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

301–310 of 607 posts

Re: G is for Google

#301

Post by vonmoltke »

Someone1234 wrote: post #151
vonmoltke wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Sony took internal competition too far in the 90s and created a situation where they developed severe internal NIH syndrome and wasted a whole lot of resources with different divisions re-implementing things. The system produced some of the most revolutionary and iconic consumer electronics ever before it went off the rails. The danger I was referring to was repeating Sony's mistakes.

Re: G is for Google

#302

Post by mehrzad »

shas3 wrote: post #125
akhilcacharya wrote: post #7

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

Many large companies in other sectors are structured like this. Google, through its diverse acquisitions has now, in that sense, become like a lot of the older conglomerates like GE, Berkshire Hathaway, Raytheon, DuPont, Honeywell, UTC, 3M, etc. To different extents, these are all organized like Alphabet will be. Take branding: core products may be sold under the company's name, other products may be sold in a nearly…

I thought the GP was asking whether a conglomerate was formed in this bottom-up restructuring before. Many of the other conglomerates seemed to have become large through parent companies making or buying subsidiaries, not a subsidiary forming the parent.

Re: G is for Google

#303

Post by Retra »

bcantrill wrote: post #267
mjn wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> this builds much more explicit resentment from those that are profit-centers towards those that are cost-centers An additional bit of trouble, coming from the way Google's current profits are made, is that the profit centers are mainly perceived as less glamorous than the cost centers, which seems likely to only add to the resentment. It becomes much more explicit then, that the people doing the various bits of gru…

That was definitely true at Sun as well. At one point, Arthur van Hoff told me with a straight face that "every E10K Sun sold was because of Java." This was in early 1998 -- and it was categorically (and demonstrably!) false. We at Sun who had the filthy task of actually making money were looked down upon by those who were responsible for spending it -- and represented one of the ultimate failures of the planet model…

I can't see why anyone would object to that kind of arrangement. The whole reason we do the boring stuff is because it pays for the exciting stuff. If exciting stuff could pay for itself, nobody would ever do anything dull.

Re: G is for Google

#304

Post by bsimpson »

scott_karana wrote: post #99

I'm really confused why they wouldn't chose to incorporate a "new Google", and split out all its other ventures, future and existing , as subsidiaries, rather than make a new brand and relegate their previously mainone to subsidiary status, with its own sub-subsidiaries. Legal issues, I presume? Or are Brin and Page just having identity crises? I don't think anyone will care if they see "Foobar, an Alphabet company"…

Are there any prominent ventures (aside from YouTube) that aren't being spun out?

Re: G is for Google

#307

Post by citruspi »

scott_karana wrote: post #156
citruspi wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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"

Yeah. I thought so too, but I wasn't sure, so I figured I might as well answer. It couldn't hurt.

Re: G is for Google

#308

Post by sospep »

diminish wrote: post #163
echelon wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

y is for ycombinator - a startup accelerator owned by google - hmmmmmmm

Re: G is for Google

#309

Post by briandear »

awicklander wrote: post #289

And T is for Twitter? This seems like it would be the perfect foundation with which acquire twitter right? A twitter acquisition makes sense under Alphabet in a way it doesn't under Google, no?

And F is for Facebook and W is for whatever... This restructuring really had little practical value and doesn't change anything -- including plans to acquire or not acquire Twitter. Sure the legals are different but the company isn't.

Re: G is for Google

#310

Post by ghawk »

dragonwriter wrote: post #218
untog wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The original question was to correct the comment if it was wrong, not to state the content in a simpler form!
Post reply on HN