And A is for Anti-Trust avoidance
G is for Google
401–410 of 607 posts
Re: G is for Google
#402Earlier quoted context omitted.
It seems to me that their domain name ( https://abc.xyz/ ), and maybe even the corporate name, was chosen to imitate Hooli XYZ.
Pardon my ignorance, but what's hooly.xyz? Google's innovation lab?
http://hooli.xyz is a company on the HBO show "Silicon Valley" - modeled after, and parodying Google.
Re: G is for Google
#403I wonder if part of this is to make it easier to kill the side businesses if they fail, since these ventures are inherently very risky, and require people with very different skills than normal at Google. Say 1000 people are working on Calico, but it ultimately fails, and there isn't a natural spot for them in Google anymore. If they were all Google employees, this turns into "massive layoffs at Google." Now it's just "Alphabet folds Calico business", which sounds less bad (and possibly even makes layoffs easier? Don't know, IANAL).
Re: G is for Google
#404Earlier quoted context omitted.
Right, this is about power. Specifically, it makes clear that Larry and Sergei are now in the capital allocation business. When you buy a share of Alphabet, you are buying shares in Larry and Sergei's opinion about what should be done with money. If you think they're much better at spending money than you are, this is a great opportunity. If you don't, it isn't.
Well you're still mostly investing in the growth potential of Google's existing businesses. Don't forget that Alphabet still completely owns all the money-making businesses of Google.
Wrong. You cannot have your profits and let someone reallocate them for you too.
You would be right if you owned a controlling interest, but you don't. Because you don't, all the profits of the money-making businesses go where Larry and Sergey want them to go. That's not (necessarily) going to be your pockets. If you owned a controlling interest, you could throw them out if you're unhappy with their performance as capital allocators, but you don't and you can't. So those profits are worth little or nothing to you, both now and in the future, because you aren't entitled to receive them.
Re: G is for Google
#405Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 a…
Of course if we go back to the original question, Orkut and Reader were hardly "moonshots" in the first place (and Google Video was arguably just a standard project launch).
Google's own canonical example of a moonshot is Android. By that definition, Orkut and Reader qualify just fine.
Re: G is for Google
#406Is it me or is alphabet.com timing out? Can't wait to see what they put up there. :D
Re: G is for Google
#407S is for shark. J is for jumping.
Re: G is for Google
#408Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
Google seriously didn't register abc.wtf? WTF.
Re: G is for Google
#409Earlier quoted context omitted.
This reorganization makes no difference on the financials. The release explicitly stated the company is trading at the conglomerate level.
It will when Google is manufacturing cars, or is joint venturing with a car company to manufacture them. The Google guys are smart. You don't do something like this without a long term strategic aim.
There was speculation on the last Tesla call that they're going to do another equity round (to which Elon said he couldn't comment). Would be interesting if this was part of the strategy, as Tesla is extremely capital intensive at the moment with the gigafactory and other manufacturing spend. Google almost did acquire Tesla before it's successful Hail Mary in 2013, so the idea isn't without merit.
Re: G is for Google
#410I fail to see this as anything but some preemptive move against European Union findings/rulings.