Live data from Hacker News

G is for Google

googleblog.blogspot.com

101–110 of 607 posts

Re: G is for Google

#101

Wow, this is really strange. Has there been any precedent for things like this?

Look at the history of conglomerates like Mitsubishi, or Berkshire Hathaway. Alphabet is remarkable since it's a very organized and name-concerned conglomeration, though.

Re: G is for Google

#102

Will Google split off Android as a "separate company" under Alphabet to try to hide it from the EU's crackdown? This is the most traditional-corporation definitely-evil move Google has ever made, whether their letter claims otherwise or not.

What's evil about it?

The idea that they're "hiding" from the EU crackdown is ridiculous. They know perfectly well it doesn't work like that.

Re: G is for Google

#103
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?

Yes, they sell decently, but do no represent any profit for Google (which gives the OS for free).

It's around 5-6 million units sold anually, but, as Google themselves said, Google don't make any money of off them.

Samsung, Acer, etc, who produce the units do, but again, in total it represents a tiny slither of laptop profits due to the small margins. Most Chromebooks (70%) go to the education market as cheapo laptops.

Re: G is for Google

#105
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'd assume it was a move to make failure easier. Sclerosis is the natural fate of large corporations but variation and selection is an obvious way to help with that.

The danger of conglomerates that give so much freedom to their subsidiaries is that said subsidiaries start actually competing against each other and hurting the business overall.

Re: G is for Google

#107
post #91
post #35

From the abc.xyz source code: Sergey and I are seriously in the business of starting new things. Alphabet will also include our X lab, which incubates new efforts like Wing, our drone delivery effort http://www.hooli.xyz/" target="_blank" class="hidden-link">.

[deleted]

Use https://abc.xyz/ not the blogspot post

Re: G is for Google

#108
post #97
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…

The intent is faster speed, greater independence and run like leaner startup. Also, additional career paths for employees, especially for the senior folks aspiring to be CEO.

Historically conglomerates are not known for speed and lean structures. I am curious how they plan to pull that off.

Re: G is for Google

#109
I wonder where this puts the robot stuff that Google was doing? I assume it will be under Alphabet as well as Nest.

Re: G is for Google

#110
Is Larry Page trolling PG? A day after PG publishes an essay that companies should own the .com version of their names, he renames Google to Alphabet with .xyz as the TLD.
Post reply on HN