So I guess A is Adsense.
2 googlers downvoted me. :)
G is for Google
561–570 of 607 posts
Re: G is for Google
#562Is Larry Page trolling PG? A day after PG publishes an essay that companies should own the .com version of their names, he renames Google to Alphabet with .xyz as the TLD.
Its a holding company not a brand.
Re: G is for Google
#563So all google divisions are now individual companies inside a conglomerated called Alphabet where Larry is the CEO and Sergei the President. Sundar Pichai is now the new CEO of Google. Is that right? Why do you think they are moving this way? Regulations? Taxes? What about Eric Schmidt? I don't know much about trading, but look at that "after hours" spike! http://postimg.org/image/ho5ecyr99/ EDIT: All google subsidia…
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?
> what does "slimmed down" Google mean?
Hopefully less likely to run afoul of antitrust regulation.
Re: G is for Google
#564Earlier quoted context omitted.
Most certainly not the only reason why and possibly not even the most important, but the EU has started to load up on the anti monopoly against Google recently, with talks about breaking it up in Europe (similar to the Microsoft case in the US some years ago, although it didn't go through and in this case it would only split in EU). http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/nov/27/european-p... > The European parlia…
If you compare GE to Google, or Samsung to Google, then Google doesn't seem to have an absurdly diversified portfolio. But GE doesn't have a back-end that can facilitate easily realizing marketplace advantages in jet engines based on what they've done in light bulbs. Google can do exactly this. And the EU has taken notice. It would make sense that this is the primary underlying issue, even if the move is primarily pr…
the level of constructive criticism here just blows me away. my god what an amazing community
Re: G is for Google
#565Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 ca…
This is only true if: a) Neither executive nor any member of the board has any concept of fiduciary duty. b) They can keep any mismanagement out of audited financial statements.
Malice is not required. All they have to do is be wrong.
Re: G is for Google
#566Here's another possibility: Google's taking a page from the Innovators Dilemma, and moving their disruptive projects away from corporate meddling. Most innovative projects die at big corps because they don't fit into the companies existing business model. Walling-off self driving cars and contact lenses from Google's core business could give it the room it needs to grow (before some VP of whatever cuts the project for not being profitable).
Re: G is for Google
#567Re: G is for Google
#568Earlier quoted context omitted.
Transparency is easier when you have control (Class A versus Class C shares). I'm surprised more largish tech companies haven't followed along to not be at the whim of WallStreet and other short-term outlook players.
Aren't the Class B shares the major voting shares, with 10x as many votes per share as Class A (10 vs 1)?
Correct:
Class C - 0 Votes (GOOG)
Class A - 1 Vote (GOOGL ~4% higher cost per share)
Class B - 10 Votes (Not publicly traded)
Re: G is for Google
#569Wow, they are doing letters? Really? Letters? Hey is Eric Schmidt still in the building somewhere? Ask him how well Planets worked out for Sun Microsystems. Interesting strategy, hard to second guess from the outside of course. Sun's motivation was to figure out whether the other parts of the company could stand on their own[1], it also makes it less fiscally complicated to discharge an entire group into the void. Th…
Well, yes, but Sun was more than the sum of its parts. Alphabet is actually less than the sum of its; Google is a highly profitable ad business that's still showing nice growth. The rest is a hodge-podge of startups and fantasies that provide neither revenue nor profit and have little chance of ever doing so. Most of them don't even have products. There's no reason to think that what is being taken out of Google was…
Technically, that's the definition of "the sum of its parts". The others are absolutely intended to have revenue and profits. Fiber already has revenue, and the potential upside on self-driving cars is astronomical. Non-G Alphabet is not a charity. It's just not (yet) a cash cow.
Re: G is for Google
#570Earlier quoted context omitted.
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...
More of a composition model instead of sub/super classes.:
* Alphabet has-one Google * Google belongs-to Alphabet * YouTube belongs-to Google * Google X belongs-to Alphabet