That's pretty much Amazon's profits in 2Q 2016.
Alphabet Loses $859M on 'Moonshots' in 2Q 2016
21–30 of 194 posts
Re: Alphabet Loses $859M on 'Moonshots' in 2Q 2016
#22I don't see anything wrong with this approach, especially since the company can actually sustainably afford to keep placing these bets. 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. When Alphabet tries a "moonshot", they come away learning a lot about whatever problem it is that they were trying to tackle. They build expertise in-hous…
I agree with the sentiment, but I don't think you're going to spend just $1B to get to $10B/year. Does Google get to that number with anything apart from Search and Youtube?
Though I think even $1B for a $100M/year business is a pretty decent deal at this point...
Re: Alphabet Loses $859M on 'Moonshots' in 2Q 2016
#23There was an HN discussion earlier this week on Google X[0]. One important point made there, by snarf: > Google X is mainly about the PR value around its image and recruiting/locking up talent. Google would rather have smart people locked up inside the company working on projects with a high probability of going nowhere rather than having them going to a competitor, or worse, creating the next major competitor. 0: ht…
I've long held that self-driving cars are a marketing ploy by Google. Their lead, Chris Urmson, frequently speaks as if it's only a couple years away. One of his famous phrases was that his daughter, 14, should never have to get a driver's license, if he met his goal. He's spoken in front of Congress, acting like the laws are the only thing holding them back, which is false. I'd absolutely call him out on the things he said to Congress being outright lies.
At the same time Google has bragged about their car's previously impeccable safety record, they've admitted in reports to the DMV that the only reason they didn't cause 13 accidents in a year was their test drivers... trained humans. The real safety system in the car.
But everyone thinks Google is the leading edge of innovation "because they make self-driving cars and stuff".
Re: Alphabet Loses $859M on 'Moonshots' in 2Q 2016
#24There was an HN discussion earlier this week on Google X[0]. One important point made there, by snarf: > Google X is mainly about the PR value around its image and recruiting/locking up talent. Google would rather have smart people locked up inside the company working on projects with a high probability of going nowhere rather than having them going to a competitor, or worse, creating the next major competitor. 0: ht…
I've long held that self-driving cars are a marketing ploy by Google. Their lead, Chris Urmson, frequently speaks as if it's only a couple years away. One of his famous phrases was that his daughter, 14, should never have to get a driver's license, if he met his goal. He's spoken in front of Congress, acting like the laws are the only thing holding them back, which is false. I'd absolutely call him out on the things…
Yeah but Google _does_ make self-driving cars. You can see them all over Mountain View. They drive themselves. It's amazing.
Re: Alphabet Loses $859M on 'Moonshots' in 2Q 2016
#25Subtly dishonest journalism in my opinion.
This article could just as easily be titled "Alphabet invests $859M on long-term projects".
In fact, that would be a more accurate title since that is precisely Google's intent.
Re: Alphabet Loses $859M on 'Moonshots' in 2Q 2016
#26Why should any organization have net profits at all? "Loses" here is being used to mean "spent". You can't just keep stacking up cash forever. That would be pointless and stupid.
Re: Alphabet Loses $859M on 'Moonshots' in 2Q 2016
#27This article makes it sound like Google frittered away $1b on the "X" lab last quarter.
X lab includes self driving car, Goog Glass, Project Tango (editorializing here but Tango is badass!), more crazier bets (1)
Ok, some crazy stuff there - pretty pretty risky.
Wow $1b last quarter for that stuff.
Geez corporate responsibility grumble grumble, stupid silicon valley assholes snark snark.
But wait, spend 30 seconds doing research and in reality the $859m headline is actually referring to Alphabet's line item "Other Bets"
"Other Bets" includes Nest, Google Fiber, Google Ventures, and Verily among others(2)
Nest = iot + Tony Fadell (pre fallout) looked like a damn good way to beat Apple to a new important consumer market. Still holding out hope.
Google Fiber = fast speed is fundamental to Google's biz, heck they could probably look at this as CapEx. Please come to my 'hood!
Google Ventures = bought $258m of Uber stock @ $3.6b valuation. What's that a 20x so far? Pays for entire fund's lifetime by several multiples? Lots of other follow-rounds that make sense (3)
Verily = profitable healthcare division. (4)
So come on NYT spend 5 mins getting the story straight instead of writing a lazy click bait headline.
(1) https://www.solveforx.com/
(2) https://www.engadget.com/2016/02/01/google-alphabet-q4-2015-...
(3) https://techcrunch.com/2013/08/22/google-ventures-puts-258m-...
(4) http://www.recode.net/2016/4/13/11586102/verily-alphabet-pro...
Re: Alphabet Loses $859M on 'Moonshots' in 2Q 2016
#28Wall Street is short sighted and regularly see things by the quarter. Its long term outlook tends to be a year give or take. Alphabet needs more forward thinking investors who can see a payout that may not happen for a decade or more. While it has cool projects, the problem with X is that it doesn't seem to have a clear mission / message like SpaceX and Tesla where you are investing for more than just a profit. I cou…
Stock is up 4% after hours. I'm not sure which "wall street" strawman you are attacking, but it doesn't appear to be the one that actually trades stock.
ok, my criticism is directed towards Wall St analysts. I could be wrong but it feels like the vast majority of them see X as a money pit that's hampering Alphabet as whole. I've been hearing this for about a year now. If ad revenue wasn't up, the chorus would be louder.
Re: Alphabet Loses $859M on 'Moonshots' in 2Q 2016
#29Why should any organization have net profits at all? "Loses" here is being used to mean "spent". You can't just keep stacking up cash forever. That would be pointless and stupid.
Net profits are how you pay shareholders dividends, which are often demanded, and the futurr promise of which are the root basis of how the company can attract money through IPO
Re: Alphabet Loses $859M on 'Moonshots' in 2Q 2016
#30> The cost for the Mercury, Gemini and Apollo programs was more than $25 billion at the time more like $110 billion in today's world.[1]
Moonshots are expensive. Doesn't mean they aren't worth it.
[1]: http://news.utexas.edu/2014/07/21/anniversary-shows-us-that-...