Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

G is for Google

googleblog.blogspot.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 607 posts

Re: G is for Google

#211

Post by return0 »

nolok wrote: post #134
jordigg wrote: 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 parlia…

But isnt this consolidation instead of separation? Or are they creating this entity so that they will keep Google intact even if they are ordered to separate?

Re: G is for Google

#213

Post by mtgx »

mrwilliamchang wrote: post #194

Sounds like Alphabet is setup to do lots of major acquisitions. Game changer for tech ecosystem.

Will Alphabet buy Apple? (with the trillions it will make from Planetary Resources, which I assume will incorporate as well eventually). Apple even has a letter reserved for it - The A in Alphabet.

Re: G is for Google

#214

Post by gress »

tapsboy wrote: post #131
coldtea wrote: 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...

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 o…

Google Video, and Orkut, were complete failures and no longer exist. Successful products don't disappear without a trace. If they are closed by management when they otherwise might have succeeded, that is failure.

Reader was a failure according to Google itself, which closed it due to supposed lack of interest. Once again, if the decision to close it was an error by your criteria, then they failed.

The rest I would agree with.

Re: G is for Google

#215

Post by cwyers »

msbarnett wrote: post #69
Oletros wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think the implication about a moonshot is that nobody has been to the moon before the moonshot. The thing about Facebook's lunch is that lunch happens ever day at noon.

Re: G is for Google

#217

Post by cowsandmilk »

Nullabillity wrote: post #120
vonmoltke wrote: post #36

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.

That is just more transparency into internal operations. Different divisions of Microsoft report separately, but a division taking a billion dollar write-off still impacts the share price.

Re: G is for Google

#218

Post by dragonwriter »

untog wrote: post #177
dragonwriter wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That is in no way simpler.

Obviously, that's subjective.

I find it easier to think of it as a name change and the creation of a new subordinate entity within the old organization with its own CEO than to think of it as creating a new entity above Google, and transferring lots of functions from Google to the new superior entity, transferring all stock in Google to stock in the new superior entity, and changing the leadership of Google.

Re: G is for Google

#220

Post by matmann2001 »

JacobAldridge wrote: post #203
diminish wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

V is for Ventures and Capital W is for Wing X is for X Lab Y is for ...

Youtube
Post reply on HN