For the first time ever, Google Search is less than 50% of Alphabet's revenue
Posted by hubraumhugo 1 hour ago
Comments
Comment by 1970-01-01 6 minutes ago
Comment by cobbzilla 1 minute ago
Now I wonder what the median CPC is for part numbers (I’d guess very cheap), and which one is the most expensive (no idea, super curious).
Comment by francispauli 45 seconds ago
Comment by Xenoamorphous 3 minutes ago
Comment by pmkary 1 minute ago
Comment by dumberquestions 1 hour ago
Comment by mlmonkey 48 minutes ago
Comment by keeda 13 minutes ago
What they’re doing now is just being a lot more overt about it, because they want to carve up their old cash cow to feed their AI ambitions before ChatGPT and Claude eat it up first.
Comment by jjmerle 1 minute ago
Comment by stephen_cagle 10 minutes ago
Course, they win anyway because I also pay for youtube premium to avoid seeing ads..
Feels like the world is becoming a split between people who can afford not to be the product and people who cannot.
Comment by andriy_koval 36 minutes ago
Comment by mlmonkey 21 minutes ago
So (in theory) advertisers will lower their bids if they're not getting the desired value from the clicks; and over time some will migrate budgets to other channels (like "influencers"? shudder ...).
Comment by kevinwang 7 minutes ago
Comment by jcfrei 27 minutes ago
Comment by andriy_koval 19 minutes ago
Comment by cyanydeez 31 minutes ago
Google has been sued for being a monopoly, and it's not because they're just really good. It's because there's basically no other market that hits any of the dollar costs.
Comment by andriy_koval 22 minutes ago
advertisers decide which channel justifies.
They still bring 250B ads dollars to google search, meaning it provides more than 250B value to them,
Comment by cyanydeez 18 minutes ago
Comment by andriy_koval 16 minutes ago
Comment by morkalork 25 minutes ago
Comment by andriy_koval 20 minutes ago
That first price auction complain is bs, advertisers will just stop bidding $5 for top click and start bidding $1.1 in his example to hit their goals.
Comment by boilerupnc 15 minutes ago
Comment by cush 13 minutes ago
Comment by jedberg 39 minutes ago
Comment by jareklupinski 22 minutes ago
im very far from dentistry
Comment by gregw2 43 minutes ago
Comment by morkalork 27 minutes ago
Comment by ericmay 42 minutes ago
You basically have to say, everyone from the CEO/CFO, to the auditors, the financial analysts, the legal team, and all the way down are all lying and this random guy on Twitter is telling the truth. Sorry, not buying it.
Comment by mlmonkey 34 minutes ago
Most people don't know this, but the Search Advertising auction is a black box. The advertiser just specifies a bid (the maximum they're willing to pay for a click); and the search engine promises that they will not pay more than that.
Here's a trick that Search Engines may (or may not, I plead the Fifth) use: the price an advertiser "i" who bid "bid_i" pays is bid_(i+1) * pctr_(i+1) / pctr_i where "pctr_(i+1)" is the predicted probability of click on the next lower ad; "pctr_i" is the predicted probability of click on the current ad.
Guess who calculates the pCTR? The Engine! In theory, if their pCTR calculations were 100% accurate, all advertisers would pay the minimum bid (which is typically $0.01)! Clearly, this is not desirable. So Engines juice the revenue by tweaking these pCTR values. Talk to anybody who works on auction mechanisms at a search engine, and you'll hear stories of how they tweaked these pCTR values.
Comment by JumpCrisscross 18 minutes ago
Social media replies regularly confirm all kinds of nonsense.
Comment by jedberg 38 minutes ago
And given all the replies to that post on Twitter, it sounds like it's true.
Comment by lotsofpulp 38 minutes ago
Comment by bagacrap 37 minutes ago
Comment by ericmay 25 minutes ago
Yes I read the post (please refer to HN guidelines on asking if people read something) and didn't find anything worthwhile there which is why I mentioned what I did.
Posting here for others asking about lying/juicing since I'm rate limited.
~~~~~
Lying on financial statements is in fact illegal. Juicing implies that some number is being misrepresented as higher than it otherwise would be which is a form of lying and thus would be illegal.
Obviously there are some gray areas - "we changed how we measure this" or something along those lines can be considered "juicing" or just a matter of changing a calculation to make more sense, but the broad accusation is extraordinary and requires much more evidence than some random person on Twitter saying some things. As an investor in Google (individually and through ETFs) it has no bearing on any investment thesis I have because I don't care what random nobodies on the Internet say and neither should you.
Comment by nerevarthelame 55 minutes ago
Comment by nostrademons 38 minutes ago
I think the bigger concern is that earnings misses are very rare for GOOG, and historically they've been able to hit almost any target that Wall Street expects. Their past earnings misses were all related to major macroeconomic events (2020Q1, which was the COVID shutdowns, 2022 all year with inflation from COVID/Ukraine + rate hikes, and 2019Q3 with the taper tantrum from Fed rate hikes), and most of them were more in the 5% range. A 30% miss, particularly with slowing revenue growth in their core business despite almost full monetization of commercial queries, could indicate that the golden goose is disintegrating.
For that matter, GOOG has been extremely correlated with macroeconomic indicators since about 2018, which means investors in the rest of the stock market should probably watch out. It's likely we're already in recession but don't know it.
Comment by andriy_koval 33 minutes ago
which exactly earning number missed by 30%?..
Comment by nostrademons 29 minutes ago
Comment by andriy_koval 24 minutes ago
Comment by JumpCrisscross 16 minutes ago
OI isn’t more “actual” than EPS. I remember back when Yahoo traded for less than cash and liquids [1] because investors didn’t trust management not to blow it on stupid shit.
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/10/business/dealbook/how-to-...
Comment by andriy_koval 12 minutes ago
Comment by LogicFailsMe 37 minutes ago
Comment by lifeisstillgood 16 minutes ago
And Google knows it, so why not squeeze the current customers, whatever model AI takes it’s unlikely to be a word matching auction, this model is dead, grab the cash and go.
Comment by notatoad 7 minutes ago
Comment by JumpCrisscross 14 minutes ago
Source?
Google Search & other revenue grew 12% YoY in Q3 [1]. In that time paid clicks grew 8% and cost per click 4%.
Across the Google Network impressions fell 14%, with cost-per-impressions growing 14%. (9% of revenue.) But that’s on the web, not search.
[1] https://www.sec.gov/ix?doc=/Archives/edgar/data/1652044/0001...
Comment by keeda 3 minutes ago
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2026/10/google-admits-ai-sea...
I’ve been saying for a while that AI is going to be a bigger problem for Google than many realize: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47957708
Comment by spwa4 7 minutes ago
The only revenue covered by Network is what it pays out to newspapers and other kinds of ad-supported websites.
Comment by Lerc 6 minutes ago
Search revenue still grew: the share fell because the rest of Alphabet grew faster.
Comment by gonzalohm 5 minutes ago
I have moved to Kagi myself
Comment by sulam 4 minutes ago
Comment by Rapzid 8 minutes ago
Comment by j45 14 minutes ago
Comment by addaon 4 minutes ago
It doesn't /inherently/ return better search results, but Google is many years into an intensive project to make their search results so bad that even a magic eight ball, let alone a moderately advanced AI, can do better.
Comment by abixb 6 minutes ago
Text search is fundamentally a deterministic problem, and squeezing it through a non-deterministic, stochastic engine -- especially through an MoE + CoT LLM -- is inefficient from a first-principles algorithm design pov.
I've been using DuckDuckGo's NoAI version as a fallback, and I've had great results so far; brings me back to the web I remembered growing up -- personal blogs, random forum discussions, and whatnot -- with just a fraction of the page bloat.
Comment by cnity 4 minutes ago
Comment by JumpCrisscross 4 minutes ago
Comment by ge96 6 minutes ago
Comment by spwa4 6 minutes ago
Comment by caaqil 7 minutes ago
[citations needed]
Comment by throwaway27448 7 minutes ago
Google didn't exactly leave us much choice to opt out. I have to use a firefox extension to hide that bit.
Comment by notatoad 1 hour ago
Comment by steve1903 58 minutes ago
Comment by happyopossum 1 hour ago
Not exactly - the consumer stuff (subscriptions and devices) falls under services, while cloud covers GCP, Workspace, and enterprise-specific cloud services (like maps etc).
Basically if you pay for it with a monthly sub on a personal google account (including Gemini stuff like Ai pro) it's services.
Comment by foxtr0t 1 hour ago
Comment by stefan_ 43 minutes ago
Comment by jeffbee 1 hour ago
Comment by shadowgovt 26 seconds ago
Comment by lab14 1 hour ago
Comment by mlmonkey 2 minutes ago
Comment by 1270018080 4 minutes ago
Comment by theplumber 1 hour ago
Comment by whakim 53 minutes ago
I'm not really sure why you say that cloud compute isn't a moat. It's an enormous investment to compete there; there's a reason even large companies buy compute from GCP/Azure/AWS or even if they have their own compute don't attempt to compete. Additionally, GCP has been an enormously successful 'bet' for Google over the past decade.
Google has also turned subscription revenue for their various services into a major revenue stream; it'd be hard to call those various services (Google Drive, Google Play, etc.) anything other than successful.
Chrome doesn't generate revenue by itself, but it certainly drives advertising revenue across the rest of Google's portfolio and was developed in-house.
Finally, it's pretty strange to credit the success of YouTube as a revenue stream with a small loss-making company that was acquired in 2006 rather than Google, who has run it for the past 20 years.
Comment by cyberax 2 minutes ago
I hate Azure, but Microsoft is at least trying to sell it properly. You get a human you can talk to and their support is responsive (although it's also useless).
> Finally, it's pretty strange to credit the success of YouTube as a revenue stream with a small loss-making company that was acquired in 2006 rather than Google, who has run it for the past 20 years.
As a Youtube user, I don't really see any improvements in it (aside from technical ones) compared to 10 years ago.
Comment by jgalt212 33 minutes ago
I disagree on this. It's not clear how much money they are actually making and how much revenues are shifted over from other business lines to GCP because GCP earnings growth is / was valued higher than other business lines by the markets.
Comment by whakim 23 minutes ago
Comment by sebastiansm7 1 hour ago
Comment by deathanatos 58 minutes ago
> not including acquisitions
Of which only Chrome is in-house created. I wouldn't think Chrome brings in a lot of revenue, and these days I'd argue FF is a much better product.
Comment by scottLobster 19 minutes ago
I want FF to be successful, but unfortunately it's not really up to Mozilla
Comment by edmundsauto 55 minutes ago
Comment by mlmonkey 43 minutes ago
Comment by justinator 46 minutes ago
Comment by reaperducer 1 hour ago
Google didn't create Android or Maps. Android was made in 2003 by other people. Maps was Keyhole and something made in Australia.
I don't know enough about Chrome to say.
Comment by vineyardmike 42 minutes ago
Android had a market share of 0, with no released products when they bought it. The 80%+ market share today was all Google.
Google Maps was purchased (pre Google IPO), but the original (“Where2”) was a desktop application. Google completed rebuilt it alongside the acquisition of other data sources, and released the web page. Years later, they built a mobile app which became one of the biggest apps of all time. Should we not attribute that success to Google instead of the Australian startup building a desktop app?
Comment by eloisant 53 minutes ago
It's safe to say Google brought Android to the level it is now.
Comment by bbor 56 minutes ago
Android was made in 2003 by other people.
Look I'm Google's #1 hater but this is just goofy lol. There are multiple buildings full of Android developers, and have been for at least a decade; to say that it's not "made" by them is a huge stretch. Technically all of their products are just ripoffs of Sun & Xerox, right? Or Turing & Church, I suppose!Comment by phoghed 50 minutes ago
Comment by chimeracoder 41 minutes ago
That's very different from Android, which was an unreleased prototype that had zero users and was dramatically different even from what ended up shipping as the first product, let alone what it is today. Android at acquisition would be unrecognizable from what the majority of people worldwide are typing on this very minute.
Comment by phoghed 3 minutes ago
Comment by procone 43 minutes ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Android_%28operating_system%29...
Comment by bbor 39 minutes ago
To clarify in good faith: what percentage of Android development do you think went on before 2005 in, let's say, mythical man months. 5%? 1%? Less?
Comment by edmundsauto 56 minutes ago
Comment by stpedgwdgfhgdd 40 minutes ago
As a simple example, a week ago we had the GCP outage in UK, their status page said all was good.
Comment by LPisGood 1 hour ago
Comment by TacticalCoder 1 hour ago
This is what allow little SMEs to not have to suffer that piece of shit that Windows is. I know people running their SMEs (and I helped them set up Google Workspace) from Mac and Chromebooks since years and years and who do not ever want to here again from anything Microsoft.
They're basically doing everything inside "Google Workspace" (formerly "G Suite", formerly "Google apps for domain" because Google's product naming is just confusing).
Gemini is also IMO excellent for everything that is not coding. It's really rare that I use Anthropic models (which I pay a subscription for) for anything else than coding.
GMail / Drive / Google Docs / Google Spreadsheets are great for a shitload of SMEs out there who want to give Windows and Office the middle finger.
Comment by baoooooooooooo 40 minutes ago
I could make this make sense either way
Comment by oblio 36 minutes ago
Comment by oblio 37 minutes ago
I use Gemini Pro for every day stuff and Opus is much better than it. A lot more features and everything works better, especially in the websites. Gemini is just... dumber overall. I had a project/gem (now replaced by a skill) and sometimes I'd start with them and then veer of course along the way. Gemini would religiously follow the initial context, stupidly, while Opus realized that a good chunk if it wasn't needed anymore after my last prompt and did the right thing.
Comment by jeffbee 1 hour ago
Comment by christophilus 1 hour ago
Comment by adam_arthur 1 hour ago
As it would have done naturally either way
Comment by TMWNN 1 hour ago
When Google bought YouTube, it already had Google Video. Google saw that YouTube had market traction and pivoted quickly, to its (and YouTube's) credit.
Comment by mlmonkey 46 minutes ago
Comment by oblio 35 minutes ago
TV had both 15-20 minute of ad breaks every hour AND product placement during actual content.
That's where we're going in about 10-15 years.
Comment by drnick1 6 minutes ago
At least 30% of Americans use an ad blocker.
Comment by mlmonkey 27 minutes ago
On top of these ads, creators are inserting their own ads ("this video is sponsored by ...."), so it's ads all the way down (like turtles).
Comment by jeffbee 1 hour ago
Comment by lokar 53 minutes ago
Comment by sowhat1 1 hour ago
Everything they make from within flops 99% of the time.
Comment by DaSHacka 22 minutes ago
Before they acquired these, how were they doing? I'll give you a hint: they weren't exactly how we knew them today. Android was literally a concept and YouTube was bleeding money with no realistic path to profitability.
> Everything they make from within flops 99% of the time.
As do all inventions? Of course, you just don't hear about all the failings from individuals or smaller companies that went bust as a result. The important thing is the 1% that succeed are so successful it offsets the losses.
Comment by kingleopold 49 minutes ago
Comment by dyauspitr 1 hour ago
Comment by bbor 58 minutes ago
They used to have a second minimint in AdSense et. al. ("Display Advertising"), but that shrinks by the year economy-wide as the vicious cycle of data tracking, ad blocking, and paywall dodging continues. Now it's a mere $7B[1], compared to $11B for Youtube (technically also Display Advertising but it gets its own segment now, I guess) and $63B from the money printer proper.
[1] Actual report here: https://s206.q4cdn.com/479360582/files/doc_financials/2026/q... Interestingly, display revenues are slightly up! But still, in Google land, "slightly up" is potentially a scandalous failure. Perhaps they settled into better agreements with big publishers ("sell side") after it became clear that they wouldn't actually be punished for having a Display Ads monopoly, despite losing the antitrust case brought by Biden's DoJ.
:(
Comment by darkstar999 32 minutes ago
https://www.democracynow.org/2026/10/29/sofia_liguori_google...
Comment by rlatkdrktkd 7 minutes ago
Comment by freediver 52 minutes ago
Comment by whizzter 44 minutes ago
Comment by freediver 33 minutes ago
Comment by whizzter 22 minutes ago
The thing they're doing correctly right now imho, is that AI mode is mostly toggled for things that passes a quick questions filter (probably low probability of a purchase, like "global illumination methods" giving a decent overview of the field) while if you just type green shoes it'll put out an assortment of online and local shopping options.
Now if as someone said in the sibling comments, Google is gouging their customers with the new auction model that's another problem, but if I was a shareholder I'd be less worried about an exodus of end users to OpenAI,etc than I was a year ago.
Comment by andriy_koval 29 minutes ago
it grew compared to q3 2025, but it is flat (0% grows) compared to q2 2026.
Comment by ryanjshaw 52 minutes ago
Comment by hsuduebc2 46 minutes ago
Comment by dzonga 16 minutes ago
Comment by 6thbit 45 minutes ago
Search was $63.4B "Everything else" was $64.2B, out of which GCP was $30.7B
Is AI on the 33.5B remaining post GCP? or within the 30.7 of GCP?
Comment by InsideOutSanta 42 minutes ago
Comment by ChrisArchitect 8 minutes ago
Alphabet Announces Third Quarter 2026 Results [pdf]
Comment by gh-qq 52 minutes ago
Search no longer works and you are killing your most important product with AI that nobody wants. If search worked like in 2010, no one would use AI answers.
Comment by Legend2440 1 hour ago
Comment by patmorgan23 51 minutes ago
Comment by reticulates 57 minutes ago
Comment by MattCruikshank 1 hour ago
Comment by phyzix5761 1 hour ago
Comment by eviks 31 minutes ago
For example, non-regulatory attempts at blocking of competitors, which Google does engage in due to their dominant position in mobile (of course, that's also just another better product)
Comment by badreligion42 57 minutes ago
Comment by flatline 7 minutes ago
Comment by nerdo 32 minutes ago
Comment by lokar 49 minutes ago
Comment by brap 59 minutes ago
Comment by xnx 52 minutes ago
Comment by paul7986 1 hour ago
Comment by fendy3002 52 minutes ago
So if you need tl;dw or something to do with YouTube video, gemini is the most seamless
Comment by stefan_ 40 minutes ago
Also, of course, before anyone even realized the game was on at Google, Anthropic and OpenAI already downloaded the entirety of YouTube.
Comment by pcan77 54 minutes ago
Comment by sickmartian 48 minutes ago