Introduction
In the late summer of 2017, it became known that Google acquired the Belarusian company AIMatter that is engaged in developments in the field of computer vision. The most famous project of the company is the application of Fabby that allows changing the background for photos. The technology is based on the use of neural networks, which today are quite widespread and are used in most modern social networks (Singh 2016). Such a purchase is direct evidence that Google seeks to strengthen the visual quality of images and prepares the platform for Facebook, one of its most famous products. According to Datta and Roumani (2015), such photo editors are needed to demonstrate technologies, and experiments in the field of visual effects are quite a common modern trend. Therefore, certain mechanisms are behind the purchase of such applications, and the goal is to further profit by improving the quality of services.
Motivations Behind the Purchase
The tactic of purchasing potentially successful projects is prevalent in the digital technologies and computer modeling market (Geis 2015, p. 58). Google has become one of the flagship platforms where many successful start-ups are developing, and various ideas are being implemented. The desire of this corporation to acquire various projects of young and little-known specialists is quite understandable: brand owners want to continually develop their company and do not regret investing money in it. Moreover, as Morton and Shapiro (2014) remark, the desire for mergers is a trend and can be considered proof of the success of one company that acquires the other. For Google, buying an application that uses neural network technology is the way to keep positions in a competitive environment provided by other well-known corporations. According to Avinadav, Chernonog, Perlman (2017), mergers often help to avoid serious risks as the rush around such an event, as a rule, compensates for the lack of consumer interest. This motivation is quite reasonable and logical.
Purchase Compliance with the Business Model of Google
One of the main aspirations pursued by the owners of Google is the ability to more efficiently and quickly work with the editing of photos. If the whole process does not take place on cloud servers but inside smartphones, it will significantly speed up the procedure and at the same time help users to appreciate the updated interface (Al-Emran & Malik 2016). Also, the desire to acquire a profitable and commercially reliable project that can become an instrument in the struggle for the introduction of innovative technologies is quite understandable (Thomas & Cardot 2016). According to Dempster and Lee (2015), despite the fact that Google is a world-famous corporation with many branches, the purchase of new applications helps the company continue to prove that it is interested in improving the quality of its services. The acquisition of AIMatters was yet another proof of Google’s active policy.
As practice shows, the business model of Google is based on attracting partners to develop new directions and expand influence. The company respects copyrights, which is a fair brand indicator (Grimpe & Hussinger 2014). At the same time, it gives beginners the opportunity to fully express themselves and succeed at their personal start. Investments in the sphere of mobile applications are very profitable today (Kim, Kankanhalli & Lee 2016). Therefore, Google conducts a theoretically grounded and competent policy of attracting new sources of ideas.
Conclusion
Thus, specific mechanisms are behind the purchase of AIMatters, and the goal is to further profit by improving the quality of services. The acquisition of the Belarusian application was another one in Google’s list, which proves the corporation’s desire to develop popular areas. The purpose of buying the product completely corresponds to the business model that the leaders of the corporation adhere to.
Reference List
Al-Emran, M & Malik, SI 2016, ‘The impact of Google apps at work: higher educational perspective’, International Journal of Interactive Mobile Technologies, vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 85-88.
Avinadav, T, Chernonog, T & Perlman, Y 2017, ‘Mergers and acquisitions between risk-averse parties’, European Journal of Operational Research, vol. 259, no. 3, pp. 926-934.
Datta, P & Roumani, Y 2015, ‘Knowledge-acquisitions and post-acquisition innovation performance: a comparative hazards model’, European Journal of Information Systems, vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 202-226.
Dempster, C & Lee, J 2015, The rise of the platform marketer: performance marketing with Google, Facebook, and Twitter, plus the latest high-growth digital advertising platforms, John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ.
Geis, GT 2015, Semi-organic growth: tactics and strategies behind Google’s success, John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ.
Grimpe, C & Hussinger, K 2014, ‘Resource complementarity and value capture in firm acquisitions: the role of intellectual property rights’, Strategic Management Journal, vol. 35, no. 12, pp. 1762-1780.
Kim, HW, Kankanhalli, A & Lee, HL 2016, ‘Investigating decision factors in mobile application purchase: a mixed-methods approach’, Information & Management, vol. 53, no. 6, pp. 727-739.
Morton, FMS & Shapiro, C 2014, ‘Strategic patent acquisitions’, Antitrust Law Journal, vol. 79, no. 2, pp. 463-499.
Singh, AK 2016, ‘Future of Google: a case study’, Delhi Business Review, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 115-117.
Thomas, M & Cardot, R 2016, ‘The latest boom in mergers and acquisitions. Should we be worried?’, Strategic Direction, vol. 32, no. 6, pp. 2-4.