Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google management shuffle points to retreat from Alphabet experiment

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 219 posts

Re: Google management shuffle points to retreat from Alphabet experiment

#31

Post by tyingq »

basch wrote: post #26
giancarlostoro wrote: post #19

If they had assigned a new CEO for Google it could of not looked this way. However this looks bad especially when you hear "We the People" talk about how some of these tech giants need to be broken up. This is not going to help them. I wonder who the next Bell will be.[0] [0]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breakup_of_the_Bell_System

why is it assumed they wont appoint a new Google CEO in the next 6 months to a year?

If I were Sundar Pichai, I'd probably view being the Alphabet Chief, and not the Google Chief, as a downgrade from just being the Google Chief. That was fine for Larry and Sergey with their founder's stock and deliberate desire to be somewhat disconnected. I don't think Sundar has either of those.

Re: Google management shuffle points to retreat from Alphabet experiment

#32

Post by ben_w »

mantap wrote: post #14
dzdt wrote: post #5

As usual, I like Matt Levine's take. [1] Page and Brin ran Alphabet as a highly funded system of moonshot programs with near-infinite runway to make profits, which is unusual or unique. Basically it only worked that way because Page and Brin were idealistic visionary gazillionaires who were bored of thinking about the somewhat dirty business of selling targetted ads. With a more standard corporate governance under a…

That seems way more idealistic somehow. More likely, with a more standard corporate governance Google will begin to rot from within. Apple certainly made more profits under Cook than Jobs, but innovation has slowed to a crawl and he has failed to diversify Apple away from having one product (instead he just added a bunch of accessory products and services). The last thing Google needs is to double down on ads, it tak…

It takes us two minutes to block ads. Everyone on this site is a tiny minority who finds this sort of thing easy.

https://www.nngroup.com/articles/computer-skill-levels/

Re: Google management shuffle points to retreat from Alphabet experiment

#33

Post by vrc »

ben_w wrote: post #32
mantap wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That seems way more idealistic somehow. More likely, with a more standard corporate governance Google will begin to rot from within. Apple certainly made more profits under Cook than Jobs, but innovation has slowed to a crawl and he has failed to diversify Apple away from having one product (instead he just added a bunch of accessory products and services). The last thing Google needs is to double down on ads, it tak…

It takes us two minutes to block ads. Everyone on this site is a tiny minority who finds this sort of thing easy. https://www.nngroup.com/articles/computer-skill-levels/

It's shockingly high. Most western countries see an average of 26% - 40% ad block rates (by pageview) across the web. Some sites skewing to an older, less tech savvy audience, see between 8% and 15%, while tech heavy sites can go as high as 92% of pageviews being ad blocked. It's actually crazy that adblock rates in developing countries like India and Indonesia can actually be much higher on average because of UC Browser adoption and high mobile web consumption. They don't care about ads and privacy though -- just saving money on their data plans from not downloading ads.

Source: I was briefly a product lead for a large tech company's anti-adblocking efforts and worked with publishers and others globally to measure these rates.

Re: Google management shuffle points to retreat from Alphabet experiment

#34

Post by abalone »

mantap wrote: post #14
dzdt wrote: post #5

As usual, I like Matt Levine's take. [1] Page and Brin ran Alphabet as a highly funded system of moonshot programs with near-infinite runway to make profits, which is unusual or unique. Basically it only worked that way because Page and Brin were idealistic visionary gazillionaires who were bored of thinking about the somewhat dirty business of selling targetted ads. With a more standard corporate governance under a…

That seems way more idealistic somehow. More likely, with a more standard corporate governance Google will begin to rot from within. Apple certainly made more profits under Cook than Jobs, but innovation has slowed to a crawl and he has failed to diversify Apple away from having one product (instead he just added a bunch of accessory products and services). The last thing Google needs is to double down on ads, it tak…

> innovation has slowed to a crawl

This is so typical of Apple criticism. They did do well with the iPhone and Mac that now any new innovations seem boring in comparison. It’s wrong.

The Apple Watch came out under Cook. That is more than an “accessory.” It’s a new platform, new OS variant, etc. It’s dominating smart watches.

The AirPods are pretty innovative in terms of the fine grained details that have made them super successful.

Latest OS builds included evidence of stereoscopic glasses in the pipeline.

Remember Apple isn’t always the first with stuff, even smartphones. Their innovations are more around key details and hardware/software integration that makes the whole system work like magic.

Re: Google management shuffle points to retreat from Alphabet experiment

#35

Post by dylan604 »

endorphone wrote: post #18
tim333 wrote: post #10

>Placing the head of Google, which contributes more than 99% of Alphabet’s sales, at the helm of it could call into question the entire purpose of Alphabet I think this gives a false impression of the value of the non Google bits of Alphabet Currently the market cap of Alphabet is $924bn and "Waymo is worth about $105 billion" ( https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-09-27/waymo-val... ) which would make that 1…

The market cap of Waymo is $0 because it has no market cap. [edit: note that the parent comment originally spoke to the `market cap' of Waymo before an edit, giving context to this reply] An analyst independently made up a number, likely to justify an outsized Google target number. There have been rumors that Google will seek outside investments in Waymo that might legitimize some valuation, but they haven't. And for…

>And for now Waymo's revenue is estimated to be $5M. While Google's revenue is about $160,000M.

Why the decision to write $160,000M vs $160B? Was it so the same as the previous $5M number? Even still, it seems unnatural to me.

Re: Google management shuffle points to retreat from Alphabet experiment

#36

Post by bayarrhea »

drawkbox wrote: post #27
endorphone wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The market cap of Waymo is $0 because it has no market cap. [edit: note that the parent comment originally spoke to the `market cap' of Waymo before an edit, giving context to this reply] An analyst independently made up a number, likely to justify an outsized Google target number. There have been rumors that Google will seek outside investments in Waymo that might legitimize some valuation, but they haven't. And for…

Waymo is in the value creation phase, business/marketing/analysts may not value it as much but there is a goldmine under it. Waymo may not be a revenue behemoth currently but there is immense value there not only to self-driving but to maps improvement and more. I am not a fan of software patents but they have surpassed Toyota in patents [1] and there are hundreds of patents from Waymo [2]. Everyday in Arizona Waymo…

That’s a long way of saying Waymo isn’t making any money.

Re: Google management shuffle points to retreat from Alphabet experiment

#38

Post by dylan604 »

popup21 wrote: post #24
varjag wrote: post #3

First the Reader, now the Alphabet.

It will never stop. After they axed Reader, I stopped using anything from the G. Watching them build legit software, gain users, and then dissolve those services over and over and over again had the effect of suffocating any further curiosity towards their products. Like a Skinner mouse, they literally train you not to give a shit anymore.

>After they axed Reader, I stopped using anything from the G

I never used Reader, but did anything else come along to fill the void? I ask as I am curious on the market when G kills a product. When G kills off a product, does the rest of the world just assume that if G couldn't make it work then it must not be worth doing? I know HN readers were vocal about the death of lots of G products, but HN readers are edge cases in the grand scheme.

Re: Google management shuffle points to retreat from Alphabet experiment

#39

Post by surfmike »

abalone wrote: post #34
mantap wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That seems way more idealistic somehow. More likely, with a more standard corporate governance Google will begin to rot from within. Apple certainly made more profits under Cook than Jobs, but innovation has slowed to a crawl and he has failed to diversify Apple away from having one product (instead he just added a bunch of accessory products and services). The last thing Google needs is to double down on ads, it tak…

> innovation has slowed to a crawl This is so typical of Apple criticism. They did do well with the iPhone and Mac that now any new innovations seem boring in comparison. It’s wrong. The Apple Watch came out under Cook. That is more than an “accessory.” It’s a new platform, new OS variant, etc. It’s dominating smart watches. The AirPods are pretty innovative in terms of the fine grained details that have made them su…

And just wait for AR.

Re: Google management shuffle points to retreat from Alphabet experiment

#40

Post by repsilat »

MarkMc wrote: post #25
jfoster wrote: post #7

Any investor in Alphabet for the long term would hope this isn't the case. It also doesn't make sense at a time when some of their moonshots are looking as though they could pay off. (Eg. Waymo) That said, it makes sense from the Page/Brin perspective, perhaps. It's a lot more difficult to 10x a company that's already worth $Y billion. Perhaps better to start the ventures separately in a way that is more exciting to…

I've been a Google shareholder for more than 10 years, and I would love it if Alphabet spun off Waymo so I could dump my Waymo stock. My view is that the market undervalues Google and overvalues Waymo but unfortunately Mr Page and Mr Brin force me to invest in both.

Funny, I'm sure a lot of people think the opposite, and that only proves your point more.
Post reply on HN