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

521–530 of 607 posts

Re: G is for Google

#521

Post by ithkuil »

_stephan wrote: post #277

Will the non-Google Alphabet companies still have access to Google's software engineering infrastructure?

They will probably have to "pay" for it. It will make it easier to figure out net gains and losses within each venture. I expect this to increase the reported revenue of Google (infrastructure), as significant costs incur in infrastructure management.

On the other hand is also possible that Alphabet companies can use the google's "cloud" infrastructure with a significant discount.

Re: G is for Google

#522

Post by ucaetano »

You can now think of Alphabet/Google as the Berkshire Hathaway of technology.

While BH uses money from a cash cow business (insurance) to build a portfolio of companies that look like the established economy, and manage those companies in an exceptional way, improving individual returns while reducing overall unsystematic risk (effectively using good management to move beyond the Markowitz efficiency frontier), Google will use money from a cash cow business (Ads) to build a portfolio of companies the look like the new economy, using effective management in the same way.

Re: G is for Google

#523

Post by wodenokoto »

codeisawesome wrote: post #464
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.

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

Which is also generally considered a bad thing.

Re: G is for Google

#524

Post by minthd »

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.

>> 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.

It's not that one-dimensional . Their company does have resources that enable them to do things you and others cannot do.

Re: G is for Google

#528

Post by _stephan »

ithkuil wrote: post #521
_stephan wrote: post #277

Will the non-Google Alphabet companies still have access to Google's software engineering infrastructure?

They will probably have to "pay" for it. It will make it easier to figure out net gains and losses within each venture. I expect this to increase the reported revenue of Google (infrastructure), as significant costs incur in infrastructure management. On the other hand is also possible that Alphabet companies can use the google's "cloud" infrastructure with a significant discount.

I'm less curious about infrastructure that be commoditized and more about things like shared source code and access to subject-matter experts working on various teams at Google.

Re: G is for Google

#529

Post by smoyer »

Call me cynical but I'm of the opinion that this will help them continue operating the non-Internet businesses in places where the Internet businesses are facing regulation and/or sanctions.
Post reply on HN