I wish I'd said it like that. Surprising, for just that reason.
Your Google point (besides being a contrast to amazon's surprising athena) is an interesting way of describing things.
Youtube, Android and even adwords & web analytics were bought fairly formed, and clearly were quite good already. That's a skill in itself. When you think of examples of ebay, skype and how few buy-outs really do succeed like that.
Google could make the web work too. Remember how slow yahoo a basic webmail service was. The idea that they'd make an excel that worked.. it wasn't trivial.
But I think you're right on the lead skill. If it works best with an exabyte of data, a billion CPU-years... it works best on a google.
I think that is an interesting insight - the majority of Google's offerings are from aquisitions of 'established' implementations, whereas Amazon's are developed in-house to solve a pain-point, that is felt by other businesses, too.
So, is Amazon really more B2B, while Google is B2C?
Is Amazon using e-commerce like a US university looks at undergrads for funding?
Google has bought a number of companies, yes (Google Maps is another piece that started as an acquisition) but I'd note that which acquisitions survive and thrive also relates back to the core competencies.
Your Google point (besides being a contrast to amazon's surprising athena) is an interesting way of describing things.
Youtube, Android and even adwords & web analytics were bought fairly formed, and clearly were quite good already. That's a skill in itself. When you think of examples of ebay, skype and how few buy-outs really do succeed like that.
Google could make the web work too. Remember how slow yahoo a basic webmail service was. The idea that they'd make an excel that worked.. it wasn't trivial.
But I think you're right on the lead skill. If it works best with an exabyte of data, a billion CPU-years... it works best on a google.