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

441–450 of 607 posts

Re: G is for Google

#441

Post by mathattack »

yRetsyM wrote: post #266
chetanahuja wrote: post #207

Actually reading the first few paragraphs of the form 8(K) was more illuminating than the blogpost. "Under the new operating structure, its main Google business will include search, ads, maps, apps, YouTube and Android and the related technical infrastructure (the “Google business”)" "In connection with the new operating structure and upon completion of the Alphabet Merger (as defined below), Larry Page will become t…

I find it also interesting the non - Google companies: Businesses such as Calico, Nest, and Fiber, as well as its investing arms, such as Google Ventures and Google Capital, and incubator projects, such as Google X, will be managed separately from the Google business. Fiber is the most notable to me - seems they see this as more than an experiment and are looking to expand. YouTube not separating is an interesting on…

I interpret it as keeping the ad machine separate from everything else. If product decision impact ad revenue, they stay in (G)oogle. Everything else moves to different arms.

My guess is this serves 3 benefits:

1 - Less turf wars.

2 - Better visibility to investors on where the money is.

3 - Ability to spin off pieces as needed.

Many companies resist this type of visibility because they don't want a Carl Icahn to come in and demand a spinoff. The share structure of Google/Alphabet precludes this from happening.

Re: G is for Google

#442

Post by tmpforareason »

dotori wrote: post #382

Alphabet (the main company) B Calico (focused on longevity) Capital (investment) D E Fiber Google (now led by Sundar Pichai and includes search, ads, maps, apps, YouTube, and Android) H I J K Life Sciences ("that works on the glucose-sensing contact lens") M Nest O P Q R S T U Ventures (investment) W X lab ("which incubates new efforts like Wing, our drone delivery effort") Y Z

Cool! I will make sure my new startup starts with a letter which is not used yet. Will we see companies changing their names for possible acquisitions.

Re: G is for Google

#443

Post by cpeterso »

keyle wrote: post #419
cpeterso wrote: post #374

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Read the whois. NZ is New Zealand, no?

Good point. The whois says Wellington, NZ. I don't know if it is related, but Microsoft does have an office in Wellington. :)

http://www.microsoft.com/en-nz/contact.aspx

Re: G is for Google

#445

Post by fredkbloggs »

rancur wrote: post #433
fredkbloggs wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> its shareholders they did nothing to create the algorithm, what right do they have to whine?

Ever hear of work for hire? If you want all the rewards for yourself, you don't sell shares in your company.

Re: G is for Google

#447

Post by javajosh »

franciscomello wrote: post #293

Here's why I think Google's transformation into Alphabet was not a wise one. As Google cofounder Larry Page, now CEO of the holding company Alphabet, that will have as its main subsidiary Google, the search company, said earlier today: >As Sergey and I wrote in the original founders letter 11 years ago, “Google is not a conventional company. We do not intend to become one.” As part of that, we also said that you coul…

As an investor in Google, I am pleased that they will continue to try to create new things, and not just cash in on search, etc. (Well, as long as they don't pull another Reader.)

On the plus side (so to speak), if G+ had been factored out maybe the forcible integration would have been slowed.

Re: G is for Google

#448

Post by seiji »

zrail wrote: post #338
electic wrote: post #253

The most important part of the 8K is how the merger will happen and how stock will be effected or transformed eventually: “Alphabet will initially be a direct, wholly owned subsidiary of Google. Pursuant to the Alphabet Merger, a newly formed entity (“Merger Sub”), a direct, wholly owned subsidiary of Alphabet and an indirect, wholly owned subsidiary of Google, will merge with and into Google, with Google surviving a…

Is that the normal way something like this is structured? It's pretty elegant.

Yeah, it's normal business weirdness. It's a reverse triangular merger: http://witnesseth.typepad.com/blog/reverse-triangular-merger...

Re: G is for Google

#449

Post by xbmcuser »

anjc wrote: post #381
vonmoltke wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Google could go public though, right? (The new Google)

It wont as they dont need it to Google Fiber on the other hand need capital investments so probably will.
Post reply on HN