51–60 of 194 posts
We need more detail in financial statements. "Operating loss of $859 million in Other Bets" is not enough disclosure for a public company. It's not research that spends that kind of money. It's attempts to buy market share by selling at a loss that do. Or existing businesses with a high burn rate that aren't profitable. That number includes Nest and Google Fiber, both of which are in production but perhaps not doing…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
That's a sort of quaint belief about the market but it's degenerated into straight up gambling. Let me put the question a different way: why should any company have positive retained earnings?
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…
Given how little Google is known to actually ship I question if they can.
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…
The question is can these moonshots pay off their expenses in the long run. Given how little Google is known to actually ship I question if they can.
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…
The question is can these moonshots pay off their expenses in the long run. Given how little Google is known to actually ship I question if they can.
The moonshot program seems to me to be either Google cementing it's position forever in the knowledge economy or a desperate scrabble for another hit.
If the latter is true, then I have hope for the future. It means that the giants - Google (+ Youtube), Amazon, Facebook - can fall. They are not on as strong a footing as it seems.
All it takes is...
- One generation of kids to decide to eschew Facebook (or any product it buys)
- Ad revenue declining or another viable internet business model to rise up and replace it
- More efficient / free marketplaces
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think this is true for Google. The "Moonshots" mentioned here are pretty far from Google. It is in some sense R&D of course, but it is not R&D that will benefit Google as a company.
How do you reach the conclusion that it is not R&D that will benefit Alphabet? They make it pretty clear it is a high risk high reward R&D, meaning if they hit pay dirt, it can be massively profitable for Alphabet.
(I work for Google and have worked in another alphabet company)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How do you reach the conclusion that it is not R&D that will benefit Alphabet? They make it pretty clear it is a high risk high reward R&D, meaning if they hit pay dirt, it can be massively profitable for Alphabet.
The moonshots are in alphabet, but pretty far from Googles core with Search, ads and Android. For example robotics, health care and self driving cars. (I work for Google and have worked in another alphabet company)
I am encouraged by this advertising companies attempts at designing cars. The moonshot program seems to me to be either Google cementing it's position forever in the knowledge economy or a desperate scrabble for another hit. If the latter is true, then I have hope for the future. It means that the giants - Google (+ Youtube), Amazon, Facebook - can fall. They are not on as strong a footing as it seems. All it takes i…