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

171–180 of 194 posts

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

#171

Post by eli »

amelius wrote: post #145
burkaman wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, but Andy Rubin and Android were a separate company that Google bought. They sort of acquired someone else's moonshot.

Also, there was Symbian OS, and probably a bunch of others. So not even someone else's moonshot. Imho, Android was more about exploring a new business strategy for Google.

OK, but c'mon. If the definition of "moonshot" means you built something without benefit significant previous work in the field, then sending a spaceship to the moon doesn't qualify either.

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

#172

Post by NzNz »

eli wrote: post #142
amelius wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the term "moonshot" is reserved for exploring new technical frontiers. Android is "just" another OS.

Easy to say that now. They started developing it before the iPhone came out, right?

This is what it looked like before the iPhone: http://www.technobuffalo.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Scre... So, yes, it was "just another OS" in the grand scheme of things. A blackberry and symbian competitor. A footnote. An explorer of new frontiers it was not.

http://appleinsider.com/articles/14/04/14/exclusive-android-...

" The change log of the planning document conveys the rapid change that occured in April, when suddenly there was a "major update." Among the changes were section 3.11.2 Touchscreen, which now read, "a touch screen for finger-based navigation—including multitouch capabilities—is required. Stylus-based navigation is not supported."

The iPhone had the android team sweat bullets. They were working all this time on a Blackberry clone, and had to re-purpose their UI to become 100% multitouch friendly before releasing it.

Android might have been released earlier than it did if the iPhone hadn't been a thing. It had to be remade to not become a laughing stock. It still was a laughing stock at release though.

" When it was released, Android still lacked support for touchscreen typing by finger. And while the phone shipped with hardware support for multitouch, its software was patched to remove support for the feature. In late 2009, Google released Android 2.0, adding software support for multitouch. "

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

#174

Post by rainhacker »

I fear if such a view is prevalent, eventually focus might shift from 'solving problems that matter on scale' to 'how much money can I make out of this'. Hope research and innovation do not succumb to desire/pressure to grow revenue. I don't believe such projects cannot have any (indirect) monetary accountability. However, Investors should have a softer take on the outcome of these projects.

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

#175

Post by ChuckMcM »

Interesting take on it, I would probably write the headline "Alphabet spends nearly $1B trying to find new businesses". Using the New York times logic nearly $15.3B was lost last quarter by startups[1] :-) But setting aside that Google's spending as much as 6% of the existing startup ecosystem, they are still not spending a material amount of their free cash flow of nearly $7B last quarter.

And I wonder Why not?

[1] http://nvca.org/pressreleases/15-3-billion-venture-capital-d...

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

#176

Post by qqg3 »

havefunwiththat wrote: post #93

For that kind of money, you could build a new moon. I don't see anything positive about this kind of loss. If anything, it sounds like questionable accounting to reduce the cost of other profits.

It's not a loss though, they just invested some profits in R+D...

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

#177

Post by nickhalfasleep »

I had to look up [1] the etymology of "moonshot" and thought it was interesting.

moon shot, n.2 One might think, “1961, moon shot;” this word relates to the space program as this is the year that President Kennedy set out the great challenge to go to moon by the decade’s end, but it doesn’t, at least not directly. The space term dates to 1949. This moon shot is baseball jargon for a ball hit to a great height. But it’s still 1961, so the baseball usage could be a figurative use of the space term, but the type of hit was made famous by L. A. Dodger Wally Moon. Undoubtedly the coinage is something of a double entendre, combining Moon’s name with the astronautic term, but it shows that in etymology the obvious answer isn’t always the right one.

[1] http://www.wordorigins.org/index.php/site/comments/1961_word...

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

#178

Post by taneq »

nibs wrote: post #140
Mtinie wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you provide an example? I would not consider reasonable overhead costs to be "investment" dollars, but you may have something else in mind.

Spent: verb, to spend, you could spend money settling a lawsuit but it would be a stretch to call that investment. 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.

I define 'investment' as 'money spent in the pursuit of future benefit'. In this case, money spent settling a lawsuit to avoid a significant chance of later spending a far greater amount paid as damages (and why else would you settle?) is most definitely investment.
Post reply on HN