If you read their earnings release from yesterday[1], you will see this gem "Average cost-per-click, which includes clicks related to ads served on Google sites and the sites of our Network members, decreased approximately 6% over the second quarter of 2012 and decreased approximately 2% over the first quarter of 2013." If you aren't careful you might think that is a "good thing" Gee it cost them 6% less to get a click? No, that isn't the definition you should use [2] the price they got per click went down. So when you get less per click, well you make it up in volume (which they did with a 23% increase in paid clicks).
What that means in simple terms is that the business unit that makes about 10x the revenue of all other Google businesses combined, is showing weakness. And Google is responding as they must, by increasing the opportunity you have to click on ads, as the price per click is a market thing (there are others who are offering ad channels).
This is the fundamental around all of the changes Google is putting in place in their properties (keeping you on their SERP, making everything G+, wrapping your experience in IOS around their applications).
I don't think the changes you are seeing are "wrong", I think they are inevitable.
is it possible their cpc went down because they've overwhored themselves and not the other way around? I seem to recall a shit ton of changes to SERPs preceding and during the periods mentioned.
Absolutely, but Google runs experiments all the time. If underwhoring would boost their CPC then those experiments will surface that fact. That it hasn't suggested to me that alternatives have cut into their margins. Since nobody likes to cede margin, they can either ride it into the ground (a common response) or change. Either way it will be different.
I agree but I suspect the choices are subscriptions or ads. As the Internet has matured the 'free' option is going away. Developers of course will be able to fund their own infrastructure (sort of a self subscribe model :-) but the 'free' internet is definitely going away.
I really don't see that, we still have a huge number of free application. Maybe google is having some issues (google reader and gmail) but you still have a huge number of alternatives that are still free.
Who fucking cares. Google sucks now. Gmail sucks now. I am aborting all Gmail related accounts post-haste.
I may as well be using AOL. Those stupid tabs, and retarded categories are bullshit. The exact kind of noisy, cluttered, shitty interface I'd expect from any other e-mail service.
This response made me actually laugh out loud, mostly because of the delivery combined with it's accuracy in alluding to something very important:
We often seem to look at an issue from the other's point of view and deem it wrong or okay based on that. Why? Why not look at these situations that affect us directly from our point of view? Sometimes all that matters is you. This is one of those times.
I don't disagree with you, but it took me all of 2 seconds to disable the new tabs. I haven't seen any of the ads mentioned in the original tweet, so maybe this is a solution?
To do it: Hit the Plus sign at the edge of the tabs, and uncheck everything except Primary. You'll be displayed a message saying that you disabled the new tabs.
Bravo sir, bravo. Not sure why you felt the need to create a throwaway account for it as it is a completely valid point of view. To completely capture the meme though a "and git off my lawn!" is needed there at the end :-)
As for your rhetorical question about who cares, I'm guessing the folks who've seen Google stock go from $600 to $900 are wondering if its time to switch to something else. If you're anonymous opinion is common among their users then the answer to their question would be "yes, definitely."
If you read their earnings release from yesterday[1], you will see this gem "Average cost-per-click, which includes clicks related to ads served on Google sites and the sites of our Network members, decreased approximately 6% over the second quarter of 2012 and decreased approximately 2% over the first quarter of 2013." If you aren't careful you might think that is a "good thing" Gee it cost them 6% less to get a click? No, that isn't the definition you should use [2] the price they got per click went down. So when you get less per click, well you make it up in volume (which they did with a 23% increase in paid clicks).
What that means in simple terms is that the business unit that makes about 10x the revenue of all other Google businesses combined, is showing weakness. And Google is responding as they must, by increasing the opportunity you have to click on ads, as the price per click is a market thing (there are others who are offering ad channels).
This is the fundamental around all of the changes Google is putting in place in their properties (keeping you on their SERP, making everything G+, wrapping your experience in IOS around their applications).
I don't think the changes you are seeing are "wrong", I think they are inevitable.
[1] http://investor.google.com/earnings/2013/Q2_google_earnings....
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pay_per_click