Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

G is for Google

googleblog.blogspot.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 607 posts

Re: G is for Google

#51

Post by spydum »

jordigg wrote: post #5

So all google divisions are now individual companies inside a conglomerated called Alphabet where Larry is the CEO and Sergei the President. Sundar Pichai is now the new CEO of Google. Is that right? Why do you think they are moving this way? Regulations? Taxes? What about Eric Schmidt? I don't know much about trading, but look at that "after hours" spike! http://postimg.org/image/ho5ecyr99/ EDIT: All google subsidia…

My own guess: it allows upcoming management/leadership to exercise more independence in the various divisions of "Google". Further, People like titles, and it's hard to share them.

Re: G is for Google

#53

Post by ocdtrekkie »

axyjo wrote: post #2

This is a big move, which might also possibly help with EU anti-trust accusations by splitting up the big-ol' monolithic GOOG into functionally separate units.

I would hope the EU can see right through transparent moves like this, but I suspected this as well.

Re: G is for Google

#54

Post by tptacek »

axyjo wrote: post #2

This is a big move, which might also possibly help with EU anti-trust accusations by splitting up the big-ol' monolithic GOOG into functionally separate units.

Did I miss something in the announcement? When people say that Google is "monolithic", they're saying that Google contains Youtube (#1 video site), search (#1 search), Android (#1 mobile OS), maps (#1 map site), Gmail (#1 email site?), and G+ (Facebook competitor). These companies appear to remain inside the Google corporation after the "restructuring", and so this doesn't ameliorate any of EU's concerns.

I think this is more about changing what Larry and Sergey do all day.

Re: G is for Google

#57

Post by rmason »

Am I the only one who came away wondering why they didn't buy the domain alphabet.com?

The company that owns it, ascio.com, isn't even using it. Or perhaps they were a bit too greedy?

Re: G is for Google

#58

Post by rob_lh »

Oletros wrote: post #20
Oletros wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there a list of moonshots failed?

Wave and Plus were not moonshots It would be a good thing explain why the downvotes

They were absolutely pitched as huge ideas that would change everything we know about email and social networks. Bearing the scars of their public failures, Google started calling new projects moonshots to shape perception of the programs as chasing ideas, while preemptively deflecting any criticism of their readiness or desirability to large markets. They are not materially different from moonshots except in presentation.
Post reply on HN