G is for Google • Hacker News Board

Re: G is for Google

#151

Post by Someone1234 » Mon, Aug 10, 2015, 9:34 PM UTC

vonmoltke wrote: post #105

Symmetry wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Danger? You mean benefit? Companies not succeeding themselves even as they fall from relevance is a massive reason why large companies fail.

Look at Blackberry, they had an internal project working against the rest of the company (namely Android on Blackberry hardware) that could, had it been allowed, saved the company. Instead Blackberry are either going to be purchased OR go bankrupt.

Honestly internal competition is an argument for doing something like this, not against it.

Re: G is for Google

#152

Post by lloyddobbler » Mon, Aug 10, 2015, 9:34 PM UTC

philippnagel wrote: post #108

adidash wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

True story. Rather than speed, I'd say independence is the goal. Warren & Charlie (BRK) have proven that this model works - purchase great companies, then let them continue to do their thing (albeit with more resources). All roads report up, but Dairy Queen doesn't wind up run by the same person as GEICO on the executive level.

So long as Sergey and Larry (& Co.) keep from micro-managing, I think this structure will be enormously beneficial. I can't see how someone running Google's web properties would be able to move quickly when also having a hands-on responsibility for developing a self-driving car and a glucose-sensing contact lens.

Re: G is for Google

#153

Post by knes » Mon, Aug 10, 2015, 9:34 PM UTC

It's almost as if they read "the outsiders"[0]

[0] http://www.amazon.com/The-Outsiders-Unconventional-Radically...

Re: G is for Google

#154

Post by kloncks » Mon, Aug 10, 2015, 9:34 PM UTC

ThrustVectoring wrote: post #121

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…

What made egypt and the levant albatrosses? Source? I'd love to learn more.

Re: G is for Google

#155

Post by bitL » Mon, Aug 10, 2015, 9:35 PM UTC

When the letters for the new companies run out, will they form kan.ji? ;-)

Re: G is for Google

#156

Post by scott_karana » Mon, Aug 10, 2015, 9:35 PM UTC

citruspi wrote: post #112

spitfire wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's a yellow page?

A directory of businesses, like a phone book for businesses instead of people[0]. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_pages

I think spitfire was being sarcastic, eg, "nobody looks for tech businesses in annual piles of irrelevant paper anymore"

Re: G is for Google

#157

Post by mtkd » Mon, Aug 10, 2015, 9:35 PM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #119

tptacek wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

> My question is, what does "slimmed down" Google mean? It means Google minus all the parts that are now their own direct subsidiaries of Alphabet. Which, previously, were all part of Google. Hence, "slimmed down".

A lot of things they were getting in to like cars just didn't fit.

It's going to remove the 'is this a thing Google should be getting in to?' question when evaling ventures/acquisitions.

Re: G is for Google

#158

Post by silasdavis » Mon, Aug 10, 2015, 9:35 PM UTC

Perhaps this partly pre-empts threats to split up Google's search from 'other businesses', https://recode.net/2015/04/20/eu-competition-commissioner-i-...

Re: G is for Google

#159

Post by paragpatelone » Mon, Aug 10, 2015, 9:35 PM UTC

T is for Tesla

Re: G is for Google

#160

Post by dragonwriter » Mon, Aug 10, 2015, 9:36 PM UTC

sz4kerto wrote: post #11

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).

> Does this mean that running high-risk project inside Google started to damage the reputation of Google?

I don't think it hurt the consumer reputation, and it can't be about the investor reputation, since those things are still inside the entity (Alphabet) that investors will care about (at least, until a way to invest in the new "core" Google directly is offered, which may be part of the long-term plan -- it would explain why they indicated that they will report Google's financials separately within Alphabet's.)