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

461–470 of 607 posts

Re: G is for Google

#461

Post by JoshTriplett »

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 wonder if that'll include Google Fi, and if that'll be separate or go into the same subsidiary as Fiber.

Re: G is for Google

#462

Post by overgard »

isbadawi wrote: post #459
overgard wrote: post #451

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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."

So basically, they're becoming the most generic sounding holding company possible, because people LOVE generic holding companies.

I know "lovability" isn't exactly a goal for companies, but if berkshire hathaway became "abcdefg" I would make fun of them equally.

Re: G is for Google

#463

Post by grkvlt »

dragonwriter wrote: post #136
loteck wrote: post #17

To summarize (correct me if I'm wrong): - Google will now be operated as a subsidiary of a new company called Alphabet. - Alphabet will be publicly traded under the same symbols as Google is now traded. - Stock will just transfer as-is. - Sundar Pichai is now the CEO of Google. - Larry and Sergey will run Alphabet as CEO and President, respectively.

Its probably simpler to think of it this way: * What was called "Google" will now be called "Alphabet", with Larry and Sergey as CEO and President. * Much of the core business of the old Google will be operated in a division/subsidiary of the new Alphabet called "Google", of which Sundar Pichai will be CEO. * The rest of the old Google's business will be in other units of Alphabet.

They are refactoring. Google is being updated to make some of its sub-classes into new top-level classes (sharing some characteristics with Google) and retain the rest as sub-classes. But to do this it must create a new parent class (for Google, and all of the other newly promoted classes) which is the new Alphabet class.

Obviously s/class/company/g modulo plurals...

Re: G is for Google

#464

Post by codeisawesome »

AndrewKemendo wrote: post #412
Ologn wrote: post #393

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yaa, $1 for a domain like hooli.xyz or Google, I mean Alphabet ( https://abc.xyz ). I'll try it out. Just snapped up prefi.xyz, suffi.xyz, picka.xyz, icebo.xyz, equino.xyz, mailbo.xyz, postbo.xyz, rolode.xyz, soapbo.xyz, toolbo.xyz, lunchbo.xyz, letterbo.xyz, chatterbo.xyz for about $15 total for all of them. I skipped on conve.xyz, laryn.xyz, proli.xyz, and surta.xyz, which were all open a few minutes ago.

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

Perhaps, but domain squatting also produced the incentive to diversify gTLDs, something that would have taken much longer otherwise? I'm not sure.

Re: G is for Google

#465

Post by reustle »

tdaltonc wrote: post #425
reustle wrote: post #421

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it has to do with how tight Google Services and Android are. Android is less of an operating system and more of a Google services device in your pocket (mail/docs/photos/etc)

Sure, but would it have become that if it had been segregated in 'A' after acquisition? Would it have "graduated" into Google proper at some point?

I think they are moving away from grading "into" Google. I get the vibe they want most serious non-related stuff out on its own.

Re: G is for Google

#469

Post by eldavido »

001sky wrote: post #371
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.

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 t…

This is a good point in an otherwise PR- and spin-heavy announcement. If Google plans to pursue capital-intensive projects a la Fiber, it'd be better to have those separated to allow use of (much cheaper) debt capital collateralized by very narrow slices of the business. Is this what you mean by "project finance"? I've heard that term before but not sure what it means.

Re: G is for Google

#470

Post by googlerABC »

ChuckMcM wrote: post #148
tptacek wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't read it that way. All of Google's subsidiaries are subsidiaries of Alphabet, as is Google. But divisions inside of Google (Android, Youtube, &c) remain Google. The big news is that Larry and Sergey are stepping back into a more Warren and Charlie kind of role, and Sundar Pichai is taking over as CEO of Google. My question is, what does "slimmed down" Google mean?

I wonder where platforms (the HW company inside of Google that builds all their machines and switches) ends up. If they make it their own 'letter' (H is for Hardware?) then they could potentially have it build data center hardware for other companies. That would be interesting.

Per the SEC 8-K, technical infrastructure falls into Google proper.
Post reply on HN