An alternative view is that "selling ads" is is just a means to an end.

There seems to be plenty of evidence that Google's top leadership is more focused on finding alternate revenue streams that just "selling ads".

This is a bit like claiming that Google is investing in radical medical technology because people will watch more ads over their newly extended lifespans.

And if the financial incentives lined up and they actually did extend lifespans, would that be a bad thing?

While this is something Google earns most its money on, I don't think it's the sole reason for its actions, nor that it wants to stay in that business forever.

"Selling ads" puts it harshly, but it's entirely what this is about. More information, more organization, more people online, more ads :)

> "Selling ads" puts it harshly, but it's entirely what this is about.

By the same token, you're a machine that transforms food and oxygen into excrement and CO2. That puts it harshly, but it's entirely what this is about - if you judge things at that level.

What I mean is - selling ads is what keeps their "corporate metabolism" going, but the actual long-term goals of the founders might be (and, indeed, are) very different from that most basic of all levels.

I think Google has shown they're trying very hard to become a primary infrastructure host for any business in "The Cloud", getting more people online opens up new opportunities there too

Well, yes, but there's an argument to be made that while your cycle is certainly correct, the starting and ending points aren't necessarily fixed.

Why not:

More ads -> more $$ -> more information -> more organization -> more people online (and, thus, more freedom, more intelligence, etc.)

When your trying to grow you either make the glass bigger or add more water. By providing more internet to people who don't already today, you're simply making the glass bigger, which means more ads can be served up.

We did get flying cars. They just haven't delivered them yet.