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

41–50 of 607 posts

Re: G is for Google

#43

Post by PhantomGremlin »

jordigg wrote: post #5

So all google divisions are now individual companies inside a conglomerated called Alphabet where Larry is the CEO and Sergei the President. Sundar Pichai is now the new CEO of Google. Is that right? Why do you think they are moving this way? Regulations? Taxes? What about Eric Schmidt? I don't know much about trading, but look at that "after hours" spike! http://postimg.org/image/ho5ecyr99/ EDIT: All google subsidia…

Why do you think they are moving this way?

It's a twist on "adult supervision". They have put an adult in charge of making money. Meanwhile, Larry and Sergey get to keep playing around with all sorts of exotic projects that may or may not eventually make money.

Re: G is for Google

#44

Post by josh2600 »

Oletros wrote: post #20
Oletros wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there a list of moonshots failed?

Wave and Plus were not moonshots It would be a good thing explain why the downvotes

They were absolutely moonshots. Reforming the entire way we do realtime communications? Reforming the entire way we do social interaction? Total moonshots, they just failed, but if they succeeded they would be billion dollar businesses.

BTW, the best result of wave is hackpad, IMHO.

Re: G is for Google

#45

Post by ocdtrekkie »

Will Google split off Android as a "separate company" under Alphabet to try to hide it from the EU's crackdown?

This is the most traditional-corporation definitely-evil move Google has ever made, whether their letter claims otherwise or not.

Re: G is for Google

#47

Post by baq »

akhilcacharya wrote: post #7

Wow, this is really strange. Has there been any precedent for things like this?

i'd say it makes perfect sense. google search becomes google, and the rest of the company (cars, cubesat internet, balloon internet, more down-to-earth ideas) belong somewhere else.

Re: G is for Google

#48

Post by wvenable »

sz4kerto wrote: post #11

Does this mean that running high-risk project inside Google started to damage the reputation of Google? Many (most) of the moonshot projects failed (which is normal), and I have the feeling that these events had a somewhat bad fallout on the image of the whole company (questioning its invicibility to some extent, mostly in the eyes of the press).

Things like the self-driving car don't really fit the Google brand or corporate structure.

Re: G is for Google

#49

Post by arihant »

This is great. The best thing about Google was their willingness to try interesting things. But the Apple-ification of Google lead them to look like a company suffering from identity crisis, at least from the outside.

This will keep Google products unified and work together, and will give them opportunity to throw mud at the wall with Alphabet.

Also worth mentioning is that this kind of corporate restructuring is fairly common. Usually it is done by X company expanding into X Industries with X being a subsidiary of X Industries. It is just more visible because they went with a different name, reasons of which are in the post.

Post reply on HN