By 
Another day, another earnings call. Leading Google’s Q4 2014 earnings call, as usual, was Google CFO Patrick Pichette talking about the company’s performance towards the end of last year. It’s less than Wall Street expected, but things are still on the up and up.
Google tipped the scales at $18.1 billion in revenue (15% growth year-over-year) and $4.76 billion in net income (up from 2013’s $3.38 billion). This means Google’s total revenue for 2014 was $66 billion, a 19% increase from the previous year.
Sites Revenues – Our sites generated revenues of $12.43 billion, or 69% of total revenues, in the fourth quarter of 2014. This represents an 18% increase over fourth quarter 2013 sites revenues of $10.54 billion.
Network Revenues – Our partner sites generated revenues of $3.72 billion, or 20% of total revenues, in the fourth quarter of 2014. This represents a 6% increase over fourth quarter 2013 network revenues of $3.52 billion.
Other Revenues – Other revenues were $1.95 billion, or 11% of total revenues, in the fourth quarter of 2014. This represents a 19% increase over fourth quarter 2013 other revenues of $1.65 billion.
Google faced some unique challenges this time around (like the growth of the US dollar) and what they call “unusual operating expenses” totaling over $300 million this quarter. Half of this was SBC (stock-based compensation), while the other half came from real estate portfolio. Google also hired more than 2,000 new employees (compared to 1,700 previous year).
Google also didn’t beat around the bush when it came to what just about everyone believed was a failed Google Glass project. Google mentioned that while they aren’t normally afraid to make the tough calls and cancel initiatives when they aren’t working out (or hit milestones before receiving further investments), the team at Google Glass were asked to pause and reset their strategy.
Looking back on 2014, Google talked about some of their more notable achievements like Chromecast being the #1 best selling streaming device in the US last year (with more than 1 billion casts since launch), and the fact that Sony Pictures’ The Interview saw the majority of its $15 million first weekend sales come from Google Play and YouTube.
For all those interested, you can find more detailed numbers over on Google’s official Investor Relations page linked below.
“Google Glass team takes a breather”
oh yeah?? so much for that story you guys had pinned for weeks at the top of the site that said something to the effect that “GG is not dead”. LOL.. yeah… it’s on it’s last leg.
Last leg? more like beat to death with its own leg
That project isn’t dead… it’s just “resting”.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=npjOSLCR2hE
I think you guys are missing the point that Glass was a beta product… never fully complete. Google is taking a breather to learn what Glass does well and what Glass does not do well, which is exactly what a beta product is for… to learn from mistakes and fix.
Glass is far beyond any other wearable in it’s class (heads up display, wearable computer on face). Other companies have tried, some had some success and recently Microsoft had some wow factors.
I predict I/0 2015 Google will reveal at least their design prototypes of Glass v2 and possibly showing off a smaller, more practicable, wearable computer that is a more reachable price budget for the average consumer. I think v2 of Glass is going to be more directed towards augmented reality vs just a heads up display as Glass currently provides.
I don’t even think it was a Beta – it was “experimental”.
But Phandroid has been selling the line that Glass will be continuing. This makes is sound like any future version of Glass is (a) a long way away and (b) will be different from the current device / OS. My guess is that support and updates will cease for Glass later this year and Google will start working on a new concept that incorporates the learnings from Glass.
GOOGLE: Glass Didn’t Have The Impact We Had Hoped For
http://www.businessinsider.com/google-glass-strategy-2015-1
So it’s hard to say, but I think the issue is deeper than a simple strategy reset. People just didn’t get into it for a variety of reasons. They saw this and closed their boutique stores, DEVs didn’t have much interest as no way to make money, and now this.
The main reason people didn’t get into it because it cost so much… I feel if it was only 200 bucks, well the success of it would have been what Google was looking for, well besides Google making money with providing it so cheap).
Devs were very interested (from my POV) but when released the Mirror API was a terrible solution for most Glass app concepts. Google later introduced Wear and this was pretty much the knife in every Explorers back. Later they added Wear notification support but I feel it was done just to hold off the angry Explorers and try to keep everyone in good spirits. The Wear support on Glass is still just “eh”. At times it’s delayed. Not to mention you can only use Wear notifications on a watch or Glass, not both.
Glass should have been released with Wear notification framework in addition to the Mirror API at first launch. This would have made apps on your phone already supported and an easy path forward for dev’s to implement more advanced Wear support (aka actions). The fact that for a long time, up until recent, developers only had the option for Mirror API which made a very dumb flow. You would have to pass a notification to Google’s server, then Google would pass it to the user. Which the user had to register through a separate link… like a opt-in. Not even sure this would work in most cases since the Mirror API is more of a broadcast service to all registered user devices rather than push one notification to one user device.
So… it’s obvious in my eyes why Google had to “take a breather” and just regroup for a better v2. Blogs that make it out like Glass was not wanted and failed miserably are just writing articles for link bait.
Damn…and I was looking forward to Google Glass
I have been having issues with tossing content to my chromecast so I am just going to replace it with something like the Razer Forge TV.
and a $35 streamer that lacks optical out is their “more notable achievement” lolol
Maybe buy a receiver that was made in the last 10 years and you’ll be good to go.
They make this wonderful thing called HDMI, which has audio and video over one cable…. it can even handle HD audio, which optical can’t.
Optical? Dude, just get a new receiver.
I have the option to by pass the TV. I got a new Recicer and in my set up I don’t want to use HDM
Doesn’t change the fact that the only reason is number 1 is because is $35 dollar which is nothing in today’s market. I would be ashamed on making that a “Notable Accomplisment”
Optical can handle 192/24 even that is a wasted. No need for anything bigger than that.
Not sure what setup you’re going for, but I just route everything through a receiver via HDMI. I never change the input on the TV. And, like most receivers, mine has a passthrough mode that will send whatever source I want to the TV even if the receiver is powered off.
Optical audio is becoming increasingly obsolete these days, and including it in a minimalist device like CC would have been a poor choice.
Either way optical is something I want. I got receiver for music room that are coming out this year that doesn’t not have HDMI. They were not meant for TV.
Either way is not the point.
The point is that Google acts like is a surprise that chrome say is number 1 when is the cheapest streamer in the market.
That’s what wrong with this picture. I would be more surprised if Chromcast would not be the #1 streamer actually.
It is not a “notable archivement”
Why do you need optical?
Congrats Google
hey can I borrow just like .0005%? thats only like 9 mill. I’ll look for my check in the mail! love you google-do-doo!
Pause & reset = back to the drawing board.
Sounds like there is _zero_ chance of another Google Glass device this year.
Reaching market? Probably not. But I don’t think we’ve seen the last of Glass just yet.
Sorry to bring the ‘A’ word into all of this, but …
You see what Google can do with their cash flow. They seem to always be spending it to come up with future ideas and push into new sectors. Google seems to be everywhere now a days. But on the other hand, you see Apple making multiple times this amount, making Google’s large profits look tiny in comparison, and not really trying any new things. What is Apple’s end game? What do their investors see all these profits being used for? Apple must have something brewing in their dungeon … or maybe they just burn all their money to heat their building? The amount of money Apple is making is staggering, yet the innovation coming out of them is surprisingly small. I just don’t get it.
Apple keeps everything they make under lock and key until they decide if its worth releasing. Don’t take that as “not innovating” just because you can’t see what they work on. Google will put out prototypes to the public to gauge interest.
That’s why apple’s net profits are so high. Everything they release (no prototypes) sells like hot cakes and they factor that in. The downside is if they fail on one of these devices, its going to be a huge hit to their money pile, which is why they keep it so big.