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

Alphabet Loses $859M on 'Moonshots' in 2Q 2016

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 194 posts

Re: Alphabet Loses $859M on 'Moonshots' in 2Q 2016

#121

Post by Retric »

whack wrote: post #120
zaroth wrote: post #33

I don't think it's right to equate R&D spending with "losses". Google makes a profit, not a loss, so technically it does not have losses. It has expenses, and among those, investments in future technology. If all Google could do with their cash flow was pay a dividend, that would be very sad, and it would call for a much lower P/E ratio. This article completely misstates the facts. Perhaps the way they break out thei…

Genuine question: Has Google ever achieved financial success with a moonshot project? Google Glass seems to have come closest to becoming an actual product, but it eventually crashed and burned as well. The self-driving car was a great technological success, but I really wonder how Google plans to monetize it. Years ago, when Google was the only major company doing self-driving-cars, there was a lot of buzz and poten…

In terms of internal projects gmail, and local maps comes to mind. If your going to call everything that did not work a moonshot then by definition no. However, it's only a failure when they give up so self driving cars are rather undecided at this point, and theses projects help recruiting which has non obvious benefit.

Re: Alphabet Loses $859M on 'Moonshots' in 2Q 2016

#122

Post by eli_gottlieb »

Retric wrote: post #121
whack wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Genuine question: Has Google ever achieved financial success with a moonshot project? Google Glass seems to have come closest to becoming an actual product, but it eventually crashed and burned as well. The self-driving car was a great technological success, but I really wonder how Google plans to monetize it. Years ago, when Google was the only major company doing self-driving-cars, there was a lot of buzz and poten…

In terms of internal projects gmail, and local maps comes to mind. If your going to call everything that did not work a moonshot then by definition no. However, it's only a failure when they give up so self driving cars are rather undecided at this point, and theses projects help recruiting which has non obvious benefit.

The important question is whether something was designated a "moonshot" before it succeeded or failed, thus giving us an unbiased sample.

Re: Alphabet Loses $859M on 'Moonshots' in 2Q 2016

#123

Post by whack »

Retric wrote: post #121
whack wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Genuine question: Has Google ever achieved financial success with a moonshot project? Google Glass seems to have come closest to becoming an actual product, but it eventually crashed and burned as well. The self-driving car was a great technological success, but I really wonder how Google plans to monetize it. Years ago, when Google was the only major company doing self-driving-cars, there was a lot of buzz and poten…

In terms of internal projects gmail, and local maps comes to mind. If your going to call everything that did not work a moonshot then by definition no. However, it's only a failure when they give up so self driving cars are rather undecided at this point, and theses projects help recruiting which has non obvious benefit.

By moonshots, I'm referring specifically to projects that came out of the "Other Bets" division. That division specifically invests in projects that are "out there." From what I hear, realistic products like gmail and maps came out of the 20% time and other product-divisions, not the "Other Bets" division.

Re: Alphabet Loses $859M on 'Moonshots' in 2Q 2016

#124

Post by matwood »

jahnu wrote: post #67
zaroth wrote: post #33

I don't think it's right to equate R&D spending with "losses". Google makes a profit, not a loss, so technically it does not have losses. It has expenses, and among those, investments in future technology. If all Google could do with their cash flow was pay a dividend, that would be very sad, and it would call for a much lower P/E ratio. This article completely misstates the facts. Perhaps the way they break out thei…

Playing devil's advocate here (a little) but imagine they took a few dozen million of that and, say, improved their development tool chains for Android (which are disappointingly flaky). Or another few dozen millions and extended the security updates for Nexus phones by a couple of years. That could grow their market share of both developer mind-share and consumers. Moonshots maybe should come once you've mastered al…

The Android tool chain has improved A LOT over the years. I used to want to throw my computer every time I was forced to do something in our Android product, now it is only a mild annoyance. Compared to iOS it still has a ways to go though.

Re: Alphabet Loses $859M on 'Moonshots' in 2Q 2016

#125

Post by matwood »

sievebrain wrote: post #95
redthrowaway wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Search has stagnated. Google has gotten scarily good at anticipating what I want to know, but conspicuously bad at answering hard questions. There's tons of room for improvement. Similarly, Google Maps has added features that make it a better map, and it's a great place to find what time a store closes and what their phone number is. But it's been essentially the same service, with iterative improvements, for years.…

I suspect Google Search has not actually had quality regressions, but rather that your expectations have gone up over time without you realising it.

This. It used to be the first page of results was good enough. Now if it is not in the top 3-4, I refine my query.

Re: Alphabet Loses $859M on 'Moonshots' in 2Q 2016

#126

Post by [deleted] »

whack wrote: post #123
Retric wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In terms of internal projects gmail, and local maps comes to mind. If your going to call everything that did not work a moonshot then by definition no. However, it's only a failure when they give up so self driving cars are rather undecided at this point, and theses projects help recruiting which has non obvious benefit.

By moonshots, I'm referring specifically to projects that came out of the "Other Bets" division. That division specifically invests in projects that are "out there." From what I hear, realistic products like gmail and maps came out of the 20% time and other product-divisions, not the "Other Bets" division.

[deleted]

Re: Alphabet Loses $859M on 'Moonshots' in 2Q 2016

#127

Post by [deleted] »

whack wrote: post #120
zaroth wrote: post #33

I don't think it's right to equate R&D spending with "losses". Google makes a profit, not a loss, so technically it does not have losses. It has expenses, and among those, investments in future technology. If all Google could do with their cash flow was pay a dividend, that would be very sad, and it would call for a much lower P/E ratio. This article completely misstates the facts. Perhaps the way they break out thei…

Genuine question: Has Google ever achieved financial success with a moonshot project? Google Glass seems to have come closest to becoming an actual product, but it eventually crashed and burned as well. The self-driving car was a great technological success, but I really wonder how Google plans to monetize it. Years ago, when Google was the only major company doing self-driving-cars, there was a lot of buzz and poten…

[deleted]

Re: Alphabet Loses $859M on 'Moonshots' in 2Q 2016

#128

Post by brador »

crottypeter wrote: post #106
brador wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're only good investments if they tap that well someday. If you sit around moonshotting all day and never shipping they're worth $0. So far, no moonshot by a big corp has paid off. Maybe it's too early, or more likely Google is hoarding tech and filing patents like a rational engineer running a business using machine learning would do, and while that's good for Google it's bad for Society to have so much cool tec…

> So far, no moonshot by a big corp has paid off. What about that mobile phone apple launched in 2007?

I wouldn't call the iPhone a moonshot, more an extreme iteration.

This was around before the iPhone: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPAQ (HP IPAQ)

Combine that with a phone and update the software and make it designed and you have an iphone.

Re: Alphabet Loses $859M on 'Moonshots' in 2Q 2016

#129

Post by unfortunateface »

duckmysick wrote: post #60
unfortunateface wrote: post #56

I am encouraged by this advertising companies attempts at designing cars. The moonshot program seems to me to be either Google cementing it's position forever in the knowledge economy or a desperate scrabble for another hit. If the latter is true, then I have hope for the future. It means that the giants - Google (+ Youtube), Amazon, Facebook - can fall. They are not on as strong a footing as it seems. All it takes i…

How is Amazon being mentioned in the same line as Google and Facebook? They don't rely as much on the ad revenue as the other two.

Each line of those bulletpoints was for a different company facebook, google then amazon

Re: Alphabet Loses $859M on 'Moonshots' in 2Q 2016

#130

Post by eru »

melling wrote: post #115
zaroth wrote: post #33

I don't think it's right to equate R&D spending with "losses". Google makes a profit, not a loss, so technically it does not have losses. It has expenses, and among those, investments in future technology. If all Google could do with their cash flow was pay a dividend, that would be very sad, and it would call for a much lower P/E ratio. This article completely misstates the facts. Perhaps the way they break out thei…

Company X invests billions into the "future". This continues for 5-10 years without results turning into profitable products or direct improvements. Shareholders begin to question the value of those investments. "Is the R&D being well spent?" Google hasn't turned any moonshot into a profitable product yet, right? They're going to need a winner or two to convince investors. Apple will be in the same position in a few…

Doesn't matter too much what Google/Alphabet shareholders think. The controlling majority is with the founders, and the company is not going to the markets anytime soon to ask for more capital.
Post reply on HN