and governance structure have been beneficial. Fifth, we look at Google’s struggles in China and Korea and make a few suggestions. Finally, we examine Google’s future with regulatory agencies and make recommendations to deal with regulation. Evaluate the sponsored search engine industry based on Porter’s five forces model. An analysis of Porter’s five forces reveals how Google became the most used search engine today. The first force to be analyzed is the threat of new entrants to the market. Currently, the threat of new entrants is low.
The technology and marketing needed to enter the market are prohibitive for most firms. What’s more, people are comfortable with the search engine choices presently available and, while switching costs are low, Google itself has demonstrated that it has a strong foothold on the search engine market. In November 2009, Google “enjoyed a 65. 6% share of all U. S. searches…[and outside] the United States Google’s lead was even larger, exceeding a 90% share of search queries in numerous countries. ” The second force that needs to be analyzed is the threat of substitutes.

Industry substitutes would be other ways to collect information and/or browse the web. For the vast majority of cases, search engines and Google in particular have been shown to be a faster and better way to collect information (compared to say a library or research firm). We might consider social sites like Facebook or Reddit to be threats. Rather than pure searches, people get information based on recommendations of peers. In Google’s case, it has incorporated social into its own algorithms in response to this threat.
For most searches, though, people go to a search engine like Google rather than waiting for a friend or a Facebook algorithm to suggest it. The threat is low-to-medium. The third force, the bargaining power of suppliers, is also low. The suppliers are just those who put information on the web. Those suppliers can’t switch to another web without Google or other search engines and won’t stop creating content even if one search engine disappeared. The threat is not just low, it doesn’t exist. The fourth and fifth forces are the bargaining power of buyers and the competition. For both the industry and Google in particular, both are low. Learn when the government uses censorship, it puts a limit on what?
Buyers are those who purchase ads. And Google’s ads easily reach more people and cost less than any competitor. (Though those are also relatively cheap). Google AdSense give buyers the best tools to track and improve their advertising. Excepting some huge companies, such as Yahoo, no one has enough heft to negotiate with Google to any degree. They must simply except the price. Google knows they outshine the competition. In addition to enhancing its core search businesses, should Google also branch out into new arenas? Which of the following would you recommend:
1) building a full-fledged portal like Yahoo! s; 2) targeting Microsoft’s desktop software hegemony; and/or 3) becoming an e- commerce intermediary like eBay? Why? Reflecting upon Google’s recent strategies since Larry Page’s return as CEO, it is quite interesting to note that Google has shifted its stance—becoming more consolidated and more focused in strengthening its business model; and less adventurous in seeking opportunities. Under Page’s leadership, Google aims for depth and specialization and has hence abandoned many of its projects and fine-tuned its focus to seven major business areas: search, advertising, social networking, Android, Chrome, YouTube and local mobile commerce. Read also G oogle’s business model relies on which of the following to generate revenue
How Google will develop under Page from now on will be a very interesting issue to follow. However, for the various reasons stated hereon, it is important for Google to expand. Despite the benefits associated with specialization and fortifying brand image, it is nevertheless important to continue experimenting with new businesses and spur innovation since this is what defines Google as people know it. Going forward, Google should tackle all three branches for expansion.
In pursuing these opportunities, Google should stay focused on its mission as opposed to merely attacking the incumbent leaders. Whilst the development of new features and offerings may inevitably eat away competitors’ market shares, the guiding mission is to provide greater convenience for users in accessing and making use of information, whether that may be via search or share, voice or text. The purpose is to create an all-in-one platform that facilitates such activities. Google should expand for both offensive and defensive reasons.
With its current reputation and diverse portfolio of tools and services, it is in Google’s best interests to expand into new areas–both to broaden its revenue base and fulfill its mission of “reorganizing the world’s information and making them accessible and useful”. Numerous opportunities can still be reaped via further development of current products, such as Chrome OS and Google Apps, and expansions into complementary businesses will be able to leverage their current knowledge base to create both economies of scale and scope. In turn, expansion is necessary as a defensive strategy.
As the technology market matures, product offerings including the search engine will converge and standardize, resulting in tougher competition. Facebook is already emerging as a potential threat where, via introducing a myriad of applications and market places to its social network platform, it has been able to replicate many of Google’s offerings in a simpler form over one enclosed environment. In order to fend off such threats, it is imperative that Google expand into new areas both to diversify risks and concurrently brand itself as the more ttractive provider.
As such, Google should build a portal–which it already has with the current array of applications and tools–but not in the tabloid and link structure as Yahoo! The main feature that distinguishes Google from Yahoo! is the user interaction that takes place via the applications, and as such Google should maintain the portal as an all-in-one platform analogous to the Windows environment encompassing its application programs. Similar arguments must also be made regarding desktop software and e-commerce expansions.
They also both already exist in a form and they will all serve as ancillaries operating under the Google site in support of its broader mission of facilitating information access. The main point is that Google should stay focused. It is neither an online software company nor an e-commerce intermediary. Google is an information company, and it is important that its expansions operate under the concept of facilitating information organization and access. Who will eventually dominate the mobile operating system platform? Google (Android), Samsung, or Apple? Why?
Provide your justifications for your answer. Google, in the form of Android, already dominates and we expect this trend to continue. The market research firm Nielsen released the U. S. market share rate by smartphone operating system and manufacturer patrons. A full 51. 8% of smartphones use Android and Apple’s iOS ranked second with 34. 3%. By manufacturer, Apple is still keeping the first rank using iOS and Samsung, using Android, ranked second with 17%. It also indicates that Apple has gone far ahead of the competitors in regards to the iPhone’s indelible mark on technology, culture and business.
However, while the release of Apple iPhone 5 is attracting people’s attention, Google announced on September 11, 2012 that the opening number of New Android handsets hit 500 million. They are expecting that the cumulative shipments of Android handsets (Android Activations) will exceed 1 billion by 2013. In contrast, it is predicted that Apple iPhone’s aggregate shipments will reach 527 million by the end of next year and 1 billion by 2015. The product management director of Google Android, Hugo Barra commented on his Google Plus, “Today is an important day. 00 million handsets have been opened worldwide and every day more than 1. 3 million has been increasing. ”
Likewise, despite the fact that Apple has been sensational in the mobile market and has hit the operating system market with iOS providing many different kinds of materials, which are fresh enough to attract the users, we cannot deny that the future trend of the operating system market has been moving towards Android. Our team believes that Android will continue to dominate for several reasons. First, there are many staunch allied forces such as Samsung, HTC, Motorola, Sony Ericsson, and LG.
These smartphone manufacturers make Android smartphones, Because Apple does not let other manufacturers use iOS, they cannot help but have a difficulty on the numerical inferiority front. iOS will not be able to overcome such a large amount of competition. Second, while Apple makes one iPhone a year, hundreds of Android phones are released every year. This is why Android can upgrade quickly and generate the models users want. Each of the many Android manufacturers has released more than ten products. These phones vary in specifications, design, price, keyboard, and specialized functions.
This is a strong point of Android because users’ tastes vary. The iPhone, however great, is only one per year, so people have no choice and many will be unsatisfied. The last point that we need to emphasize is the growth of the Android market. The number of the Apps in the Android market is over 500,000 with a dramatically increasing rate. [See Appendix Figures 3 and 4] According to the domestic contents industry, the Android Market has fewer limitations in terms of operating and managing for app creators compared to the Apple App Store.
Unlike Android, for the Apple App Store, development companies must go through thorough pre-approval procedures according in order to register their apps. This implies that it has a structure to exclude the contents that are against Apple’s profit model. This will hinder Apple’s iOS further adoption by users. In contrast, the Android Market is relatively easier to register except in the case of harmful contents such as gambling or pornography. With all of this in mind, our team concludes that that Android will dominate the mobile operating systems market.
Do you view Google’s distinctive governance structure, corporate culture, and organizational processes as strengths or potential limitations? Justify your answers. We view them as strengths. The corporate structure of Google, which is common for media companies, such as newspapers, was created to provide the top management autonomy and independence. Google emphasized stability in the long term and thus during the IPO the dual-class equity decision strengthened the company’s strategic resolution.
Public technology companies face great pressure from the shareholders, which could lead to unethical and short-sighted decision making. The fact is that Google as a company is now so powerful it can ignore many shareholder complaints. The cultural values imposed by Google also greatly align with the strategy. Google’s statement of philosophy “Don’t be evil” is a prime example of the culture within the organization. This philosophy is widely used in every-day work to aid in ethical decision making.
The other company philosophy also differs from the traditional listed company as Google does not disclose information usually available from listed companies and also does not wish to “manipulate” the earnings to improve the stock price.?? Google’s company culture has become a world famous example. Employees are encouraged to spend up to 20% of their time pursuing their own projects and initiatives. While most of these resources will not create any value for the organization, it will maintain the innovative culture.
Concerns that due to these initiatives, the organization might be diversifying too much and spending too much resources on non core-business. (As mentioned above, Larry Page as CEO is addressing this concern. ) However, the increased autonomy, teamwork and cross-unit communication all not only foster innovation but also help create future leaders within the organization. In addition to the organizational behavioral benefits this system provides, Google employees have also created successful products and services, such as Google News and Gmail.
The organizational culture of Google is described to be very positive, productivity oriented and the structure also increases the speed of execution, reduces the need of middle management and thus decreases costs. The company is also highly competitive, which can cause increased stress levels, but at a large innovation driven organization such as Google, this type of continuous improvement and internal competition is one of the key forces driving Google. Despite the recent growth in the market share, Google is still not a dominant player in Korean as well as Chinese markets?
Why? What should Google do to penetrate these markets? With “Google” being synonymous with online search in the U. S. , the average American may find it surprising to learn that Google does not in fact dominate all markets and is in fact losing to homegrown competitors in countries such as China and South Korea. Google’s growth since 1999 is staggering. As of 2009, Google accounted for an incredible 65% of searches in the United States and holds 70% or more of the search engine market in 34 other countries.
Google has had no trouble establishing itself as the dominant player most of the time, however it was this philosophy that got the company into trouble in the worlds most important market: China. ? Google brought its business to Mainland China in 2005 by establishing a subsidiary in Beijing. By 2006, the company released its search offering www. google. cn. While being the first foreign search engine to enter the Chinese market was a positive. Google found itself facing stiff competition from China’s most popular homegrown search engine, Baidu.
Baidu’s purpose was to develop a search engine that would match the needs of Chinese citizens. Founded in 2000, the site quickly became a search powerhouse, was listed on the Nasdaq in 2005, and held over 70% of search market share by 2010. Google found itself in a tricky position from the moment it entered China. But while it was prepared for the Chinese government to censor a certain percentage of its search results, it did not expect the government to hack into its servers to retrieve private information about Chinese dissidents.
In 2010, Google announced that it would move its Chinese servers to Hong Kong in an attempt to circumvent the Mainland’s control over censorship and hacking attempts. Since that time, the relationship Google has held with China has been tumultuous. The government attacks Google in the media, and despite a superior searching performance, Chinese people think of it as the “clueless foreigner. ” Another important reason that led to Baidu’s imminent popularity is the fact that it lets users download illegal mp3’s, a practice, that, if shut down, should significantly affect its usage rates.
As of 2012, the latest market share numbers show Google’s hold on the Chinese market declining month by month to 16. 8% while Baidu hovers around 78%. In South Korea, the story is quite different. Google entered the Korean market in 2001 only to find it up against a search competitor that many have argued is not only superior to Google, but also more innovative. Naver was launched in 1999 by a group of ex-Samsung employees.
The purpose of the engine was to provide a niquely Korean experience, and the difference in the two sites reflects that almost immediately. Naver was built with the Korean user in mind, and therefore created a knowledge database allowing users to post information that could be searched by other users. Due to the lack of Korea-specific content on Google, many Koreans find it difficult to find the results they want when they search Google in Korean. ? If Google wants to penetrate these markets it needs to create search engines that keep the needs of the users in mind.
For instance, in Korea, people prefer Naver because of the plethora of user created content that is searchable in Korean. It will be very difficult for Google to replicate this strategy, however the company could start by incentivizing the most prolific content creators on Naver to start using related Google databases to post the same content, driving users to become more familiar with Google. In China, the challenge is enormous, especially given that the Chinese government lost face when Google decided to pull out of the mainland.
One area that Google has a clear competitive advantage is its integrity compared with Baidu. Baidu will accept money and place prominent links to guide users to websites with questionable products such as knockoff pharmacy product sites and, in the past, sites selling melamine-tainted products. If Google can leverage its integrity and create an engine which provides Chinese users with a more Chinese experience, such as placing links to youku as opposed to youtube, they may be able to slowly leach some of Baidu’s market share back into their corner.?

Categories
Google

Google in Asia

PIB Case Discussion Google in Asia 1. What resources and capabilities does Naver have that Google does not? – Those two companies have same purpose and function. But in detail, Google didn’t catch up Koreans mind. Google prefer simple design with fast searching system for people whose don’t have fast internet or fast internet devices. But in Korean market, almost every houses are using super fast internet with chip price. And even countryside of South Korea is able to use fast internet. If American or other nation uses naver as a main page, too many links and advertising can be effect their internet speed.

And Naver has more information that fits to Korean people who wants for the information. Such as Knowledge search, blogs, and cafe things, which make people gathering and share the information and communicating. 2. Why are the top two search engine providers in Japan foreign entrants, whereas in South Korea and China, it is a domestic incumbent that dominates the industry? -People can proud of their mother company which gives lots of information and easy to use. But in Japan, those two companies are foreign companies and settle downed already in Japanese market. That’s why even it’s not Japanese company, people doesn’t care. . Does Naver have what it takes to succeed in overseas markets, such as Japan and the United states? -Naver is not just a search engine which give information. The reason that succeeds in Korean market was other functions, which can provide interests and make people gathering all together on the websites. If Naver provide similar function web site in Japan and US market, they might be successful. But before they jump in foreign market, they must consider of the environment factors such as internet speed and supply rates of computer thing. Naver is too heavy for people who don’t have fast internet or fast internet devices.

Categories
Google

Google’s Market Analysis

Abstract
This paper takes Google’s business strategy as a starting point to examine how it is competing in the one-cloud, many-screen market. The paper set out the performance of Google in relation to its main competitors from 2006 until 2013. It conducts an economic analysis of Google and its market in a wider macro context. It points to the development of Google’s products and their effect on market completion. There is a revelation of the effectiveness of Google’s strategy and more so in the face of the 2012-2013 economic downturn that affected many companies. The paper finally identifies key features of the company’s strategy in regard to the competition and market share.
Introduction

Started in 1998 by Larry Page and Sergey Brin, Google is a company that has specializes in internet search and advertising technologies (Google, 2013). The company has diversified its base after mergers; acquisitions and partnerships to include products such as desktop and mobile phones. It has 22, 0000 employees and the leading search engine in the world. The year 2006 saw the company extends its web presence beyond search engine to other applications. This changed and expanded its advertising revenue base with Ad words and AdSense positioned as major income generators. After that, the company has gone ahead to incorporate various strategies in order to stay ahead of the competition. It is in this light that this paper examines Google’s performance between 2006 and 2013 analyzing its business strategy.
Google’s Performance from 2006 until 2013
In the year 2006, Google’s market share was at 59 percent. This translated to an average of 59 percent of search queries that year. Three of its main competitors, Yahoo, MSN and Ask posted poor results, way lower than Google’s. Yahoo’s market share in 2006 was 24.7 percent; MSN’s was 8.7 percent and Ask’s was the lowest at 4.2 percent. In the same year, Google’s revenue went up to $10.6 billion from the previous year’s $6.1billion. Yahoo, on the other hand, earned $6.4 billion in the same year with MSN earnings totaling approximately $ 600 million and Ask at 2.1 million. In 2007, Google increased its market share from 59 percent in the previous year to 69 percent. This put the company’s market share 10 points higher than the previous year, translating to an increment of 2 billion queries every month. Google made $16.5 billion almost 6 billion more than it earned in the previous year. 2007 saw Yahoo one of Google’s main competitors drop below its previous year’s performance; it earned 17.4 percent from the previous year’s 24.7percent. MSN and Ask, on the other hand, gained market share to record 9.2 percent and 3.9 percent respectively. Yahoo earned $6.9 billion at the end of the year, 8 percent from the previous year.
Google continued dominating the market and by 2008, 69.5 percent of all searches done online were from its search engine. This was a 0.5 percent increment from the previous year’s 69 percent (Shankland, 2009). This growth was largely seen as at Yahoo and Microsoft’s expense. That year, Yahoo recorded 19.2 percent of the market share, while MSN recorded 5.9 percent. Despite the fact that Ask maintained its bottom ranking, it gained 1 percent to record a market share of 3.8 percent. In 2008, Google performed much better than the previous years, earning a total of $21.7 billion up to $5 billion while Yahoo and MSN earned $7.21 billion, and $2.47 billion respectively.
In 2009, Google had increased its market share to 66.3 percent with Yahoo registering a 15.3 percent market share drop from the previous year. Microsoft introduced its new search engine, Bing and upon its debut registered 9.34 percent while Ask came in at the fourth position at 2.65 percent. It seems that both Yahoo and Bing lost a total of 7 percent combined. Google does not also seem to be the recipient of the 7 percent since it has steadily maintained the same figure with a 1 percent increment. Saad Kamal (2009) posits that this market share is slipping away to a new entrant, the social search. Social networking sites are increasingly becoming popular and especially Tweeter that users can use in asking questions or ‘social search.’ Nonetheless, Google maintained its market dominance in throughout this year with revenue of $23.6 a difference of almost 2 billion from 2008. Yahoo, on the other hand, generated revenue worth $6.4 billion. While MSN’s Bing and Ask came in the bottom ranking.
In 2010, the situation was different for Google as it lost its market share by a considerable amount of points to 64.4% percent in April; it, later on, grew to 66.3 in October. Yahoo gained to 17.7 percent from 16.9 percent while Bing went up to 11.8 percent. Despite that fact, Google’s revenue for 2010 went up to $29.3 billion from the previous year’s $23.6 billion. Yahoo reported a drop in its revenue from $6.4 billion to $4.9 billion while Bing earned $50 million. Google’s market share grew from 65.3 percent to 65.6 percent, and this is a decrease from the year to year figure of 66.3. Yahoo continued to decline and registered 15.2 percent while Bing increased to 14.8 percent (Goodwin, 2011). Ask declined 3 percent to 2.9 percent while new entrant AOL claimed 1.5 percent of the market share. Google continued to grow its revenue and in 2010, it reported $29.3 billion (Google, 2013), while Yahoo earned $4.9 billion. In 2012 Google’s percentage was at 66.9 of all searches conducted. Bing recorded a 16 percent indication of increased market share from 15.9 percent in the previous year. Yahoo showed signs of stabilizing by recording 15.2 percent of all online searches for the past 15 months. Ask recorded 3.2 percent while AOL was at 1.8 percent drop from 2.9 in the previous year. That year Google earned $31.2 billion, with the Online Services Division that Bing falls under-reported $707 million revenue (Sterling, 2012). Yahoo also remained stagnant with its revenue at $4.9. The year 2013 saw Google drop 2 points to 66.7, and Bing at 18.1 percent, and Yahoo increased a percentage to record 11.2 percent (Miller, 2013).AOL recorded 1.4 percent.
An Economic Analysis of Google
Google’s strategy has propelled it to the pinnacle of the market and kept it there for many years. The company has successfully implemented its open-source products as well as services. As the company underlines in its mission, universal access to information is one of the reasons its products are increasingly used. Google has a number of valuable open source products including maps, earth, calendars, drive, and many others. However the most important is its web ranking tool, web directory, and the search engine optimizer that have made it most sort after the company on the internet. Google also seems to succeed as a result of its quality offering and good customer experience. Strategic Management Insight (2013) claims that everything that the company gives its customers is of premium quality and most importantly, they are aimed at solving their user’s problems and needs. Google is stable financially and is one of the most profitable organizations. Strategic Management Insight (2013) explains that it has $48 billion in assets and $7billion in debt. This makes it very easy to deter any kind of competition.
The company has access to the highest number of internet users. As seen in the above paragraphs, from 2006 until 2013 there is no other company that has stood unbeaten in user numbers other than Google. It has access to 80 percent of the world computer search market and 90 percent of the mobile service search market. By 2012,, the company had added over 1000 patents and was ranked 21 in all companies that have the highest number of patents. This gives it a strong portfolio as compared to its competitors in the market. The company either strives to or has integrated its products. Google has enabled its products to operate on any system without any challenges. It compares to no other company in regard to product integration. According to the Boston Consulting Group (2013), Google is one of the most innovative organizations globally. It was also recognized as the second patent creator globally in 2012. The company recognizes innovative work cultures as its main assets.
Economic Analysis of Markets
The advertising market is rapidly on the rise, and this is good for Google. However in the long run this might be detrimental to the revenue collection. Personal Computers are on the decline in the market, and these formed that bulk of the desktop engine search market. The company needs to find ways of pushing back this competition in order to avoid losing its source of income. The company is also faced with the challenge of turning the growing mobile device market into money. This is the market that has the potential to grow beyond desktop computers. In addition, the growth of advertising or emerging market is seen in the developing economies where the prices are lower than in developed economies, this is an indication that the growth of advertising will be insignificant to the company in the near future. Google has a number of high-quality products that are unprofitable. They seem to add no value to the company, and this is detrimental to its future.
Wider Macro Content
In 2006 Google launched Google Finance, Translator, and Calendar and announced its acquisition of YouTube, as a strategy to expand its market. In the following year, it announced Android, and also expanded its partnership with YouTube. In 2008 Google acquired Double Click and also dedicated a website to the United States Elections. Later in 2009 Google launched Google Voice, Ventures, and voice search on its Android and also announced Google Chrome. Google on the other hand has not fully maximized its potential to perform better and maintain its market share based on a number of issues based on its strategy. The number of mobile internet users is rapidly increasing, and this gives it the opportunity to establish an advertisement display platform on such devices so as to open newer markets.
In addition, the company can get patents through mergers and acquisitions. This will enable the company to grow and compete successfully. Google’s innovative culture has led to its introduction of a driverless car a concept that can be used on a wide-scale, in future automobile models. The company though not an automobile company can license these models to manufacturers as an additional income channel. Google with the introduction of the Google Chrome book Pixel Touch Screen Digitizer, Google Nexus One, and HDMI Streaming Media Player have given an indication of its intension to capture the electronic industry. This is a new opening for the company and is receiving a warm reception in the market. According to Strategic Management Insight (2013), Google is currently working on fiber cables that will revolutionize the speed of content delivery online. This is consistent with its strategy of getting people to use the internet as much as possible; universal access. This would integrate the company vertically since it would have no competition in such infrastructure (Fine, 2009).
Effectiveness of Google’s Business Strategy
Google generates more revenue from its web-based products; this is the Cash Cow. In particular, its web ranking has made it monopolize the internet business. It is impossible for any online company to operate without Google web ranking and Google has used this product to exert its might in the industry. Most major companies are at the mercy of Google’s algorithm a product that determines the success or failure of any online business. It is the unseen hand that controls all businesses online. JC Penny unsuccessfully tried to break into this system and lost a considerable amount of its revenue in 2011 (Fox, 2011). Google took advantage of the increased traffic and web ranking to survive the challenges associated with the global GDP fall in 2012. This was the year that the company made the greatest gain in its history commanding 66.9 percent of all internet searches.
Key Features of Google’s Strategy
Google’s business strategy might seem successful and one that has seen the company rise over the years, however, a close analysis of this strategy reveals monopolistic business practices. Google is a company that is financially stable and is capable of introducing as many products in as many markets as possible to divert the attention of critics. In addition, Google’s greatest asset has always been its innovation. The company unveils new products and technology constantly and this has kept it ahead of the competition. Google’s strategy has also been a disadvantage to the company; the company has focused on acquiring online companies and grown in that regard, but it has failed to tap considerably into other streams of income. It is not easy to point at any of its electronic products as state of the art or as a market leader. The leadership’s vision focused on the internet as the basis of its business.
Conclusion
Google has aggressively positioned itself in the market; it is continuously becoming volatile with competitors and other stakeholders viewing Google as unfairly taking advantage of its strength to stay at the top. Google has successfully positioned its self in the market and with this coupled with a stable financial base, has been the reason for its success. The company through innovation continually introduces new products that are instant hits in the market and this will be able to help it dominate. However, as seen above there are areas that the company needs to take notice of in order to stay ahead of the competition. Dependence on products is detrimental to its financial future and call for the creation of multiple streams of income.
Reference

Acohido, B., 2010. Google’s search market share slips as Bing rivalry heats up. [Online] Available at: http://content.usatoday.com/communities/technologylive/post/2010/05/googles-market-share-slips-as-bing-rivalry-heats-up-/1#.Urdg6vRdVoA [Accessed 22 December 2013].
Ahuja, G. & Katila, R., 2001. Technological Acquisitions and the Innovation Performance of Acquiring Firms: A longitudinal study. Strategic Management Journal, pp.197–220.
Blodget, H., 2010. Well, Now We Know Where Those Microsoft Bing Share Gains Came From. [Online] Available at: http://www.businessinsider.com/bing-share-gains-2010-4 [Accessed 22 December 2013].
Booton, J., 2013. Smartphone, Tablet Revenue Overtaking Consumer Electronics. Fox Business, 25 October.
Boston Consulting Group, 2013. BCG Names the World’s 50 Most Innovative Companies. [Online] The Boston Consulting Group Available at http://www.bcg.com/media/PressReleaseDetails.aspx?id=tcm:12-125372 [Accessed 23 December 2013].
Crane, J., 2007. November 2007 Search Market Share: The Market, Google, and Yahoo! All Break Search Records[Online] Available at https://blog.compete.com/2007/12/12/search-market-share-november-google-yahoo-ask-msn-live/ [Accessed 22 December 2013].
Fine, L.G., 2009. The SWOT Analysis: Using your Strength to overcome Weaknesses, Using Opportunities to overcome Threats. Kick It, LLC.
Fox, V., 2011. New York Times Exposes J.C. Penney Link Scheme That Causes Plummeting Rankings in Google. [Online] Available at: http://searchengineland.com/new-york-times-exposes-j-c-penney-link-scheme-that-causes-plummeting-rankings-in-google-64529 [Accessed 24 December 2013].
Goodwin, D., 2011. October 2011 Search Engine Market Share: Bing Losing Power[Online] Available at http://searchenginewatch.com/article/2124890/October-2011-Search-Engine-Market-Share-Bing-Losing-Power [Accessed 22 December 2013].
Google, 2013. 2006 Financial Tables. [Online] Available at: http://investor.google.com/financial/2006/tables.html [Accessed 22 December 2013].
Google, 2013. Our history in depth. [Online] Available at: http://www.google.com/about/company/history/ [Accessed 23 December 2013].
Helft, M., 2007. Yahoo Profits Steady; Revenue Up 8%. [Online] Available at: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/18/technology/18yahoo.html?_r=0 [Accessed 22 December 2013].
Helms, M.M. & Nixon, J., 2010. Exploring SWOT analysis – where are we now?: A review of academic research from the last decade. Journal of Strategy and Management, 3(3), pp.215 – 251.
Knight, K., 2007. Yahoo Revenue Up for 2006. [Online] biz report Available at http://www.bizreport.com/2007/01/yahoo_revenue_up_for_2006.html [Accessed 22 December 2013].
Miller, R., 2013. Google loses market share in the latest ComScore stats, but Microsoft unchanged. [Online] Available at: http://www.fiercecontentmanagement.com/story/google-loses-marketshare-latest-comscore-stats-microsoft-unchanged/2013-12-17 [Accessed 23 December 2013].
Redsicker, P., 2013. Findable Content Marketing: 3 Google Keyword ToolTips. Content Marketing Institute.
Saad Kamal, 2009. Google Bites on 72% of the US Search Market. [Online] Available at: http://www.saadkamal.com/search-marketshare-nov09/ [Accessed 22 December 2013].
Schwartz, B., 2006. [Online] Available at: http://searchenginewatch.com/article/2057435/Ask.coms-Revenue-Increases-62-Percent [Accessed 22 December 2013].
Shankland, S., 2009. Google conquers the 2008 search market in the U.S. [Online] Available at http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-10143183-93.html [Accessed 22 December 2013].
Shulman, L., 2008. The Return of the Cash Cow. Chicago: The Boston Consulting Group.
Sterling, G., 2012. Microsoft Delivers Strong Quarter: $17.4B Revenue, Bing Division Sees Smaller Loss. [Online] Available at: http://marketingland.com/microsoft-delivers-strong-quarter-17-4b-revenue-bing-division-sees-smaller-loss-10394 [Accessed 23 December 2013].
Strategic Management Insight, 2013. SWOT analysis of Google. [Online] Strategic Management Insight Available at: http://www.strategicmanagementinsight.com/swot-analyses/google-swot-analysis.html [Accessed 23 December 2013].
Yahoo! Inc., 2011. Yahoo Annual Report. Sunnyvale: Yahoo! Inc.