Google Announces Fourth Quarter and Fiscal Year 2023 Results [pdf]

Post by d0gsg0w00f » Tue, Jan 30, 2024, 11:29 PM UTC

resolutebat wrote: post #106

rogerbinns wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The most valuable owner in this space is whoever you communicate with to tell them where you want to go. They get to offer you a price, they get to offer you alternative destinations, and they get to offer you "deals". For example that means that a different supermarket can make an offer you come to them instead, or you can be offered a different price should a different route be taken, a ride share happen, a journey…

Color me skeptical, but I've never gotten in a car without having decided my destination first. I don't go to "any supermarket", I go to Supermarket X because they have the goods I need at a price I accept or the best promos that week or whatever. If letting your rideshare company decide your destination was really a thing, why wouldn't Uber be doing it already be doing it with human drivers?

Post by renewiltord » Tue, Jan 30, 2024, 11:31 PM UTC

disillusioned wrote: post #22

Kluggy wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think they have proved that it's a incinerator at this point.

Waymo _might_ be the sole survivor here... they are ABSOLUTELY trying their damndest with it. It's remarkable to not go a single day without seeing a driverless Waymo doing its thing. (I live in Central Phoenix, they're _everywhere_.) The core concept is being proven pretty well, in markets with good weather and good roads at least... whether they can achieve some sort of critical mass that allows them to recoup any…

Post by eitally » Tue, Jan 30, 2024, 11:35 PM UTC

QuercusMax wrote: post #75

ehsankia wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But isn't that just bad management / prioritization? Isn't the solution to just shuffle people to more useful projects instead of firing them? Especially at a company that hires general engineers who can work on any project, and also at a company that has a lot of internal tooling which makes ramping up new engineers slow and tedious. They'll probably grow back to 190k within a few months, but those 8k new hires will…

In my org at the Goog, we didn't have any layoffs, but we also aren't expecting any new headcount any time soon. Projects that need more staff are expected to cannibalize it from other projects under the same VP. I feel like this is actually a good way of doing things, and wish Google did this more broadly. Just think if everyone who would have been laid off was instead transferred to a project that needs their skill…

Post by HDThoreaun » Tue, Jan 30, 2024, 11:38 PM UTC

KerryJones wrote: post #110

hiddencost wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A Google SWE costs the company around $750k average, fully loaded cost. So if those were all SWEs, $6B/yr isn't an unreasonable estimate.

Where did you get the $750K figure? I'm in the Bay Area, Sr Engineer, on the higher end of the pay scale, and no-where close to that figure.

Post by westhanover » Tue, Jan 30, 2024, 11:41 PM UTC

jsnell wrote: post #107

matwood wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google revenues come from ~90% ads. It's an ad company. The company gives guidance, so the estimates are not pulled out of thin air. Google should know their ad business very well at this point. People selling after an ad miss is medium/long term thinking. They could be wrong, but was the miss caused by a wider economic slowdown (see UPS earnings) or was it Google specific? Either way, it could be sign of Google slow…

> Google revenues come from ~90% ads. That's not true, and hasn't been for a decade. For this earnings release, the proportion of revenue from ads was 76%. > The company gives guidance No, they don't. As far as I know they've literally never given guidance.