Live data from Hacker News

G is for Google

googleblog.blogspot.com

161–170 of 607 posts

Re: G is for Google

#161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except it is the conglomerate that is going to trade on the market, not the individual business units. They are changing their corporate structure to be more like GE or Lockheed. All the units will still be summed together come earnings time.

According to the blog post the earnings reports will be separated by division.

Sure, but they all still trade in one big GOOG pile.

Re: G is for Google

#163
post #72
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">.

I wondered if the reorg would have any impact on the stock price. Given this joke, now I really wonder. Are we sure it isn't April 1st? Are we sure this press release isn't a hoax? This is so wild I'm having trouble believing any of it.

Alphabet is only missing a startup accelerator, why wouldn't Sergey and Larry now focus on earlier stage themselves? All those ambitious things can be achieved better by a lot of startupa competing in parallel.

Re: G is for Google

#164
post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 laptop…

If direct profit generation is the measure of failure for Google then they've failed at basically everything except for advertising.

Re: G is for Google

#166
post #57

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?

Something tells me the kind of visitors Alphabet hopes to attract to their new website will be sophisticated enough to find it, and if not, they would be gently nudged by Google search results.

Re: G is for Google

#168
post #58
post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 present…

What huge ideas? Social network inside a browser was never a new idea, no matter how hard Google was pitching.

Re: G is for Google

#170
post #60

Congrats! It's a new chapter for Google, an exciting beginning for Alphabet. It definitely broke PG's theory on the .com

Not really. Alphabet.com is crashed and is down since the press release. So a lot of people are doing what PG suspected.
Post reply on HN