Live data from Hacker News

G is for Google

googleblog.blogspot.com

61–70 of 607 posts

Re: G is for Google

#61
post #13

Does this mean that running high-risk project inside Google started to damage the reputation of Google? Many (most) of the moonshot projects failed (which is normal), and I have the feeling that these events had a somewhat bad fallout on the image of the whole company (questioning its invicibility to some extent, mostly in the eyes of the press).

Is there a list of moonshots failed?

Search for "The Google Graveyard". Someone made a thing about all the stuff Google killed off.

Re: G is for Google

#62
post #32
post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wave, Plus, Glasses at least. If we are to include less ambitious stuff, Google Video, Orkut, Chromebooks (never went far), Reader, Google Code, Dart, nothing much came out of Morotola, etc. And let's see were those "self driving cars" will go, market-wise...

Aren't Chromebooks the best selling laptop on amazon or something?

They are. They're really well used in the education sector now too, for good reason.

Re: G is for Google

#63
I wonder if, besides the obviously healthy restructuring, this is also to anticipate on future anti trust issues. It seems like they're getting one step ahead like this.

Re: G is for Google

#64
post #54
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 thi…

"so this doesn't ameliorate any of EU's concerns"

The announcement seems deliberately vague. You're right in that it doesn't specifically address the EU concerns, but it creates a structure where that's easier to do.

Re: G is for Google

#65
post #18
post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there a list of moonshots failed?

Wave, Plus, Glasses at least. If we are to include less ambitious stuff, Google Video, Orkut, Chromebooks (never went far), Reader, Google Code, Dart, nothing much came out of Morotola, etc. And let's see were those "self driving cars" will go, market-wise...

Reader was the top web application in its market for almost a decade. I'd like to have that kind of failure.

Re: G is for Google

#67
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.

Although what often happens is that now divisions compete against either in suboptimal ways. Search and Maps are separate? Great, until Search decides maps are really cool and starts building their own version, again. It takes a strong hand at the top to prevent division heads from viewing their peers as rivals.

Re: G is for Google

#68
post #37
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…

I didn't read it that way. All of Google's subsidiaries are subsidiaries of Alphabet, as is Google. But divisions inside of Google (Android, Youtube, &c) remain Google. The big news is that Larry and Sergey are stepping back into a more Warren and Charlie kind of role, and Sundar Pichai is taking over as CEO of Google. My question is, what does "slimmed down" Google mean?

I think in this case it just means the new slimmed-down Google won't include X, Calico, Wing, etc...

Re: G is for Google

#69
post #20
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

Wave was supposed to completely blow away email.

Plus was intended to eat Facebook's lunch.

They were both huge moonshots.

Post reply on HN