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

551–560 of 607 posts

Re: G is for Google

#551

Post by fixermark »

blackbeard wrote: post #516
olalonde wrote: post #492

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Clicking around the website, this is most likely not an actual company but a spoof of the evil conglomerate from the Resident Evil games/films: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Resident_Evil_characte...

It is indeed. That was my point. It's difficult to discern megacorporations from their dystopian film counterparts now.

The only difference beteween evil dystopian sci-fi megacorporations and successful life-enhancing megacorporations is that the former are doing it wrong.

And you don't see the latter too often in sci-fi these days; I blame the fashion of the time. ;)

Re: G is for Google

#552

Post by fixermark »

fredkbloggs wrote: post #445
rancur wrote: post #433

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> its shareholders they did nothing to create the algorithm, what right do they have to whine?

Ever hear of work for hire? If you want all the rewards for yourself, you don't sell shares in your company.

There's a pair of stock tickers that disagree with your assessment of the value of selling shares in that company. It seems to have worked out pretty well for everyone involved.

Re: G is for Google

#553

Post by carbocation »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #477
mathattack wrote: post #441

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I interpret it as keeping the ad machine separate from everything else. If product decision impact ad revenue, they stay in (G)oogle. Everything else moves to different arms. My guess is this serves 3 benefits: 1 - Less turf wars. 2 - Better visibility to investors on where the money is. 3 - Ability to spin off pieces as needed. Many companies resist this type of visibility because they don't want a Carl Icahn to com…

Transparency is easier when you have control (Class A versus Class C shares). I'm surprised more largish tech companies haven't followed along to not be at the whim of WallStreet and other short-term outlook players.

Aren't the Class B shares the major voting shares, with 10x as many votes per share as Class A (10 vs 1)?

Re: G is for Google

#556

Post by _stephan »

_stephan wrote: post #528
ithkuil wrote: post #521

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They will probably have to "pay" for it. It will make it easier to figure out net gains and losses within each venture. I expect this to increase the reported revenue of Google (infrastructure), as significant costs incur in infrastructure management. On the other hand is also possible that Alphabet companies can use the google's "cloud" infrastructure with a significant discount.

I'm less curious about infrastructure that be commoditized and more about things like shared source code and access to subject-matter experts working on various teams at Google.

*can be commoditized

Re: G is for Google

#557

Post by dspeyer »

downandout wrote: post #534
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…

What they are really saying with all of this is... "We are moving all of our profitable businesses under one umbrella that will be reported separately, and putting all of our money-losing businesses under another, in hopes that investors will basically ignore the unprofitable stuff and only focus on our profitable businesses." . Apparently the moonshots are diluting results from the mainstays, and they want a higher…

Or so that once there's good news from a spinoff, they'll be able to announce it. A small profit there would get lost in the bigger revenue streams under the old model. Remember how the media kept running "How long can Google afford to subsidize Youtube?" stories well after Youtube turned profitable?

Re: G is for Google

#558

Post by dspeyer »

akshatpradhan wrote: post #473

I personally think they did this because Sergey Brin and Larry Page were getting bored with day-to-day Google operations but wanted to remain at the top. They can't just shift their focus on the new toys they're building like Robotics, Fiber, Vehicles, etc. So best bet, name Sundar Pichai as the new Google CEO, put Google under Alphabet, become the new CEO of Alphabet, and that allows them to get rid of day-to-day Go…

Bored and overwhelmed.

At least a few years ago Larry really wanted to understand everything Google did. It wasn't possible, and the attempt was distorting things.

This is a better solution.

Re: G is for Google

#560

Post by tyingq »

sangnoir wrote: post #514
tyingq wrote: post #399

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Two main areas. It prepares you, in terms of financial visibility, experience, etc, if the most painful of anti-trust remedies (breakup) ever happens. AT&T, for example, would have likely proposed different terms for their breakup if they had better visibility into how Western Electric would have performed on its own. It provides more public financial visibility into some areas of concern, early. For example, it look…

The new structure won't affect the EU's investigations, as you had stated earlier. All the components the EU will whine about are still under the Google subsidiary (Search, Maps, YouTube, Android). The only companies exiting from Googles purview are Calico, Nest, Fiber, Ventures, Capital,and X. None of which were likely candidates for antitrust prosecution.

It's chess, not checkers. One move at a time. Also, minor, but Fiber would be an interest point for anti-trust, just not in the EU.
Post reply on HN