Live data from Hacker News

G is for Google

googleblog.blogspot.com

131–140 of 607 posts

Re: G is for Google

#131
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...

Google Video was merged into Youtube

Orkut was wildly successful in Brazil and India, until they stopped building it for Buzz and Plus

Reader was hugely successful, which is why the outcry on its closing

Chromebooks are doing great, atleast on Amazon, the world's biggest retailer.

Dart pivoted into a compile-to-JS language, but is still alive

Motorola streamlined it's product lineup under Google and is doing fairly okay for Lenovo

Calling above items as failure is inaccurate. None of them were moonshots btw.

Re: G is for Google

#132

Is this purely a function of sharding liability across a conglomerate of businesses? It seems like concentrating Google's ad revenue in a smaller, more efficient business unit is a nod to Berkshire Hathaway's method of business. I can't recall this sort of thing happening in my lifetime, so it will be really interesting to see how this plays out. I also wonder how this would be treated if Google didn't have the crazy…

Google stock is converted to Alphabet stock. X moves from Google to Alphabet. No change in future value here.

Re: G is for Google

#133
Wow, they are doing letters? Really? Letters? Hey is Eric Schmidt still in the building somewhere? Ask him how well Planets worked out for Sun Microsystems.

Interesting strategy, hard to second guess from the outside of course. Sun's motivation was to figure out whether the other parts of the company could stand on their own[1], it also makes it less fiscally complicated to discharge an entire group into the void. Think HP selling off the Agilent half of itself.

Generally though this sort of move is a way of containing and then "fixing" cost problems. Divestiture is so much easier once you've created the framework of a whole organization around each chunk. It can also be weirdly inefficient, at Sun each of the "planets" paid in a sum of money to IT (Bill Raduchel's organization) for "Corporate IT support" except that Corporate IT didn't work for them, they were just the only vendor you could use to get your IT services, so what you ended up with was really crappy IT work that you couldn't shop around for. It was maddening. But the 'collection of companies' design pattern requires either that you have your "service providers" that everyone uses (HR, IT, Legal) which gives little incentive for quality service, or everyone gets their own version which means a lot of excess overhead and duplicated work.

I could think of at least two other ways Google could have re-organized without bringing that pain upon them, and as Eric lived through it at Sun as well I'm sure he has an opinion.

Oh, and having one of the sub-companies get the world's #3 brand? I wonder how that works out.

[1] Answer "No" for SunSoft, "Yes" for Sun Hardware, "No" for Sun Labs.

Re: G is for Google

#134
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…

Most certainly not the only reason why and possibly not even the most important, but the EU has started to load up on the anti monopoly against Google recently, with talks about breaking it up in Europe (similar to the Microsoft case in the US some years ago, although it didn't go through and in this case it would only split in EU).

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/nov/27/european-p...

> The European parliament has approved a motion calling for tougher regulation of internet search, including suggesting breaking up Google as a solution to its dominance in Europe.

That certainly wasn't a done deal nor even agreed that's what the commission would really aim for, but the heat was mounting and Google's move cut them short just in case.

Re: G is for Google

#135
post #51
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.

A very good point. Didn't look like Sundar Pichai was going to oust Larry Page as CEO anytime soon. This gives everyone the ability to continue their upward mobility (and responsibility), with increased independence from aligned (but separate) businesses within Goog--er, Alphabet.

IOW, Nest reports to Alphabet, and so does Google. Both are aligned, but separate.

Re: G is for Google

#136
post #17

To summarize (correct me if I'm wrong): - Google will now be operated as a subsidiary of a new company called Alphabet. - Alphabet will be publicly traded under the same symbols as Google is now traded. - Stock will just transfer as-is. - Sundar Pichai is now the CEO of Google. - Larry and Sergey will run Alphabet as CEO and President, respectively.

Its probably simpler to think of it this way:

* What was called "Google" will now be called "Alphabet", with Larry and Sergey as CEO and President.

* Much of the core business of the old Google will be operated in a division/subsidiary of the new Alphabet called "Google", of which Sundar Pichai will be CEO.

* The rest of the old Google's business will be in other units of Alphabet.

Re: G is for Google

#138
Makes sense. Hopefully this can stabilise the Google brand as something more reliable (fewer products that are launched one day, taken down the next), while still allowing them to experiment. The name is genius too; it suggests that there will be other companies equal to Google's stature one day ("G is for Google, H is for ...another billion dollar company?").

Re: G is for Google

#140

One of the big dangers of being Google is using the profitable advertising arm to subsidize unprofitable side-ventures that don't materially affect the advertising arm of the business. This same problem lead to the decline of the Ottoman Empire - they used the profitable Balkans to pick up albatrosses like Egypt and the Levant, and then collapsed when they lost the Balkans and could no longer subsidize ruling those a…

You can't really make this analogy work, because the Ottoman Empire's basic problem was how to handle succession. It's not that they went broke paying for pyramid maintenance.

This parallel will be more apt if Alphabet board members start constantly strangling each other with silken cords, and the company develops a mercenary slave class that dominates decisions over who runs what division. Time will tell!

Post reply on HN