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

371–380 of 607 posts

Re: G is for Google

#371

Post by 001sky »

vonmoltke wrote: post #290
Spooky23 wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fiber is the hint about what this really means. Capital intense businesses like ISPs or car companies are expensive to operate and the financials would drag down Google. In this model, the big shareholders get to dilute risks in these ventures, while retaining the ability to exponentially increase their personal wealth.

This reorganization makes no difference on the financials. The release explicitly stated the company is trading at the conglomerate level.

While you are right in your comment, in so far as what you have written, the implication that [this] "reorganization makes no difference on the financials" is not strictly speaking true.

Going forward, this re-organization may very well allow capital allocation to be done at various legal entities a-la project or structured finance. That way, the risk/return of the various projects can be traded on more efficiently to the benefit of both investors and google/alphabet shareholders.

This is relevant in the larger context for asset intensive, long-time maturity investment areas --like fiber, self driving cars, etc -- that have fundamentally different economics than the core business (search/ads/youtube etc).

Re: G is for Google

#372

Post by trentnelson »

ChuckMcM wrote: post #230
[deleted] wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[deleted]

Don't misunderstand me, it isn't dislike, its amazement. Some things really do well under multiple companies, think BASF or Siemans where the core that holds them is something common to all the sub-companies. But historically tech companies do not prosper in that model, and generally for a similar reason, there isn't anything in common between the companies except maybe there are smart and talented people working the…

I'm enjoying all your Sun reminiscing in this thread, very interesting.

Re: G is for Google

#373

Post by eru »

snowwrestler wrote: post #366
minot wrote: post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Joel Spolsky's Strategy Letter V is something that I think is interesting in this Sun conversation > Sun is the loose cannon of the computer industry. Unable to see past their raging fear and loathing of Microsoft, they adopt strategies based on anger rather than self-interest. Sun's two strategies are (a) make software a commodity by promoting and developing free software (Star Office, Linux, Apache, Gnome, etc), an…

Joel has always seen things from Microsoft's point of view. And we are actually living in the world he mocked: both hardware and software, on the server side, have been largely commoditized.

Sun got its dream come true (and `the network is the computer', too), but it lost as a company.

Re: G is for Google

#374

Post by cpeterso »

timrpeterson wrote: post #341
bound008 wrote: post #221

http://abc.wtf -> http://bing.com

That's amazing, better than the hooli.xyz Easter egg mentioned elsewhere in the thread.

abc.wtf looks like it really is Microsoft:

http://whois.domaintools.com/abc.wtf

  Created on 2015-08-10
  IP Location 	United States - Washington - Redmond - Microsoft Corporation
  ASN 	United States AS8075 MICROSOFT-CORP-MSN-AS-BLOCK - Microsoft Corporation

Re: G is for Google

#375

Post by return0 »

josh2600 wrote: post #252
return0 wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't 96% of Google profits from search ads only? They 've done a million ventures since then, still remain ad-funded.

Current sources of value != future sources of value. The price of Google's stock is based on forward-looking prospects, not on current metrics.

i m pretty sure its based on expected profits, or it would have flopped given the performance of all these prospects.

Re: G is for Google

#376

Post by return0 »

fredkbloggs wrote: post #261
return0 wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't 96% of Google profits from search ads only? They 've done a million ventures since then, still remain ad-funded.

Yes. Because the Google part isn't being spun out to the shareholders but remaining a part of the conglomerate, this does nothing for the shareholders. The sea change would be if new-Google were a separate listed company returning its earnings to its shareholders. Instead it's a separate private company returning its earnings to Larry and Sergei to blow on whatever BS they want... just like it was yesterday. About th…

spot on!

Re: G is for Google

#380

Post by madhurbehl »

A is for Automobiles. H is for Healthcare. D is for Defence. E is for Energy. M is for Medicine. R is for Robotics

This will become the Umbrella corporation from the resident evil fame :P

Post reply on HN