131–140 of 194 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In addition, it's not like these bets have been pronounced dead. They're all still in play. It will be years before we know whether any were successful or not. This is like someone betting $1000 on a game, and then calling it a $1000 loss up until the game is actually played (at which point it becomes indeed a true $1000 loss, or possibly a gain). It doesn't make any sense.
You could argue that Google Glass is dead.
Wave is probably an even bigger disappointment: it would have done great as an enterprise product.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> And perhaps "bet" is the wrong word being used here. Usually with a bet in gambling terms, you either win big or you lose it all. Internally, they're referred to as 'bets, a pun on the company name Alphabet.
Aww, isn't that cute.
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…
Page writes: “Having exceeded even the crazy ambitious goals we dreamed of for Android—and with a really strong leadership team in place—Andy’s decided it’s time to hand over the reins and start a new chapter at Google. Andy, more moonshots please!” [1]
The "more moonshots" implies that Android was itself a moonshot. Whether it was declared one at the time Android Inc was purchased I don't know!
As for financial success, in a recent lawsuit with Oracle it was disclosed Android had a profit of $22 billion [2] if I'm reading into it right (admittedly very quick research, not at all reliable!)
[1] https://techcrunch.com/2013/03/13/andy-rubins-next-moonshot-...
[2] http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-01-21/google-s-a...
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…
Catapulting a TRL1-3 concept to product is certainly a moonshot, _but_ they cant afford to take a long comfortable stance to incubate all ideas over an indefinite period of time. The beauty of trying to fund/productize TRL1-3 Moonshots is so many great bits and nuggets fall out of it during the course of maturation that you get to reiterate on.
In my view you are right that they are thinking long term, that they have a positive P/E and still are funding Moonshots along with the safer higher TRL items is encouraging for their investors, that's good long term planning.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technology_readiness_level
:edit: Formatting
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…
I believe Android was (technically at least) a moonshot Page writes: “Having exceeded even the crazy ambitious goals we dreamed of for Android—and with a really strong leadership team in place—Andy’s decided it’s time to hand over the reins and start a new chapter at Google. Andy, more moonshots please!” [1] The "more moonshots" implies that Android was itself a moonshot. Whether it was declared one at the time Andro…
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…
Just shows once again how risky it is to run a startup in SV, putting your eggs in one basket. Lots of otherwise very intelligent people think they can be smarter than Google.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In some contexts, not all Spending is Investment even if it can be defined as investment in layman terms.
Can you provide an example? I would not consider reasonable overhead costs to be "investment" dollars, but you may have something else in mind.
Investment: to allocate money in the expectation of future benefit, so that could mean administrative expenses, which would cover and include a lot (but not all) spending.
My vote would be on invested.