Sundar will be the CEO of both Google and Alphabet

Post by ddalex » Wed, Dec 04, 2019, 10:21 AM UTC

stallmanite wrote: post #358

nostrademons wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Company lifespans these days are a lot shorter than human lifespans. 25-40 years seems typical, making a company-year 2-3x a human year. By that yardstick, Google was in its young adolescence when it IPO'd (seems reasonable), was an idealistic young adult when I joined in 2009 (also reasonable), is now hitting a midlife crisis, and will die sometime around 2040.

So IBM is like a 300ish year old vampire then? They really seem like an outlier longevity-wise.

Post by davidwihl » Wed, Dec 04, 2019, 10:24 AM UTC

beerandt wrote: post #509

davidwihl wrote: post #498

Earlier quoted context omitted.

keeping it as separate entities meant that useful data could not be shared. Under one org, more data can be safely shared while respecting user privacy.

I don't understand how being under Google vs being under Alphabet changes that. They're still fundamentally one org sharing data with itself. If anything, I would think the company segregation would make it more complicated and difficult, wrt logistics, legality, and internal politics.

Post by ddalex » Wed, Dec 04, 2019, 10:52 AM UTC

m0zg wrote: post #293

lonelappde wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ballmer tried to save Microsoft by killing the Internet, creating the opening for Google to become the industry leader

I think you're confusing him with Gates. Although Ballmer did refuse to buy Google when he could. Would have been a drop in the bucket. I forgot, BTW, he also spun up the ad and search businesses: the only reason there's any alternative to Google at all.

Post by emrehan » Wed, Dec 04, 2019, 10:57 AM UTC

emrehan wrote: post #128

Dear Larry and Sergey, Thank you for creating Google. Nobody could prove that without it the web would have been a better place. You couldn’t have known what’s to come when you were raising hundreds of thousands of dollars as two students in 1998. Maybe your leadership has been one of the least evil among the possibilities in the evil world we live in. However, we know what is it like to lose control of your company,…

Post by tomp » Wed, Dec 04, 2019, 11:05 AM UTC

londons_explore wrote: post #489

endorphone wrote: post #390

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In a way this seems like an admission of the failure of the "Alphabet" thing. The idea behind that originally was that all of these other projects were going to become so significant that it wouldn't make sense to have them or their management coupled with Google. But a half-decade later, it's still 99.9% Google, so just double-up the Google guy to lead both tiers. Same as it ever was.

The original reason was that smart people like career progression. Money alone isn't enough to keep them - they want something good on their business cards. Otherwise some will leave to become CEO of another company. By making a group of companies, you can have many CEO's, more directors, more VP's, etc. and therefore keep hold of more smart people who are after external recognition more than money.