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

G is for Google

googleblog.blogspot.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 607 posts

Re: G is for Google

#281

Post by Spooky23 »

yRetsyM wrote: post #266
chetanahuja wrote: post #207

Actually reading the first few paragraphs of the form 8(K) was more illuminating than the blogpost. "Under the new operating structure, its main Google business will include search, ads, maps, apps, YouTube and Android and the related technical infrastructure (the “Google business”)" "In connection with the new operating structure and upon completion of the Alphabet Merger (as defined below), Larry Page will become t…

I find it also interesting the non - Google companies: Businesses such as Calico, Nest, and Fiber, as well as its investing arms, such as Google Ventures and Google Capital, and incubator projects, such as Google X, will be managed separately from the Google business. Fiber is the most notable to me - seems they see this as more than an experiment and are looking to expand. YouTube not separating is an interesting on…

Fiber is the hint about what this really means. Capital intense businesses like ISPs or car companies are expensive to operate and the financials would drag down Google.

In this model, the big shareholders get to dilute risks in these ventures, while retaining the ability to exponentially increase their personal wealth.

Re: G is for Google

#282

Post by huac »

Google (or now, Alphabet) is an less diversified Berkshire Hathaway with tons of R&D expenditures.

I think it's likely that tax benefits from the reorg are the biggest reason for the stock price increases. But it also appears likely that there will be an offering of Alphabet stock in some form so it's curious to see how the value will break out.

Re: G is for Google

#283

Post by Symmetry »

idlewords wrote: post #140
ThrustVectoring wrote: post #121

One of the big dangers of being Google is using the profitable advertising arm to subsidize unprofitable side-ventures that don't materially affect the advertising arm of the business. This same problem lead to the decline of the Ottoman Empire - they used the profitable Balkans to pick up albatrosses like Egypt and the Levant, and then collapsed when they lost the Balkans and could no longer subsidize ruling those a…

You can't really make this analogy work, because the Ottoman Empire's basic problem was how to handle succession. It's not that they went broke paying for pyramid maintenance. This parallel will be more apt if Alphabet board members start constantly strangling each other with silken cords, and the company develops a mercenary slave class that dominates decisions over who runs what division. Time will tell!

Those mercenary slaves were actually a big part of why the Ottomans did so well to start with. When they boys were taken they were given exams and the 10% that did the best became bureaucrats in a sort of version of the Chinese system. Exam based bureaucracy is a Big Deal when you're competing with aristocracies.

But eventually offices became hereditary and the normal sort of Chinese late dynastic rot set in.

Re: G is for Google

#284

Post by tptacek »

tyingq wrote: post #64
tptacek wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did I miss something in the announcement? When people say that Google is "monolithic", they're saying that Google contains Youtube (#1 video site), search (#1 search), Android (#1 mobile OS), maps (#1 map site), Gmail (#1 email site?), and G+ (Facebook competitor). These companies appear to remain inside the Google corporation after the "restructuring", and so this doesn't ameliorate any of EU's concerns. I think thi…

"so this doesn't ameliorate any of EU's concerns" The announcement seems deliberately vague. You're right in that it doesn't specifically address the EU concerns, but it creates a structure where that's easier to do.

I don't see how it does that.

Re: G is for Google

#286

Post by panabee »

ChuckMcM wrote: post #230
[deleted] wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[deleted]

Don't misunderstand me, it isn't dislike, its amazement. Some things really do well under multiple companies, think BASF or Siemans where the core that holds them is something common to all the sub-companies. But historically tech companies do not prosper in that model, and generally for a similar reason, there isn't anything in common between the companies except maybe there are smart and talented people working the…

Awesome insight and backstory about one of SV's iconic companies, so thanks for sharing. Maybe the new Alphabet structure, despite similar failures at Sun and other tech companies, is the best option for maximizing innovation even though it also carries a high probability of failure (an "alpha" bet if you will, hah). Or maybe they did devise an ingenious scheme to neutralize the shortcomings of the Planets model, but it would be pretty cool if they didn't and are knowingly exposing themselves to risk and ridicule in the name of innovation.

Re: G is for Google

#287

Post by nostrademons »

kraymer wrote: post #181
Numberwang wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I actually tried registering that domain some months ago. It was taken. Dammit.

Ditto, registered abcetc.xyz instead ... who better captures the idea of alphabet now ?! :)

You could do a21w.xyz instead?

Actually no you can't, I just bought it. :-)

Re: G is for Google

#288

Post by notatoad »

coldtea wrote: post #18
Oletros wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there a list of moonshots failed?

Wave, Plus, Glasses at least. If we are to include less ambitious stuff, Google Video, Orkut, Chromebooks (never went far), Reader, Google Code, Dart, nothing much came out of Morotola, etc. And let's see were those "self driving cars" will go, market-wise...

wave and plus hardly count as moonshots. they're about as boring as projects get.

Re: G is for Google

#289

Post by awicklander »

And T is for Twitter?

This seems like it would be the perfect foundation with which acquire twitter right? A twitter acquisition makes sense under Alphabet in a way it doesn't under Google, no?

Re: G is for Google

#290

Post by vonmoltke »

Spooky23 wrote: post #281
yRetsyM wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find it also interesting the non - Google companies: Businesses such as Calico, Nest, and Fiber, as well as its investing arms, such as Google Ventures and Google Capital, and incubator projects, such as Google X, will be managed separately from the Google business. Fiber is the most notable to me - seems they see this as more than an experiment and are looking to expand. YouTube not separating is an interesting on…

Fiber is the hint about what this really means. Capital intense businesses like ISPs or car companies are expensive to operate and the financials would drag down Google. In this model, the big shareholders get to dilute risks in these ventures, while retaining the ability to exponentially increase their personal wealth.

This reorganization makes no difference on the financials. The release explicitly stated the company is trading at the conglomerate level.
Post reply on HN