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

451–460 of 607 posts

Re: G is for Google

#451

Post by overgard »

overgard wrote: post #440

Google you're drunk, go home. Ok more seriously as a customer: uh, what the hell just happened? "Hey you know that great brand we had? Yeah lets pivot towards ... letters. That children learn"

So I normally don't comment on downvotes because, you know, whatever, but I'm really looking forward to the posts about how this is a great idea.

"Hey you know how we had this brand that became synonymous with looking up all information ever? Let's abandon that to be associated with, uh, letters."

Seriously it's not like "google" was a damaged brand. I'm not going to "alphabet" shit.

Re: G is for Google

#452

Post by overgard »

seanbo wrote: post #400

am I the only one who wants to hurl reading this?

nope. I'm not a google fan boy but it's pretty sad watching a once great company do.. whatever this is? It's hard to even have a reaction because it defies reasoning.

Re: G is for Google

#453

Post by bduerst »

Ologn wrote: post #432
AndrewKemendo wrote: post #412

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Glad to see innovation in action. This is the kind of stuff that makes the web worse - domain squatting.

> Glad to see innovation in action. Thank you! I sent in a registration for proof.com on February 3, 1996, but missed out on it by a few hours to some other dude. Never again! Just snapped up remar.xyz, networ.xyz, noteboo.xyz, payche.xyz and a few more. Went on a geometry/graphics kick and snapped up stuff like plotting.xyz and intercepts.xyz as well. I don't make the rules, I just play by them.

Thankfully the proliferation of gTLDs is increasing the supply and lowering the value for squatters like you. You screwed up in 1996, and you're screwing up again now, but hey, it's your money.

Re: G is for Google

#454

Post by pkinsky »

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…

>Calico

A clean line between Calico and the advertising business can only be a good thing. Hopefully this means they can get on with analyzing every genome they can get their hands on.

Re: G is for Google

#457

Post by bduerst »

coldtea wrote: post #103
10098 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Aren't Chromebooks the best selling laptop on amazon or something?

Yes, they sell decently, but do no represent any profit for Google (which gives the OS for free). It's around 5-6 million units sold anually, but, as Google themselves said, Google don't make any money of off them. Samsung, Acer, etc, who produce the units do, but again, in total it represents a tiny slither of laptop profits due to the small margins. Most Chromebooks (70%) go to the education market as cheapo laptop…

Thankfully revenue streams are more complex than just, "Did we make more money than it cost to produce this unit sold?" in a vacuum.

It's 2015 and companies compete for user timeshare, not dollars.

Re: G is for Google

#458

Post by orionblastar »

Alphabet is just a way that Google can control its liabilities. Each subdivision can be closed off or sold if it has trouble. Not take down the other subdivisions when that happens.

Oracle is suing over Android using Java APIs, Alphabet can move Android to its own subdivision if they lose the lawsuit and close it off or sell it off and then develop a new mobile OS to replace it.

Re: G is for Google

#459

Post by isbadawi »

overgard wrote: post #451
overgard wrote: post #440

Google you're drunk, go home. Ok more seriously as a customer: uh, what the hell just happened? "Hey you know that great brand we had? Yeah lets pivot towards ... letters. That children learn"

So I normally don't comment on downvotes because, you know, whatever, but I'm really looking forward to the posts about how this is a great idea. "Hey you know how we had this brand that became synonymous with looking up all information ever? Let's abandon that to be associated with, uh, letters." Seriously it's not like "google" was a damaged brand. I'm not going to "alphabet" shit.

From TFA: "I should add that we are not intending for this to be a big consumer brand with related products--the whole point is that Alphabet companies should have independence and develop their own brands."

Re: G is for Google

#460

Post by Ankaios »

fredkbloggs wrote: post #392
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.

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.

That was already clear.
Post reply on HN