Google management shuffle points to retreat from Alphabet experiment(wsj.com)
wsj.com
Google management shuffle points to retreat from Alphabet experiment
https://www.wsj.com/articles/google-management-shuffle-points-to-retreat-from-alphabet-experiment-11575579677
218 comments
That seems way more idealistic somehow. More likely, with a more standard corporate governance Google will begin to rot from within. Apple certainly made more profits under Cook than Jobs, but innovation has slowed to a crawl and he has failed to diversify Apple away from having one product (instead he just added a bunch of accessory products and services). The last thing Google needs is to double down on ads, it takes 2 minutes to block them.
> innovation has slowed to a crawl
This is so typical of Apple criticism. They did do well with the iPhone and Mac that now any new innovations seem boring in comparison. It’s wrong.
The Apple Watch came out under Cook. That is more than an “accessory.” It’s a new platform, new OS variant, etc. It’s dominating smart watches.
The AirPods are pretty innovative in terms of the fine grained details that have made them super successful.
Latest OS builds included evidence of stereoscopic glasses in the pipeline.
Remember Apple isn’t always the first with stuff, even smartphones. Their innovations are more around key details and hardware/software integration that makes the whole system work like magic.
This is so typical of Apple criticism. They did do well with the iPhone and Mac that now any new innovations seem boring in comparison. It’s wrong.
The Apple Watch came out under Cook. That is more than an “accessory.” It’s a new platform, new OS variant, etc. It’s dominating smart watches.
The AirPods are pretty innovative in terms of the fine grained details that have made them super successful.
Latest OS builds included evidence of stereoscopic glasses in the pipeline.
Remember Apple isn’t always the first with stuff, even smartphones. Their innovations are more around key details and hardware/software integration that makes the whole system work like magic.
> The Apple Watch came out under Cook. That is more than an “accessory.” It’s a new platform, new OS variant, etc. It’s dominating smart watches.
The Apple Watch is literally designed to be an accessory to the iPhone - you can't use most of its features without an iPhone. I wanted one for my Android phone but tough shit for me.
If you like it as a product that's fine, but it is absolutely an accessory to an iPhone because you can barely use it without one.
The Apple Watch is literally designed to be an accessory to the iPhone - you can't use most of its features without an iPhone. I wanted one for my Android phone but tough shit for me.
If you like it as a product that's fine, but it is absolutely an accessory to an iPhone because you can barely use it without one.
You can’t set it up without an iPhone. But, once you set it up - especially the cellular one, you can leave your phone at home. You can do anything on your watch that you can on your phone that would make sense on a screen that small. You can make phone calls, text, receive notifications, get directions, stream music and podcasts, etc.
As of the latest OS you can download apps directly to it.
As of the latest OS you can download apps directly to it.
Right now it requires an iphone. They've been slowly reducing the need to have one until pretty soon, maybe v5, won't require one
It’s at S5 already, which is actually v6 since there’s an S0. So maybe v7.
Sorta, since the S1 released alongside the S2 as a revised low end model.
Versioning wise it feels more like following up the v1 with v2 and a 1.1 revision.
Versioning wise it feels more like following up the v1 with v2 and a 1.1 revision.
iPhones were originally an accessory to iTunes. What you complain about is all software. Software is changeable.
The iPad even required iTunes to set up for the first year and half.
Not on these devices, it isn’t. Without Apple’s signing keys, they run whatever Apple gives you, until they are EOL’d and then they run nothing else, ever.
Yes but that’s irrelevant to the point.
I thought the point was that “the issues you are complaining about are just software, and software can be changed/updated”.
If Apple doesn’t make sufficient changes and upgrades, nobody else can - and the device is back to being an appliance that has the functionality that it has right now and nothing further, and it’s not “just a software upgrade away”.
There’s still no way to get the time display off of the face of my Apple Watch. You can customize everything except turning off the clock.
If Apple doesn’t make sufficient changes and upgrades, nobody else can - and the device is back to being an appliance that has the functionality that it has right now and nothing further, and it’s not “just a software upgrade away”.
There’s still no way to get the time display off of the face of my Apple Watch. You can customize everything except turning off the clock.
This is a predictable response that is trivially wrong. Originally the iPhone required iTunes to set it up. Is it an “accessory”?
iTunes was released for Windows in 2003, so it was available for free on all major platforms. The iPhone was released in 2007. If iTunes had only been available on Macs, it would have been perfectly reasonable to consider the iPhone a "Mac accessory", but it wasn't, so it isn't.
Nah, that’s a different sense of the word “accessory”. Trapped in the ecosystem is one thing. But the question here is whether it’s a substantial, standalone product.
Correct. People think that stuff like iPhone can just be created, if there is enough will and innovation. The iPhone is the most successful consumer electronics product of all time, and might also be the most profitable product on an yearly average basis. Failure to recreate that is not bad. Expecting any company to keep churning out things like the iPhone would be too harsh.
It's more nuanced than that — things like smart phones require the serendipity of any number of both technological and even cultural events before they are born.
The Newton is an interesting foil.
Why wasn't the Newton the first smart phone? Early internet, barely a high-speed cellular infrastructure, silicon not quite small and efficient enough, no lithium batteries, cost....
Saying the Newton was "ahead of its time" is really a way of saying all the right bits and pieces weren't there yet.
We'll know what the next "big thing" is after it happens. You can't force it though regardless of the dollars you have for R&D.
Just MHO.
The Newton is an interesting foil.
Why wasn't the Newton the first smart phone? Early internet, barely a high-speed cellular infrastructure, silicon not quite small and efficient enough, no lithium batteries, cost....
Saying the Newton was "ahead of its time" is really a way of saying all the right bits and pieces weren't there yet.
We'll know what the next "big thing" is after it happens. You can't force it though regardless of the dollars you have for R&D.
Just MHO.
Apple is Apple because every ten years or so they take an existing product category and make it worlds better than anyone has ever before. They’ve done this with workstations (iMac), laptops (iBook then PowerBook then unibody/retina), they’ve done this with phones, and they’ve done this with in-ear headphones.
They almost did it with wireless speakers (the HomePod is an absolute engineering marvel, entirely unparalleled as a speaker), but they left out bluetooth in a platform play for AirPlay on their own phones/tablets, and it basically flopped. It would have been an airpods-level success if it were a record player that could play everybody’s records.
People keep talking about how they might do it with cars, or televisions, or glasses, or whatever. But so far, as yet, that has failed to materialize.
Edit: I left out the watch, despite it being the best selling watch. It isn’t as better than a normal watch as an iPhone was better than a blackberry; it is merely sufficient: great, but certainly not insanely so. If it could support Google Assistant instead of Siri, and had better bluetooth device support, and didn’t require an iphone, it might be. But the watch presently really just falls short of the Apple level expectation for a product. To be fair, that level is literally “insane”.
They almost did it with wireless speakers (the HomePod is an absolute engineering marvel, entirely unparalleled as a speaker), but they left out bluetooth in a platform play for AirPlay on their own phones/tablets, and it basically flopped. It would have been an airpods-level success if it were a record player that could play everybody’s records.
People keep talking about how they might do it with cars, or televisions, or glasses, or whatever. But so far, as yet, that has failed to materialize.
Edit: I left out the watch, despite it being the best selling watch. It isn’t as better than a normal watch as an iPhone was better than a blackberry; it is merely sufficient: great, but certainly not insanely so. If it could support Google Assistant instead of Siri, and had better bluetooth device support, and didn’t require an iphone, it might be. But the watch presently really just falls short of the Apple level expectation for a product. To be fair, that level is literally “insane”.
HomePod flopped because few people want to spend hundreds of dollars on Siri when they could spend tens of dollars on Google home which is a better voice assistant. Having good audio quality doesn't explain the price tag when you can pair Google home with a dumb speaker if you find the audio quality is insufficient.
An equivalent quality speaker + amp system, etc will cost you about the same or more, take up more space and create a wire mess.
I dunno, but it seems like the iPhone was a product of many technological advances coming together at once, and Apple's key addition was to execute it in a way that made it appealing to the masses. So, I don't expect Apple to make a teleporter, or home fusion energy, or something that doesn't exist. I expect them to take something that is possible, like VR/AR, like videoconferencing, like IPTV.. even just computers and cellphones, and to execute them in a way that makes them the best designed product in the industry. Lately, it seems like they've been failing to do that. At this point, it seems like they're just a fashion brand whose products lack a compelling advantage over their competitors' products. Apple needs a guy like Steve Jobs to raise the standards and drive the company to meet them. Under Cook, it seems like they're sliding into mediocrity.
> I expect them to take something that is possible... and to execute them in a way that makes them the best designed product in the industry.
I mean they just did that with smart watches and earbuds, under Cook. They are totally dominating those categories with uncontroversially the best designed products. Not good enough for you?
I mean they just did that with smart watches and earbuds, under Cook. They are totally dominating those categories with uncontroversially the best designed products. Not good enough for you?
Curiously, what other products launched by any other company have had a similar effect as the iPhone.
How are you measuring success? I would say the digital quartz watch was far more disruptive and certainly moved more units. It's definitely consumer electronics.
I won’t speak to “innovation” because of how subjective that is. However, the quality has taken a serious downturn. MBP keyboard issues, MBP speaker crackling issues since 2016, iOS 13 bugginess (random FaceID locks, lock screen refusing to turn on, phone shut offs in the middle of the night, alarms randomly not going off, bottom “gesture pill” disappearing on the lock screen making you unable to swipe up to unlock your phone requiring a reset, apps killed in the background after just a few minutes, etc etc etc), macOS bugginess with Catalina, SwiftUI mess, iCloud corrupting files, and much more.
I’m at a point where I’m surprisingly preferring Windows and Linux for my desktop work. I just wish there was a better alternative in the mobile space than Android, which I feel is in an even worse state than iOS.
I’m at a point where I’m surprisingly preferring Windows and Linux for my desktop work. I just wish there was a better alternative in the mobile space than Android, which I feel is in an even worse state than iOS.
[deleted]
From a long-term user's perspective, that Apple magic is fading quickly to reveal the banality underneath. Same with Google. The elves have left Middle Earth.
The Apple Watch is much more impressive technically than the iPad. The iPad was easy once you had the iPhone and once it was introduced, was easily copied hardware wise. The amount of technology in the Apple Watch still hasn’t been duplicated in the same small form factor.
I'm sure that's true, that they are continuing to innovate.
I'm not familiar with the Apple Watch (nor the iPhone much to be honest). I'm kind of an old-timer that fondly remembers the Apple II and the early Macintosh.
Should have added an emphasis that, _for me_, I feel that their magic is fading. Same with Google, in their early years I was amazed - now, not so much. I guess miracles don't happen so often, and I should respect their continued growth and renewal. (And there are still elves working there.)
I'm not familiar with the Apple Watch (nor the iPhone much to be honest). I'm kind of an old-timer that fondly remembers the Apple II and the early Macintosh.
Should have added an emphasis that, _for me_, I feel that their magic is fading. Same with Google, in their early years I was amazed - now, not so much. I guess miracles don't happen so often, and I should respect their continued growth and renewal. (And there are still elves working there.)
That’s nothing to do with Apple. That’s just because you are now used to the technology and not so awed by it.
But that feeling is irrelevant to whether or not they are innovating or not.
But that feeling is irrelevant to whether or not they are innovating or not.
I bought a mac because I wanted a Unix workstation. That's increasingly unsupported and poorly working.
// Their innovations are more around key details and hardware/software integration that makes the whole system work like magic.
That philosophy was Steve Jobs' key insight back than. Today many companies excel at magical ux design.
And sure, their control over iOS and their rich clients allow them to do stuff others cannot. And definetly, it's incremental innovation.
But that's very little innovation, considering their size or compared to their competitors - Google AI and moonshots, Amazon(where do i even begin), or Microsoft(Cloud and their research efforts).
That philosophy was Steve Jobs' key insight back than. Today many companies excel at magical ux design.
And sure, their control over iOS and their rich clients allow them to do stuff others cannot. And definetly, it's incremental innovation.
But that's very little innovation, considering their size or compared to their competitors - Google AI and moonshots, Amazon(where do i even begin), or Microsoft(Cloud and their research efforts).
How much have Google’s “innovations” led to profit?
People seem to forget that one of the first things Jobs did was get rid of Apple’s Advanced Technology Group and focused research on profitable products.
Google’s lack of focus explains why it has had five failed messaging apps.
People seem to forget that one of the first things Jobs did was get rid of Apple’s Advanced Technology Group and focused research on profitable products.
Google’s lack of focus explains why it has had five failed messaging apps.
Google is doing well. Some of their older investments (like AI maybe) are already making them money.
And they have a few bets that with time and some luck could make them a lot of money.
It's very likely they would be able to cover their investments, at the very least.
And they have ackuired many new capabilities as a result.
It makes for a better financial future, a stronger company long term, and also, contributing so much value to the world is simply a good thing.
And they have a few bets that with time and some luck could make them a lot of money.
It's very likely they would be able to cover their investments, at the very least.
And they have ackuired many new capabilities as a result.
It makes for a better financial future, a stronger company long term, and also, contributing so much value to the world is simply a good thing.
How much “longer term”? Compare Apple’s, Microsoft’s, or even Amazon’s revenue mix since 2001. They have all diversified. Google still makes 90%+ of its profits selling ads.
Selling ads does speak nothing of diversification.
In 2001 Google probably only sold search ads.
Today they sell ads on so many digital places, some of those they own.
As for the question of "long term" - Google X was founded only 9 years ago.
That probably a reasonable time for a drug startup to show sucsess.
And they recently started testing self-driving cars with no safety driver , with real passengers. So they're close to some deployment.
That seems quite good.
In 2001 Google probably only sold search ads.
Today they sell ads on so many digital places, some of those they own.
As for the question of "long term" - Google X was founded only 9 years ago.
That probably a reasonable time for a drug startup to show sucsess.
And they recently started testing self-driving cars with no safety driver , with real passengers. So they're close to some deployment.
That seems quite good.
In the last 9 years, Apple has introduced two products that are probably larger generators of revenue than the iPod.
Microsoft has released Azure.
Saying that a Google sells ads in more places is about as “diversified” as saying Apple sells iPhones on more carriers.
Microsoft has released Azure.
Saying that a Google sells ads in more places is about as “diversified” as saying Apple sells iPhones on more carriers.
In 2001 Google didn't own YouTube. Today it does.
YouTube profits from selling ads, that's true.
Yes YouTube makes all of their money from selling ads. But it's fate is highly independent from Google search. That's diversification.
Same idea goes for Other Google businesses.
As for Apple - it's less diversified than it seems: the fate of the watch, for example, is highly dependent on the fate of the iPhone.
YouTube profits from selling ads, that's true.
Yes YouTube makes all of their money from selling ads. But it's fate is highly independent from Google search. That's diversification.
Same idea goes for Other Google businesses.
As for Apple - it's less diversified than it seems: the fate of the watch, for example, is highly dependent on the fate of the iPhone.
And all indications is that Youtube is barely profitable....
How's Google cloud doing? Does that count?
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeanbaptiste/2019/08/02/amazon-...
AWS - 47%
Azure - 15.5%
GCP - 4%
AWS - 47%
Azure - 15.5%
GCP - 4%
They've been slacking in development, both software and hardware. Look at the MacBook keyboard problem, or all of the security exploits like pressing Enter numerously to escalate to root privileges.
You don't get these kinds of problems when you aren't trying to mass produce cyclical consumption.
You don't get these kinds of problems when you aren't trying to mass produce cyclical consumption.
They are better on security than anyone else, so if this is ‘slacking’ it has to be contrasted with abject failure elsewhere.
You forgot Apple Pay. That's a whole new market for Apple — and seems to be doing well?
But Pay is so common. You've got Google Pay, Apple Pay, AliPay, and WeChat Pay. It's a good addition because it adds something that was really missing from the ecosystem but it's just really something that is expected.
It's also not really any better than tapping your card against the reader, which is what most people in UK do.
And just wait for AR.
Apple is definitely working on AR glasses for 2022 to 2023 release dates. Facebook and Microsoft also have AR projects (Microsoft have actually shipped of course).
Innovation at Apple scale takes time. Let’s see what happens with AR.
Innovation at Apple scale takes time. Let’s see what happens with AR.
some of the stuff they do really is stupid. I literally can't buy an apple computer with a mainstream desktop processor. they sell laptops and two different desktop computers that use laptop parts. or I can pay $6k for the pro tower with xeon parts. why do they have to make it so hard for me to get a machine that compiles code targeting their own desktop OS?
All these products were previously imaginedand started by SJ.
Cook is a marketer not a visionary or inventor of any sort.
That's not an accurate depiction of Tim Cook - a man who is a very capable supply chain guy and general businessman. My personal opinion? Steve Jobs was the marketer -- his skill was getting other people with hard skills to buy into his general vision. (Recall the "reality distortion field" he possessed.)
No. The Apple Watch was started under Cook.
Since Tim has taken charge, they’ve become much more diversified. The watch and the AirPod business is larger and will probably be longer lasting than the iPod business, the iPad is much more than a big iPhone, and they are in services.
Compare this chart to Google’s
https://sixcolors.com/images/content/2019/financials-2019-7-...
The iPhone was a once in a lifetime thing. Even in 2007 there were 1 billion phones a year being sold (Apple said they wanted to capture 1% of the market by selling 10 million in its first year).
By definition, what electronic market can be much larger than one that has a 80%+ penetration?
Compare this chart to Google’s
https://sixcolors.com/images/content/2019/financials-2019-7-...
The iPhone was a once in a lifetime thing. Even in 2007 there were 1 billion phones a year being sold (Apple said they wanted to capture 1% of the market by selling 10 million in its first year).
By definition, what electronic market can be much larger than one that has a 80%+ penetration?
I made another chart back in 2016 to show how over a decade the iPhone became such a truly once-in-a-lifetime product: https://jasonlefkowitz.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/apple-...
(As an illustration for this post: https://jasonlefkowitz.net/2016/10/why-apple-doesnt-care-abo...)
By 2009 Apple's iPhone business was larger than its personal computer business. By 2011 it was larger than all of Apple's other businesses put together. By 2015 it was several times larger than all of Apple's other businesses put together.
Which is why, even though I'm not the world's biggest Apple fan, it always amuses me to hear people complain that Tim Cook hasn't pulled another iPhone out of his hat. The iPhone was the kind of hit that only comes along every two or three decades. I'm struggling to think of anyone who's produced two hits on that scale.
(As an illustration for this post: https://jasonlefkowitz.net/2016/10/why-apple-doesnt-care-abo...)
By 2009 Apple's iPhone business was larger than its personal computer business. By 2011 it was larger than all of Apple's other businesses put together. By 2015 it was several times larger than all of Apple's other businesses put together.
Which is why, even though I'm not the world's biggest Apple fan, it always amuses me to hear people complain that Tim Cook hasn't pulled another iPhone out of his hat. The iPhone was the kind of hit that only comes along every two or three decades. I'm struggling to think of anyone who's produced two hits on that scale.
Also look at Apple’s product and revenue mix since 2007. They have consistently been able to change it as technology changed.
If you look at Google’s revenue and profit mix, it looks the same as it did in 2007 - advertising.
Microsoft and Apple have been able to pivot. Even while the Mac is only 10% of Apple’s revenue, even it has grown slowly throughout the years.
Another note from your article - Apple sold $23 Billion dollars worth of Macs in 2016.
Between 2010 - 2016. Google has only made $31 billion in revenue on Android (https://www.theverge.com/2016/1/21/10810834/android-generate...).
If you look at Google’s revenue and profit mix, it looks the same as it did in 2007 - advertising.
Microsoft and Apple have been able to pivot. Even while the Mac is only 10% of Apple’s revenue, even it has grown slowly throughout the years.
Another note from your article - Apple sold $23 Billion dollars worth of Macs in 2016.
Between 2010 - 2016. Google has only made $31 billion in revenue on Android (https://www.theverge.com/2016/1/21/10810834/android-generate...).
How many Android users buy Apple watches and airpods? They are primarily accessories to the iPhone, not standalone products.
What limits Apple to the electronics market? It's been clear for a long time that they need to grow outside of electronics. Apple's value is in its design and brand. They could be so much more than an electronics company, under different leadership.
What limits Apple to the electronics market? It's been clear for a long time that they need to grow outside of electronics. Apple's value is in its design and brand. They could be so much more than an electronics company, under different leadership.
And how has that worked in the past?
AOL/TimeWarner
General Electric/Universal/Synchrony Bank
AT&T/DirecTV
Google/Motorola
....
AOL/TimeWarner
General Electric/Universal/Synchrony Bank
AT&T/DirecTV
Google/Motorola
....
Those are mergers and acquisitions. I said Apple needs to find new product categories outside of consumer electronics. They were going to make a car at one point but the project imploded.
It's really not healthy for a company to build a whole constellation of products and services around one product only. It creates unnecessary risk because if that product ever sours, everything will fall apart.
It's really not healthy for a company to build a whole constellation of products and services around one product only. It creates unnecessary risk because if that product ever sours, everything will fall apart.
As of last quarter, only 48% of Apple’s revenue comes from iPhones. For Apple, the Mac and iPad markets are both tiny - at around 10% of their revenue - that revenue by itself would put it in the top 100 companies in the F500.
None of the tech giants are well diversified - with Google being the least diversified. Facebook just buys up competitors.
Amazon has retail and AWS. Microsoft has software and Cloud.
None of the tech giants are well diversified - with Google being the least diversified. Facebook just buys up competitors.
Amazon has retail and AWS. Microsoft has software and Cloud.
It takes us two minutes to block ads. Everyone on this site is a tiny minority who finds this sort of thing easy.
https://www.nngroup.com/articles/computer-skill-levels/
https://www.nngroup.com/articles/computer-skill-levels/
It's shockingly high. Most western countries see an average of 26% - 40% ad block rates (by pageview) across the web. Some sites skewing to an older, less tech savvy audience, see between 8% and 15%, while tech heavy sites can go as high as 92% of pageviews being ad blocked. It's actually crazy that adblock rates in developing countries like India and Indonesia can actually be much higher on average because of UC Browser adoption and high mobile web consumption. They don't care about ads and privacy though -- just saving money on their data plans from not downloading ads.
Source: I was briefly a product lead for a large tech company's anti-adblocking efforts and worked with publishers and others globally to measure these rates.
Source: I was briefly a product lead for a large tech company's anti-adblocking efforts and worked with publishers and others globally to measure these rates.
I'd love to hear more about your experiences in this field... we don't hear much fron the inside (as it were!)
Officially: https://www.blog.google/topics/ads/helping-publishers-recove...
Beyond that, even though I've been out of the game for a few years, I have to be careful what I say. But I've been planning on writing something soon.
Beyond that, even though I've been out of the game for a few years, I have to be careful what I say. But I've been planning on writing something soon.
What are you doing these days
We are starting to put tools like Pi Hole in our homes.
Someday soon we will put AdGuard in as the DNS provider for our parents and other relatives.
The same way Firefox and Google Chrome got adopted.
Advertising has gone from an annoyance to a potential serious threat to our well being from an increasingly surveillance oriented ecosystem.
Pi Hole blocks anywhere from 35 - 50% of all requests in my home. That's an astounding number of requests for an apartment with two residents.
Someday soon we will put AdGuard in as the DNS provider for our parents and other relatives.
The same way Firefox and Google Chrome got adopted.
Advertising has gone from an annoyance to a potential serious threat to our well being from an increasingly surveillance oriented ecosystem.
Pi Hole blocks anywhere from 35 - 50% of all requests in my home. That's an astounding number of requests for an apartment with two residents.
> Google will begin to rot from within
Continue, not begin.
Continue, not begin.
I disagree on the criticism of Apple, since they do try to innovate, but I think you are spot on on Google embracing a conservative business culture centered on selling attention.
Directly to advertisers and indirectly through content creators, so they have multiple channels at least.
Not an Apple fan at all, but if I could pick an employer, Apple actually is on a track to become more favorable. Still, their locked down environments aren't really interesting if you don't care about monetizing software directly.
Directly to advertisers and indirectly through content creators, so they have multiple channels at least.
Not an Apple fan at all, but if I could pick an employer, Apple actually is on a track to become more favorable. Still, their locked down environments aren't really interesting if you don't care about monetizing software directly.
>but innovation has slowed to a crawl and he has failed to diversify Apple away from having one product (instead he just added a bunch of accessory products and services).
Apple has definitely slowed down quite a bit under Cook. But that is comparing from Apple's best to Current Apple. iOS 13 and macOS quality has definitely slipped. Along with the extremely long denial and no reaction pattern of Mac, Mac Pro and MacBook Pro Keyboard problems. But they are still Innovating like hell on iPhone, iPad, Apple Watch, and AirPod. Getting a decent iPhone out every year, which also happens to be the best selling Smartphone around the world is no small task. Services is also growing, although I am still not too fond of the idea of Apple TV, Arcade and News.
Those so call "bunch of accessory and services" would have been a Fortune 2000 company on its own, and likely to be Fortune 500 soon if not already.
Apple has definitely slowed down quite a bit under Cook. But that is comparing from Apple's best to Current Apple. iOS 13 and macOS quality has definitely slipped. Along with the extremely long denial and no reaction pattern of Mac, Mac Pro and MacBook Pro Keyboard problems. But they are still Innovating like hell on iPhone, iPad, Apple Watch, and AirPod. Getting a decent iPhone out every year, which also happens to be the best selling Smartphone around the world is no small task. Services is also growing, although I am still not too fond of the idea of Apple TV, Arcade and News.
Those so call "bunch of accessory and services" would have been a Fortune 2000 company on its own, and likely to be Fortune 500 soon if not already.
> he has failed to diversify Apple away from having one produc
isn't Apple+ the largest diversification Apple has had in a long time?
isn't Apple+ the largest diversification Apple has had in a long time?
"There is a bit of a walking-away-from-Omelas element to this—you get to think about driverless cars and human immortality because in some dingy basement ad metrics are being tortured—and it was a lot easier to forget the, uh, all the internet stuff in 2015 than it is in 2019."
One of the best and most tragic short fiction stories ever written. It is scary how accurate the metaphor is.
One of the best and most tragic short fiction stories ever written. It is scary how accurate the metaphor is.
Are you referring to walking away from omelas?
I don't see why people think that story is in anyway interesting or tragic. It's non-sensical, when reality isn't so. It's only deep if you have never read an account of a war or read history or basically know anything about how anything works outside of your suburb.
I don't see why people think that story is in anyway interesting or tragic. It's non-sensical, when reality isn't so. It's only deep if you have never read an account of a war or read history or basically know anything about how anything works outside of your suburb.
It would be more helpful to focus your comment on seeking to understand why the OP connects with the story than to put them down and imply that they've never read an account of war, history, or how things work outside of their own suburb.
Non-AMP page:[1]
Alphabet's problem is simply that they mostly failed. Robots - fail. ISPs (Fiber, Loon) - fail. Self-driving cars - in test, but a long way from profits. Android predates Alphabet and is really part of the ad system.
[1] https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-12-04/alphab...
Alphabet's problem is simply that they mostly failed. Robots - fail. ISPs (Fiber, Loon) - fail. Self-driving cars - in test, but a long way from profits. Android predates Alphabet and is really part of the ad system.
[1] https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-12-04/alphab...
>the expectation is a more standard corporate focus on making profits from its ventures in some defined timeline.
That's a reasonable prediction. It's the way Sundar started running Google anyway (demanding profits of the non-ads products or killing them).
That's a reasonable prediction. It's the way Sundar started running Google anyway (demanding profits of the non-ads products or killing them).
Google’s attempt to be a modern day Bell Labs was the one thing that set them apart.
Make a lot of money in advertising and spend some of it to invent the future.
Without the second part, the entire company changes.
We need another company to take the mantle:
https://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/26/opinion/sunday/innovation...
Make a lot of money in advertising and spend some of it to invent the future.
Without the second part, the entire company changes.
We need another company to take the mantle:
https://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/26/opinion/sunday/innovation...
Looks like the product/engineering/creative focused time of Google is giving way to the metric/marketing/MBA/McKinsey people for a fully pedal to the metal push into their Ballmer phase.
When will technology/product/engineering/creative companies learn that the value creation is more important than the value extraction? With value creation there is always the ability to value extract. With value extraction the focus, and little research and development or innovative value creation, eventually it stagnates and sputters.
The product before the sales/marketing is key. A product of value can always be sold or marketed. You can't sell/market your way to a product.
As a developer, and investor, in Google this concerns me the move away from Alphabet, moonshots and research and development. The open mode is needed just like the closed mode [1]. The open mode is where value is realized, the closed mode is where it is produced [1]. Value is created in a state of play or creativity, this is usually the first thing to go in these phase changes at a company.
This happens at every company that creates immense value, eventually the research and development is hard to quantify the value so they cut and cut like Shel Silverstein's The Giving Tree, eventually it is just a stump and all the grace and built up value is tapped.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pb5oIIPO62g
When will technology/product/engineering/creative companies learn that the value creation is more important than the value extraction? With value creation there is always the ability to value extract. With value extraction the focus, and little research and development or innovative value creation, eventually it stagnates and sputters.
The product before the sales/marketing is key. A product of value can always be sold or marketed. You can't sell/market your way to a product.
As a developer, and investor, in Google this concerns me the move away from Alphabet, moonshots and research and development. The open mode is needed just like the closed mode [1]. The open mode is where value is realized, the closed mode is where it is produced [1]. Value is created in a state of play or creativity, this is usually the first thing to go in these phase changes at a company.
This happens at every company that creates immense value, eventually the research and development is hard to quantify the value so they cut and cut like Shel Silverstein's The Giving Tree, eventually it is just a stump and all the grace and built up value is tapped.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pb5oIIPO62g
Value creation is still around but they move from building it to buying it.
The product people get driven out from the decision making, and history repeats itself.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-AxZofbMGpM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-AxZofbMGpM
> When will technology/product/engineering/creative companies learn that the value creation is more important than the value extraction?
When MBAs stop thinking that every penny has to be returned to investors.
When MBAs stop thinking that every penny has to be returned to investors.
Nonsense. MBAs believe the money mostly has to be returned to management--who get paid massive salaries and benefits for often mediocre results.
Not every science project results in a commercially viable product. Remember Bell Labs bubble memories and round lead acid batteries?
So it is probably time to sort through the Alphabet ventures, pick the one or two that have a good chance, invest in those, kill the rest, and start some new ones.
So it is probably time to sort through the Alphabet ventures, pick the one or two that have a good chance, invest in those, kill the rest, and start some new ones.
The discovery of cosmic background radiation wasn't commercially viable either.
https://www.bell-labs.com/about/history-bell-labs/stories-ch...
https://www.bell-labs.com/about/history-bell-labs/stories-ch...
It's sorta what Elon Musk is doing except he's intending his moon shots to be viable businesses.
Except not really at all. Musk and co have a mandate to be profitable and don't have a vast advertising fortune to fund fundamental research with.
Famously, neither of his companies are even remotely profitable, and he has one of the most prominent reputations in the world to help him raise endless investor funds- either from private investors or retail ones. Both of his companies have been burning cash for close to two decades now! To my understanding SpaceX- which just raised another funding round despite never being profitable for a minute- doesn't even have a realistic path to profitability other than a handwavey 'we'll somehow establish a global wireless Internet from satellites' sort of plan
SpaceX has a very easy path to profitability. They may even be profitable right now. And if they aren't, it's because they reinvest everything in R&D for starship, so if the shareholders decided that they just wanted to make cash on the short term they could just stop reinvestments in R&D and milk the satellite launch market, they are making a profit on every one of those launch and customers are queueing to be on a falcon rocket.
As for Tesla, their last quarter was profitable, sure they aren't profitable year over year yet, but saying that 'neither of his companies are remotely profitable' seems pretty far from the reality.
As for Tesla, their last quarter was profitable, sure they aren't profitable year over year yet, but saying that 'neither of his companies are remotely profitable' seems pretty far from the reality.
It's possible that the idea of a Bell Labs is outdated, because individuals now have more access to information and cheap resources than they did in the 50s and 60s.
Instead of needing a big company to bring the best minds together and give them money, random people in garages can have good ideas and build proof of concepts relatively easily.
Maybe.
Instead of needing a big company to bring the best minds together and give them money, random people in garages can have good ideas and build proof of concepts relatively easily.
Maybe.
How many problems can be solved in a garage with little to no infrastructure?
Ehh, I'm less optimistic about this ever since the changes to US patent law. The guy in a garage has far fewer protections than they used to.
Information may be freer than ever but capital is more concentrated than ever. You can't do much without capital.
Basic research is still very expensive. The "two guys in a garage" model is about reaping the fruits of basic research, e.g. taking something invented in a lab somewhere and turning it into an actual product. Take away the labs, though, and you're taking away the seeds that the people in the garages plant, water and serve up on plates.
>Placing the head of Google, which contributes more than 99% of Alphabet’s sales, at the helm of it could call into question the entire purpose of Alphabet
I think this gives a false impression of the value of the non Google bits of Alphabet
Currently the market cap of Alphabet is $924bn and "Waymo is worth about $105 billion" (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-09-27/waymo-val...) which would make that 11% of the valuation and probably other bits of other bets are worth something too.
I think this gives a false impression of the value of the non Google bits of Alphabet
Currently the market cap of Alphabet is $924bn and "Waymo is worth about $105 billion" (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-09-27/waymo-val...) which would make that 11% of the valuation and probably other bits of other bets are worth something too.
The market cap of Waymo is $0 because it has no market cap.
[edit: note that the parent comment originally spoke to the `market cap' of Waymo before an edit, giving context to this reply]
An analyst independently made up a number, likely to justify an outsized Google target number. There have been rumors that Google will seek outside investments in Waymo that might legitimize some valuation, but they haven't.
And for now Waymo's revenue is estimated to be $5M. While Google's revenue is about $160,000M.
So I don't think they're giving a false impression of anything. Google has been pouring enormous sums of Adword cash into Waymo and it's still a stuttering business ten years later.
[edit: note that the parent comment originally spoke to the `market cap' of Waymo before an edit, giving context to this reply]
An analyst independently made up a number, likely to justify an outsized Google target number. There have been rumors that Google will seek outside investments in Waymo that might legitimize some valuation, but they haven't.
And for now Waymo's revenue is estimated to be $5M. While Google's revenue is about $160,000M.
So I don't think they're giving a false impression of anything. Google has been pouring enormous sums of Adword cash into Waymo and it's still a stuttering business ten years later.
Waymo is in the value creation phase, business/marketing/analysts may not value it as much but there is a goldmine under it.
Waymo may not be a revenue behemoth currently but there is immense value there not only to self-driving but to maps improvement and more.
I am not a fan of software patents but they have surpassed Toyota in patents [1] and there are hundreds of patents from Waymo [2].
Everyday in Arizona Waymo vehicles you see them on every block.
The value extractors may not like not being able to extract value yet, but the product, research and value creation is very high and contributes today to improving Google product offerings outside of Waymo such as Maps [3].
Waymo has waymo value than is being extracted because it is still emerging from the product value creation nebula that business/marketing/analysts can't see and don't value as much as product/engineering/creative people.
[1] https://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Business-trends/Google-s-Wa...
[2] https://patents.justia.com/assignee/waymo-llc
[3] https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2019-10-09/waymo-mapp...
Waymo may not be a revenue behemoth currently but there is immense value there not only to self-driving but to maps improvement and more.
I am not a fan of software patents but they have surpassed Toyota in patents [1] and there are hundreds of patents from Waymo [2].
Everyday in Arizona Waymo vehicles you see them on every block.
The value extractors may not like not being able to extract value yet, but the product, research and value creation is very high and contributes today to improving Google product offerings outside of Waymo such as Maps [3].
Waymo has waymo value than is being extracted because it is still emerging from the product value creation nebula that business/marketing/analysts can't see and don't value as much as product/engineering/creative people.
[1] https://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Business-trends/Google-s-Wa...
[2] https://patents.justia.com/assignee/waymo-llc
[3] https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2019-10-09/waymo-mapp...
Some analyst at Morgan Stanley made up that $100B number. It has ZERO meaning and no one should take it seriously. The market cap of a company is what investors are willing to pay for it. Given that Alphabet wholly owns Waymo, there is no way the market is implicitly valuing Waymo at $100B given the present value of Google's advertising business and Alphabet's market cap.
That’s a long way of saying Waymo isn’t making any money.
Money making products don't start making efficient money day one. Value creation in this area takes time and it is not quick when dealing with physical/driving products. The patents alone will probably be worth more than the effort.
Google is a data/information company and you are completely disregarding the impact Waymo has on that especially for the Maps product.
Waymo is also already a market leader in their space.
Just because it isn't registering big enough revenues to McKinsey level value extraction only MBAs like CEO Sundar Pichai and Wall Street doesn't mean anything. Most of those in that space have no idea how to create value, only extract it.
This type of 'it isn't making money' thinking is similar to how Jeff Bezos at Amazon was attacked for putting all profits back into R&D, or how Elon Musk at Tesla/SpaceX pushes products, or even when Jobs came back to Apple. The bean counters do not understand value creation and do not have product/engineering/creative mindsets.
What product/engineering/creative people do is value creation that create the engines for 'making money', the engine doesn't just pop in, there is a concerted effort of play, production, design, creativity, engineering, crafting and refinement that takes value creation to get that engine running which results in value extraction.
The business/marketing/managers should just stay out of the engine room and just make sure there is enough runway.
The product before the sales/marketing is key. A product of value can always be sold or marketed. You can't sell/market your way to a product.
Google is a data/information company and you are completely disregarding the impact Waymo has on that especially for the Maps product.
Waymo is also already a market leader in their space.
Just because it isn't registering big enough revenues to McKinsey level value extraction only MBAs like CEO Sundar Pichai and Wall Street doesn't mean anything. Most of those in that space have no idea how to create value, only extract it.
This type of 'it isn't making money' thinking is similar to how Jeff Bezos at Amazon was attacked for putting all profits back into R&D, or how Elon Musk at Tesla/SpaceX pushes products, or even when Jobs came back to Apple. The bean counters do not understand value creation and do not have product/engineering/creative mindsets.
What product/engineering/creative people do is value creation that create the engines for 'making money', the engine doesn't just pop in, there is a concerted effort of play, production, design, creativity, engineering, crafting and refinement that takes value creation to get that engine running which results in value extraction.
The business/marketing/managers should just stay out of the engine room and just make sure there is enough runway.
The product before the sales/marketing is key. A product of value can always be sold or marketed. You can't sell/market your way to a product.
Amazon retail is still a low margin, low profit business and is not a good example.
AWS on the other hand is printing money.
Google hasn’t had a non advertising based hit besides maybe Android since it’s inception and even that has only made $23 billion a year in profit from its inception until the Oracle trial where the number was revealed.
AWS on the other hand is printing money.
Google hasn’t had a non advertising based hit besides maybe Android since it’s inception and even that has only made $23 billion a year in profit from its inception until the Oracle trial where the number was revealed.
The low margin e-commerce led to massive innovations and improvements including their services architecture that became their biggest product and the first to market in the cloud.
AWS was created out of the continual re-investment by Bezos back into Amazon.
Amazon also has many acquisitions from it and associated to all their businesses: IMDB, Twitch, Zappos, Whole Foods, etc.
Google with search, maps and mobile won some intense battles via innovation and a better product in many cases. Google became the biggest OS on mobile with Android and beat out Microsoft that really should have been better positioned and won (Windows Phone was probably better as well). Google also beat Microsoft at their own Office game and storage with Drive, Docs, etc. That was huge. Mobile is a massive victory within the last decade, search the one previous, others in play. Those wins shouldn't be discounted.
> only made $23 billion a year in profit from its inception
Yep, only $23 billion, horrible. /s
Microsoft also gets a chunk of that with their Android used mobile patents [1].
In a way I wish Microsoft didn't get a chunk of Android devices and instead we had three competitive mobile platforms. Android is fine but it isn't the best development platform, iOS and Windows Phone both better (was in the case of Windows Phone), Android was just positioned well and timed right.
[1] https://www.howtogeek.com/183766/why-microsoft-makes-5-to-15...
AWS was created out of the continual re-investment by Bezos back into Amazon.
Amazon also has many acquisitions from it and associated to all their businesses: IMDB, Twitch, Zappos, Whole Foods, etc.
Google with search, maps and mobile won some intense battles via innovation and a better product in many cases. Google became the biggest OS on mobile with Android and beat out Microsoft that really should have been better positioned and won (Windows Phone was probably better as well). Google also beat Microsoft at their own Office game and storage with Drive, Docs, etc. That was huge. Mobile is a massive victory within the last decade, search the one previous, others in play. Those wins shouldn't be discounted.
> only made $23 billion a year in profit from its inception
Yep, only $23 billion, horrible. /s
Microsoft also gets a chunk of that with their Android used mobile patents [1].
In a way I wish Microsoft didn't get a chunk of Android devices and instead we had three competitive mobile platforms. Android is fine but it isn't the best development platform, iOS and Windows Phone both better (was in the case of Windows Phone), Android was just positioned well and timed right.
[1] https://www.howtogeek.com/183766/why-microsoft-makes-5-to-15...
Google didn’t “beat” Microsoft at Office by any definition.
As far “winning” mobile. $23 billion in 7 years and they still pay Apple a reported $8 billion a year to be the primary search engine on Apple devices. Apple has made more money from Google than Google has made from Android.
Android definitely didn’t “win” against Apple. The entire Android ecosystem is a profitless race to the bottom.
As far as Google Drive, like Jobs said about DropBox, storage is just a feature - not a product. MS gives away 6TB of One Drive space with the $100 a year Office 365 subscription. Office 365 has much deeper penetration that Drive.
As far “winning” mobile. $23 billion in 7 years and they still pay Apple a reported $8 billion a year to be the primary search engine on Apple devices. Apple has made more money from Google than Google has made from Android.
Android definitely didn’t “win” against Apple. The entire Android ecosystem is a profitless race to the bottom.
As far as Google Drive, like Jobs said about DropBox, storage is just a feature - not a product. MS gives away 6TB of One Drive space with the $100 a year Office 365 subscription. Office 365 has much deeper penetration that Drive.
> Google didn’t “beat” Microsoft at Office by any definition.
They beat them to online documents, spreadsheets, storage by years. Google Docs launched after they bought Write.ly in 2006. Lots of teams don't even use Office anymore and use online office like Google.
Yes lots of places still use Office but there is no denying Google beat them online and it was Microsofts share to lose. Microsoft really just got their online offerings put together nicely finally in the last maybe 5 years, they didn't want to cannibalize desktop Office and that delayed them immensely.
Before Google Docs there was only Office, OpenOffice and LibraOffice but people really only used Office. That has changed, I rarely use it unless I work with a company that is Microsoft-centric. It may change now that Office 365 is finally decent but they still want large purchases of licenses that really only is enterprise focused.
> As far “winning” mobile. $23 billion in 7 years and they still pay Apple a reported $8 billion a year to be the primary search engine on Apple devices. Apple has made more money from Google than Google has made from Android.
There is immense value in controlling the platform which Google has. There is even more value in controlling the hardware and software platform like Apple.
Because they control Android they don't have to pay another mobile provider to be the search provider.
Don't leave out Chrome either, that was a big thing for a long time. That really came from Webkit and KDE that Apple open sourced to become Chromium and Chrome.
> Android definitely didn’t “win” against Apple. The entire Android ecosystem is a profitless race to the bottom.
Android won against Apple iOS and Microsoft Windows Phone in terms of market share. There is value in being the biggest market share, ask Microsoft with Windows.
> As far as Google Drive, like Jobs said about DropBox, storage is just a feature - not a product. MS gives away 6TB of One Drive space with the $100 a year Office 365 subscription. Office 365 has much deeper penetration that Drive.
Drive is still bigger than any effort of Microsoft. OneDrive did not compete for a long time. Dropbox even beat Microsoft. Google Drive and Dropbox pretty much own this space except for Microsoft Teams or enterprises that used Office.
Nadella fixed lots of issues in Microsoft and finally has Office 365 online in a good way, Teams, free IDEs/editors (VS and VSCode) and their new OS is really Azure which was his baby.
Microsoft is doing well in lots of areas, even Surface Pros/Books are probably beating Apple laptops right now in terms of growth. Apple doesn't want to cannibalize iPads so they don't have touch screens on their laptops still, Microsoft does and it is a solid device. Hopefully they re-enter mobile one day but right now they are too fat and happy off of profits from Android patents.
I like Microsoft, use them plenty and do lots of .NET. I also like Apple and develop on Macs/iOS devices. I also like Google and use Android and develop for that platform. They are all good in different ways.
However, you are really downplaying what Google has done.
Again we didn't even mention Chrome which did take the web by storm, which they are starting to abuse now with the ol' Microsoft embrace, extend, extinguish but they still did win the browser wars as well from an entrenched IE/Microsoft and over Firefox which was an early developer favorite of Netscape origin.
They beat them to online documents, spreadsheets, storage by years. Google Docs launched after they bought Write.ly in 2006. Lots of teams don't even use Office anymore and use online office like Google.
Yes lots of places still use Office but there is no denying Google beat them online and it was Microsofts share to lose. Microsoft really just got their online offerings put together nicely finally in the last maybe 5 years, they didn't want to cannibalize desktop Office and that delayed them immensely.
Before Google Docs there was only Office, OpenOffice and LibraOffice but people really only used Office. That has changed, I rarely use it unless I work with a company that is Microsoft-centric. It may change now that Office 365 is finally decent but they still want large purchases of licenses that really only is enterprise focused.
> As far “winning” mobile. $23 billion in 7 years and they still pay Apple a reported $8 billion a year to be the primary search engine on Apple devices. Apple has made more money from Google than Google has made from Android.
There is immense value in controlling the platform which Google has. There is even more value in controlling the hardware and software platform like Apple.
Because they control Android they don't have to pay another mobile provider to be the search provider.
Don't leave out Chrome either, that was a big thing for a long time. That really came from Webkit and KDE that Apple open sourced to become Chromium and Chrome.
> Android definitely didn’t “win” against Apple. The entire Android ecosystem is a profitless race to the bottom.
Android won against Apple iOS and Microsoft Windows Phone in terms of market share. There is value in being the biggest market share, ask Microsoft with Windows.
> As far as Google Drive, like Jobs said about DropBox, storage is just a feature - not a product. MS gives away 6TB of One Drive space with the $100 a year Office 365 subscription. Office 365 has much deeper penetration that Drive.
Drive is still bigger than any effort of Microsoft. OneDrive did not compete for a long time. Dropbox even beat Microsoft. Google Drive and Dropbox pretty much own this space except for Microsoft Teams or enterprises that used Office.
Nadella fixed lots of issues in Microsoft and finally has Office 365 online in a good way, Teams, free IDEs/editors (VS and VSCode) and their new OS is really Azure which was his baby.
Microsoft is doing well in lots of areas, even Surface Pros/Books are probably beating Apple laptops right now in terms of growth. Apple doesn't want to cannibalize iPads so they don't have touch screens on their laptops still, Microsoft does and it is a solid device. Hopefully they re-enter mobile one day but right now they are too fat and happy off of profits from Android patents.
I like Microsoft, use them plenty and do lots of .NET. I also like Apple and develop on Macs/iOS devices. I also like Google and use Android and develop for that platform. They are all good in different ways.
However, you are really downplaying what Google has done.
Again we didn't even mention Chrome which did take the web by storm, which they are starting to abuse now with the ol' Microsoft embrace, extend, extinguish but they still did win the browser wars as well from an entrenched IE/Microsoft and over Firefox which was an early developer favorite of Netscape origin.
They beat them to online documents, spreadsheets, storage by years. Google Docs launched after they bought Write.ly in 2006. Lots of teams don't even use Office anymore and use online office like Google. Yes lots of places still use Office but there is no denying Google beat them online and it was Microsofts share to lose.
Being first is just a nerd victory like saying Apple was the first desktop operating system with a GUI. “Winning” in a for profit business is profit.
There is immense value in controlling the platform which Google has. There is even more value in controlling the hardware and software platform like Apple.
We know the value - $23 billion over 7 years. The fact that Google still pays Apple $8 billion a year shows that there is more value in a platform that attracts people that can afford to spend money than people who only spend $240 on a phone.
Drive is still bigger than any effort of Microsoft. OneDrive did not compete for a long time. Dropbox even beat Microsoft. Google Drive and Dropbox pretty much own this space except for Microsoft Teams or enterprises that used Office.
A “bigger effort” doesn’t put money in the bank and DropBox not only has never been profitable, they have repeatedly said that they don’t know when or if they will ever be profitable.
Being first is just a nerd victory like saying Apple was the first desktop operating system with a GUI. “Winning” in a for profit business is profit.
There is immense value in controlling the platform which Google has. There is even more value in controlling the hardware and software platform like Apple.
We know the value - $23 billion over 7 years. The fact that Google still pays Apple $8 billion a year shows that there is more value in a platform that attracts people that can afford to spend money than people who only spend $240 on a phone.
Drive is still bigger than any effort of Microsoft. OneDrive did not compete for a long time. Dropbox even beat Microsoft. Google Drive and Dropbox pretty much own this space except for Microsoft Teams or enterprises that used Office.
A “bigger effort” doesn’t put money in the bank and DropBox not only has never been profitable, they have repeatedly said that they don’t know when or if they will ever be profitable.
> We know the value - $23 billion over 7 years. The fact that Google still pays Apple $8 billion a year shows that there is more value in a platform that attracts people that can afford to spend money than people who only spend $240 on a phone.
If Google has to pay $8Bn to Apple, then all of the money Google doesn't have to pay by dint of Android existing should count as value creation by Android.
If Google has to pay $8Bn to Apple, then all of the money Google doesn't have to pay by dint of Android existing should count as value creation by Android.
> Being first is just a nerd victory like saying Apple was the first desktop operating system with a GUI. “Winning” in a for profit business is profit.
Before Google Docs / G+ suite there was really only Office. Now everything is Google vs Office 365. Most small/medium even startups use Google Docs as it is good enough. Yes like I said, entrenched Microsoft companies use Office and Office 365 is finally good and is winning in businesses because business/marketing like Office. But Google made it to 'versus' level with Microsoft.
We also glossed over Gmail, that has been immense for attracting people to Google apps.
Apple is also in this space but the desktop market share is so low that they don't compete here.
> We know the value - $23 billion over 7 years. The fact that Google still pays Apple $8 billion a year shows that there is more value in a platform that attracts people that can afford to spend money than people who only spend $240 on a phone.
If Google has to pay Apple $8 billion for mobile search. How much would they have to pay another mobile platform if they didn't run it? Probably $5+ billion or more since it is bigger, there is still value in the platform. I can't even believe I have to state that. Apple also shows this by what Google has to pay them, platforms are value as they bring in revenue opportunities.
Android OS and devices were shoddy for a long time, but they are immensely better now. Apple does own the high-end market but that won't always be the case and there is value in the market share even if it is less per phone.
> A “bigger effort” doesn’t put money in the bank and DropBox not only has never been profitable, they have repeatedly said that they don’t know when or if they will ever be profitable.
Dropbox is probably in a more precarious situation than Google or Microsoft in terms of storage competition. To compete they probably can't make a profit for a long time and will probably end up getting purchased maybe.
You can simply not deny that Google Drive was first and is mostly winning the storage battle.
OneDrive is rarely used even in enterprise settings even at Microsoft shops. Yes entrenched Office based companies probably use it like they used sub-par Sharepoint.
For storage though, most are in Google Drive or Dropbox. Branding/usage also creates value in marketing and cross over products, obviously more for Google than Dropbox as the latter is boxed in and can only raise prices or push people to business plans.
Before Google Docs / G+ suite there was really only Office. Now everything is Google vs Office 365. Most small/medium even startups use Google Docs as it is good enough. Yes like I said, entrenched Microsoft companies use Office and Office 365 is finally good and is winning in businesses because business/marketing like Office. But Google made it to 'versus' level with Microsoft.
We also glossed over Gmail, that has been immense for attracting people to Google apps.
Apple is also in this space but the desktop market share is so low that they don't compete here.
> We know the value - $23 billion over 7 years. The fact that Google still pays Apple $8 billion a year shows that there is more value in a platform that attracts people that can afford to spend money than people who only spend $240 on a phone.
If Google has to pay Apple $8 billion for mobile search. How much would they have to pay another mobile platform if they didn't run it? Probably $5+ billion or more since it is bigger, there is still value in the platform. I can't even believe I have to state that. Apple also shows this by what Google has to pay them, platforms are value as they bring in revenue opportunities.
Android OS and devices were shoddy for a long time, but they are immensely better now. Apple does own the high-end market but that won't always be the case and there is value in the market share even if it is less per phone.
> A “bigger effort” doesn’t put money in the bank and DropBox not only has never been profitable, they have repeatedly said that they don’t know when or if they will ever be profitable.
Dropbox is probably in a more precarious situation than Google or Microsoft in terms of storage competition. To compete they probably can't make a profit for a long time and will probably end up getting purchased maybe.
You can simply not deny that Google Drive was first and is mostly winning the storage battle.
OneDrive is rarely used even in enterprise settings even at Microsoft shops. Yes entrenched Office based companies probably use it like they used sub-par Sharepoint.
For storage though, most are in Google Drive or Dropbox. Branding/usage also creates value in marketing and cross over products, obviously more for Google than Dropbox as the latter is boxed in and can only raise prices or push people to business plans.
* Before Google Docs / G+ suite there was really only Office. Now everything is Google vs Office 365. Most small/medium even startups use Google Docs as it is good enough.*
GSuite is losing market share.
http://www.cloudcomputing-news.net/news/2018/may/30/office-3...
And if DropBox is “winning” and losing money, isn’t that a Pyrrhic victory?
You can simply not deny that Google Drive was first and is mostly winning the storage battle.
Being first is again, a nerd point. Where is the money?
GSuite is losing market share.
http://www.cloudcomputing-news.net/news/2018/may/30/office-3...
And if DropBox is “winning” and losing money, isn’t that a Pyrrhic victory?
You can simply not deny that Google Drive was first and is mostly winning the storage battle.
Being first is again, a nerd point. Where is the money?
> Yep, only $23 billion, horrible. /s
For something supposedly worth almost $1 trillion, it's not great. If you bought Google and then kept the profits, it would take 28 years before you broke even. That's longer than the company has even existed.
For something supposedly worth almost $1 trillion, it's not great. If you bought Google and then kept the profits, it would take 28 years before you broke even. That's longer than the company has even existed.
No, in the context of the conversation, it's an argument for a higher valuation of the entity.
The value of every corporation primarily reflects expectation of future profits. That's the reason P/E ratios differs a lot even for established companies.
The value of every corporation primarily reflects expectation of future profits. That's the reason P/E ratios differs a lot even for established companies.
>And for now Waymo's revenue is estimated to be $5M. While Google's revenue is about $160,000M.
Why the decision to write $160,000M vs $160B? Was it so the same as the previous $5M number? Even still, it seems unnatural to me.
Why the decision to write $160,000M vs $160B? Was it so the same as the previous $5M number? Even still, it seems unnatural to me.
As topkai22 said, it's to make the author's comparison easy to understand. But this is a chance to mention that ~50 years ago the UK abandoned its old "billion" terminology, which used to be equivalent to a trillion elsewhere (10^12), and adopted the global definition of "billion" as 10^9. I think they called 10^9 a milliard, but I've never seen it in use. For a long time after the change, you'd see English written for an international audience using a more drawn-out version of large numbers (a "million million" for example) sort of the same way we have metric next to imperial these days.
That's not what's happening here, but it's interesting.
That's not what's happening here, but it's interesting.
Fun fact about long scale billion (short scale trillion): it stands for bi-million because it’s a million millions. Trillion is the same with a tri-million being a million billions.
That's cool to know. Vaguely related: I've been studying a little bit of Mandarin recently and have had trouble with their system of describing larger numbers that doesn't follow the Western groups-of-three system. For example, 万 means ten thousand, but it's actually "one of a thing described by a word representing 10^4," and you wouldn't say 十千 which literally translates to "ten of a thing described by a word representing 10^3." It's surprisingly hard to regurgitate the right labels when your brain is used to thinking in terms of 10^3, 10^6, 10^9, etc. They're all different, internally consistent systems, and as far as I can tell nothing makes one better than the rest -- except for one's own familiarity with it.
> and adopted the global definition of "billion"
What's your definition of global?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_and_short_scales#Current_...
Edit: I guess you meant global as far as the English language is concerned only, ignoring the equivalent words in other languages. But even that would be wrong, as apparently Australia adopted the American usage after the UK.
In any case, it's interesting that the US diverged from the European use following the French (who since then went back to the original meaning of billion).
What's your definition of global?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_and_short_scales#Current_...
Edit: I guess you meant global as far as the English language is concerned only, ignoring the equivalent words in other languages. But even that would be wrong, as apparently Australia adopted the American usage after the UK.
In any case, it's interesting that the US diverged from the European use following the French (who since then went back to the original meaning of billion).
I think it’s a good practice to keep the abbreviations the same when talking about in the same context. It makes clear the ratio being talked about.
I'm definitely not in the world of finance, but in day to day conversation, I have to stop to think what one hundred sixty thousand million means. If I hear one hundred sixty billion, then I immediately understand. Even if I had previously heard five million then heard one hundred sixty billion, it is obvious that billion is 1000x a million which clearly makes it a bigger number. This is what I meant by unnatural.
Verbal conversation gains the context of audible emphasis on the difference. Rhetorically, you are able to say "Waymo has revenue of 5 million dollars, while Google has 160 BILLION dollars." (imagine the all caps being dramatically stated, possibly a la Dr Evil in Austin Powers).
In writing you can't do that as easily or effectively, so I think keeping the abbreviated units the same is effective writing.
In fact stating income in thousand millions is exactly how financial statements are formatted. In alphabet's 10k (at https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1652044/000165204419...) there is a table showing that the google segment had $136,224M in revenue, while "all other bets" had a total revenue of $595M. I suspect that the SEC would have some stern words for alphabet if they expressed on measure in billions and one in millions...
In writing you can't do that as easily or effectively, so I think keeping the abbreviated units the same is effective writing.
In fact stating income in thousand millions is exactly how financial statements are formatted. In alphabet's 10k (at https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1652044/000165204419...) there is a table showing that the google segment had $136,224M in revenue, while "all other bets" had a total revenue of $595M. I suspect that the SEC would have some stern words for alphabet if they expressed on measure in billions and one in millions...
[deleted]
This isn't an insightful comment, but I just said out loud "what's Waymo again?" after having seen the name here and there for the past decade. Kinda feels dead on arrival.
Just because you didn't like the name ? They have the least disengagements and more miles than anyone (with a LIDAR).
Any investor in Alphabet for the long term would hope this isn't the case. It also doesn't make sense at a time when some of their moonshots are looking as though they could pay off. (Eg. Waymo)
That said, it makes sense from the Page/Brin perspective, perhaps. It's a lot more difficult to 10x a company that's already worth $Y billion. Perhaps better to start the ventures separately in a way that is more exciting to investors.
That said, it makes sense from the Page/Brin perspective, perhaps. It's a lot more difficult to 10x a company that's already worth $Y billion. Perhaps better to start the ventures separately in a way that is more exciting to investors.
I've been a Google shareholder for more than 10 years, and I would love it if Alphabet spun off Waymo so I could dump my Waymo stock.
My view is that the market undervalues Google and overvalues Waymo but unfortunately Mr Page and Mr Brin force me to invest in both.
My view is that the market undervalues Google and overvalues Waymo but unfortunately Mr Page and Mr Brin force me to invest in both.
Funny, I'm sure a lot of people think the opposite, and that only proves your point more.
As someone intimately familiar with the world of self-driving cars (and their investors, and their enthusiasts) - yes. There are many people who believe Waymo is going to be ridiculously valuable because they are certain (almost always based on being wildly misinformed) that it is going to magically blanket the planet in robotaxis in a handful of years.
I would love to short Waymo. And now that Sergei is no longer there to shield it from Ruth Porat - who is well known for hating risky bets - I don't see a bright future for the company. And working conditions there have already deteriorated to the point where most talented people don't stay (just check glassdoor reviews if you don't believe me).
I'm pretty sure Larry and Sergei wanted their legacy to be Waymo. I'm pretty sure Ruth Porat wants her legacy to be killing Waymo.
I would love to short Waymo. And now that Sergei is no longer there to shield it from Ruth Porat - who is well known for hating risky bets - I don't see a bright future for the company. And working conditions there have already deteriorated to the point where most talented people don't stay (just check glassdoor reviews if you don't believe me).
I'm pretty sure Larry and Sergei wanted their legacy to be Waymo. I'm pretty sure Ruth Porat wants her legacy to be killing Waymo.
> And now that Sergei is no longer there to shield it from Ruth Porat
Both Larry and Sergei are still on the board, so I don't see what changed? If you are thinking along that route, wouldn't it be more important what Sundar Pichai's opinion on Waymo is?
Both Larry and Sergei are still on the board, so I don't see what changed? If you are thinking along that route, wouldn't it be more important what Sundar Pichai's opinion on Waymo is?
I think Larry and Sergei have been slowly removing themselves from Google/Alphabet over the past several years. You're right about Sundar having a large say in the matter, but he seems focused on search and AI (Waymo is not AI - I am too lazy to argue why right now). Ruth Porat, however, has always had it out for the projects at X - and Waymo is the big one that hemorrhages money (even by Alphabet standards) and makes pathetic revenue (even by non-Alphabet standards).
The screws are definitely going to tighten, moreso than they already have. The majority of the original talent that made up Waymo left years ago - that doesn't happen when you're on the brink of an actual breakthrough that can truly transform the world for the better. If Waymo can't pull a rabbit out of its hat, it's going to the Google graveyard. This isn't going to play out immediately, it will take a few years.
The screws are definitely going to tighten, moreso than they already have. The majority of the original talent that made up Waymo left years ago - that doesn't happen when you're on the brink of an actual breakthrough that can truly transform the world for the better. If Waymo can't pull a rabbit out of its hat, it's going to the Google graveyard. This isn't going to play out immediately, it will take a few years.
The problem is funding: let's say funding a self-driving project takes $5B-$10B and 15 years, until it starts to become a real, scalable business.
And that's probably optimistic.
Who will fund that ?
I wonder if Google was too ambitious. Maybe if they focused all the effort on making trucks that could only ride the highway safely, in limited conditions, they would have had a working business by now.
And that's probably optimistic.
Who will fund that ?
I wonder if Google was too ambitious. Maybe if they focused all the effort on making trucks that could only ride the highway safely, in limited conditions, they would have had a working business by now.
Softbank has dumped $10B in WeWork, a glorified office rental company. If you think there are no investors willing to put $10B in self driving cars, you might still be living in 2005.
Wow man, $10B into wework ? That's really fucked up.
And you're right, about self driving cars and that i'm still living in 2005 :)
And you're right, about self driving cars and that i'm still living in 2005 :)
If you're having trouble reading it: https://outline.com/pGLZ6U
Thank you! Just what I needed.
Does not work on my Firefox though as block sneaky redirects.
Does not work on my Firefox though as block sneaky redirects.
I dont know how what you did is legal.
From https://www.outline.com/dmca.html
Notice to Users If someone else might own the copyright to it, don't submit it. Outline is for reading pages that:
you own the rights to, is in the public domain, constitutes fair use, or you have consent of the copyright holder.
If we find you repeatedly submitting content that does not meet the above criteria, we will block you from using our service.
From https://www.outline.com/dmca.html
Notice to Users If someone else might own the copyright to it, don't submit it. Outline is for reading pages that:
you own the rights to, is in the public domain, constitutes fair use, or you have consent of the copyright holder.
If we find you repeatedly submitting content that does not meet the above criteria, we will block you from using our service.
[deleted]
We have different views on this topic. Surely Outline is capable of taking a reasonable sample of what they are serving up, and seeing that the vast majority of it violates their terms. Throwing up a disclaimer page doesn't change that. Their policy is also contradicted by the "about" blurb on the bottom of the page "Outline is a free service for reading and annotating news articles." As far as I know, most news articles have a copyright.
Also, sites that want paywalls are technically capable of doing that in a way that archive.is, outline.com, etc, can't scrape them. They don't, though, because they want the best of both worlds. Want to charge for your content? Fine, do that, but you lose exposure from search engines, HN, Facebook, etc.
Curious how they are going to "block me" though. I don't have an account with Outline.
Also, sites that want paywalls are technically capable of doing that in a way that archive.is, outline.com, etc, can't scrape them. They don't, though, because they want the best of both worlds. Want to charge for your content? Fine, do that, but you lose exposure from search engines, HN, Facebook, etc.
Curious how they are going to "block me" though. I don't have an account with Outline.
Larry and Sergey still holds more than 51% of voting stocks. IMO, this is the only thing that matters unless they delegate all the decisions to Sundar. Although I expect "other bets" to be forced to evolve into more realistic businesses but no radical structural changes.
And another thing to consider is that a significant portion of Alphabet's value already comes from potential growth of "other bets" (e.g. Waymo). The major driver of digital ads' growth has been cannibalization of traditional media ads budget. This is no way sustainable over the next decade so the growth will be eventually saturated. Unless Google can find another strong driver (Maybe Cloud?), it's pretty natural to keep investing "other bets".
And another thing to consider is that a significant portion of Alphabet's value already comes from potential growth of "other bets" (e.g. Waymo). The major driver of digital ads' growth has been cannibalization of traditional media ads budget. This is no way sustainable over the next decade so the growth will be eventually saturated. Unless Google can find another strong driver (Maybe Cloud?), it's pretty natural to keep investing "other bets".
>unless they delegate all the decisions to Sundar.
My understanding from the rumour mill is that's essentially what's been happening for a while now.
My understanding from the rumour mill is that's essentially what's been happening for a while now.
It has always seemed strange to me that Google become part of Alphabet, instead of vice-versa.
It seems like a much more honest approach would always have been for Google to be one company... for Alphabet to be a separate one... and for, say, Google to own 33% of Alphabet, for Larry and Sergei personally to own another 33%, and outside investors to own the rest and be the ones principally determining its own, separate valuation.
It seems like a much more honest approach would always have been for Google to be one company... for Alphabet to be a separate one... and for, say, Google to own 33% of Alphabet, for Larry and Sergei personally to own another 33%, and outside investors to own the rest and be the ones principally determining its own, separate valuation.
Given that Alphabet was basically Larry and Seigei's personal pet projects and the goal was for Google to fund these projects, it's easier to funnel money up instead of out.
Wasn't YouTube a separate entity under Alphabet, and not a part of Google? That alone would be a $100B company
It would be. But it doesn’t make money. Someone has to pay for it still.
Do you have a source for that?
All I can find is that, as of 2019, nobody knows [1]. (Unfortunately I can't read the full paywalled content.)
Also, it might not be profitable but could still be break-even.
[1] https://www.wsj.com/articles/ok-google-hows-youtube-doing-11...
All I can find is that, as of 2019, nobody knows [1]. (Unfortunately I can't read the full paywalled content.)
Also, it might not be profitable but could still be break-even.
[1] https://www.wsj.com/articles/ok-google-hows-youtube-doing-11...
Nope no source. I’ve tried looking as well. I assume since it costs so much in infrastructure that Google lends for free to YouTube, and that they have never been able to announce nice numbers for YouTube, ever, that it likely doesn’t make a profit or break even. Especially after accounting for all the freebies Google provides YouTube.
I guess I just have a time believing it's in the red, considering the sheer quantity of advertising they show and the fact that video hosting itself isn't all that expensive (relative to the cost of showing an ad), and even cheaper given how cost-efficient Google's datacenters are.
But also, given YouTube's astronomical growth over the past 15 years, I can also see it operating similar to Amazon -- not technically making a profit, but only because it continues to massively reinvest what would otherwise be quite profitable, for even greater future eventual profits.
Of course all this is conjecture...
But also, given YouTube's astronomical growth over the past 15 years, I can also see it operating similar to Amazon -- not technically making a profit, but only because it continues to massively reinvest what would otherwise be quite profitable, for even greater future eventual profits.
Of course all this is conjecture...
Yes I guess I was thinking if Youtube isn’t a part of Google officially as a company in a proposed split, they’d have to actually pay for the Google datacenter costs. Similar to how eBay left PayPal once they split. It wasn’t worth PayPal’s prices.
So I was assuming all this with the hypothetical inclusion of the actual cost of YouTube.
I agree with the Google servers and bandwidth being essentially free, YouTube likely breaks even at least.
So I was assuming all this with the hypothetical inclusion of the actual cost of YouTube.
I agree with the Google servers and bandwidth being essentially free, YouTube likely breaks even at least.
Yes, the amount of ads on some of the videos has grown, but overall I think the amount of money they make per popular video has shrunk significantly.
The amount of people using ad-blockers had increased a lot and there have been a lot of demonetization events where the bar for acceptable (advertiser-friendly) content has been raised. This also caused a lot of creators to move their income streams to merch or Patreon, sometimes even fully disabling advertising on their videos.
Still just conjecture, just wanted to point out that there have been a lot of things that hurt Youtube's ability to monetize despite their good growth.
The amount of people using ad-blockers had increased a lot and there have been a lot of demonetization events where the bar for acceptable (advertiser-friendly) content has been raised. This also caused a lot of creators to move their income streams to merch or Patreon, sometimes even fully disabling advertising on their videos.
Still just conjecture, just wanted to point out that there have been a lot of things that hurt Youtube's ability to monetize despite their good growth.
> video hosting itself isn't all that expensive
I would not be shocked to hear that video encoding is actually the biggest cost of running Youtube, much more than the hosting cost itself, at least when you factor in their close connection to Google's networking infrastructure that probably brings bandwidth cost way down.
I would not be shocked to hear that video encoding is actually the biggest cost of running Youtube, much more than the hosting cost itself, at least when you factor in their close connection to Google's networking infrastructure that probably brings bandwidth cost way down.
Yeah that’s why I assume almost no other company could handle running YouTube without massive losses because they won’t have the infrastructure. The two major Chinese co’s and ~5-7 American companies could probably handle running it without costs going out of control.
With the number of ads I see, I doubt they don't make money
But no one figure out if they actually make a profit. And they themselves have never announced breaking even or profitability.
Along with that, if you take away the massive subsidies they get with Google’s infrastructure, and the money they split with music studios and makers. I don’t see profitability being the case.
Along with that, if you take away the massive subsidies they get with Google’s infrastructure, and the money they split with music studios and makers. I don’t see profitability being the case.
If they had assigned a new CEO for Google it could of not looked this way. However this looks bad especially when you hear "We the People" talk about how some of these tech giants need to be broken up. This is not going to help them. I wonder who the next Bell will be.[0]
[0]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breakup_of_the_Bell_System
[0]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breakup_of_the_Bell_System
why is it assumed they wont appoint a new Google CEO in the next 6 months to a year?
If I were Sundar Pichai, I'd probably view being the Alphabet Chief, and not the Google Chief, as a downgrade from just being the Google Chief. That was fine for Larry and Sergey with their founder's stock and deliberate desire to be somewhat disconnected. I don't think Sundar has either of those.
IF his forte is operations, more Ballmer and Cook to a visionary, it makes sense. Put a new visionary in charge of Google, and start focusing on turning the other bets into self sustaining companies. Maybe split google up a bit too, make CGP its own bet. You could even make the case for Youtube, Nest/Pixel, Doubleclick, maybe Android. Refocus google on being an information sorting and calling tool, whether that be search, shopping, maps, gmail, photos.
Google could benefit a bit from the Bezos API memo AND a bit from the Jobsesque "singular vision not kitchen sink of requested features" refinement. Paring google down and giving sects more singular visions, while encouraging cohesiveness might need a Bain Capital type chopman, but after that is said and done, Alphabet Chief should be more important than Google Chief.
Pichai's job should be demarcing responsibility and org chart, giving focus.
Google could benefit a bit from the Bezos API memo AND a bit from the Jobsesque "singular vision not kitchen sink of requested features" refinement. Paring google down and giving sects more singular visions, while encouraging cohesiveness might need a Bain Capital type chopman, but after that is said and done, Alphabet Chief should be more important than Google Chief.
Pichai's job should be demarcing responsibility and org chart, giving focus.
A “visionary” without any operations expertise is useless. Cook has as much to do with the rise of Apple as Jobs. Jobs wouldn’t have had the supply chain experience to manufacturer 100 million iPods at his height or all the products that it ships now.
and Pichai would still be there. I fully 100% agree, Cook is who scaled Apple.
Whoever else decided to allow iTunes onto Windows should be shown a lot of respect as well. That was a very uncharacteristic and forward thinking move.
Putting a visionary in the drivers seat of google doesnt mean that operations should be thrown to the wayside. And part of that pretense is paring down and refining what "google" is. GCP obviously needs a more salesman/finance/trustworthy leader at the moment. One who can walk into a Fortune 100 company and say "trust us to be your foundation." That div reinventing itself shouldt be hampered by Google needing to become truly innovative again. The worst part about reinventing search specifically, is that if done right, its a bit of a thankless endeavor. Google search is so seamless and chromeless, that when it works you dont even notice it. It's job is to present other information.
Whoever else decided to allow iTunes onto Windows should be shown a lot of respect as well. That was a very uncharacteristic and forward thinking move.
Putting a visionary in the drivers seat of google doesnt mean that operations should be thrown to the wayside. And part of that pretense is paring down and refining what "google" is. GCP obviously needs a more salesman/finance/trustworthy leader at the moment. One who can walk into a Fortune 100 company and say "trust us to be your foundation." That div reinventing itself shouldt be hampered by Google needing to become truly innovative again. The worst part about reinventing search specifically, is that if done right, its a bit of a thankless endeavor. Google search is so seamless and chromeless, that when it works you dont even notice it. It's job is to present other information.
That’s true about GCP. I don’t care how good GCP is technically, I wouldn’t bet my career on it as either a person spending time developing on top of it or as a potential decision maker.
While I haven’t worked with Azure specifically besides what is now called “Azure Devops”, MS’s enterprise support is legendary.
I work for a company now that has AWS business support. I use the live chat all of the time as an “easy button”. Not when something is wrong, just when I don’t want to spend too much time trying to figure something out. They are excellent and batting close to 100.
While I haven’t worked with Azure specifically besides what is now called “Azure Devops”, MS’s enterprise support is legendary.
I work for a company now that has AWS business support. I use the live chat all of the time as an “easy button”. Not when something is wrong, just when I don’t want to spend too much time trying to figure something out. They are excellent and batting close to 100.
>Not when something is wrong, just when I don’t want to spend too much time trying to figure something out.
That is how support should work in general. Support has become so much "thats outside the scope of your contract" or "blame other vendor" instead of a shortcut to training. If my provider has already seen a problem I've run into, its in their best interest to get me moving again, so I can use more of their product and extend their tentacles further into my business.
That is how support should work in general. Support has become so much "thats outside the scope of your contract" or "blame other vendor" instead of a shortcut to training. If my provider has already seen a problem I've run into, its in their best interest to get me moving again, so I can use more of their product and extend their tentacles further into my business.
Unless the purpose is to just steer Alphabet into a new direction. But yeah I had not thought of that to be honest.
Google is simply an ad company with a search engine that monetizes all your data. They exist to serve ads. The rest is window dressing.
This is why without a technological background or acumen, you’ll never be able to find the investments that succeed based on innovation.
Because there’s no financials to analyze, the companies that succeed this way basically go from making nothing / losing money for many years before all of a sudden becoming exponentially profitable. The signal doesn’t exist on the financial side, which is why so many people in Wall Street often fail so badly when valuing hard technology companies.
It’s why a company like Waymo will in 10 years be valued more than the entirety of Google, yet many in finance won’t even have an inkling of this in the present day.
Also, by the way, this is why I believe the venture capital industry in Silicon Valley was able to uniquely succeed in the beginning due to a heavy concentration in extremely technical investors compared to the rest of the United States and the world in general (i.e. the VC capital of the world is in Silicon Valley and not New York for a reason).
Because there’s no financials to analyze, the companies that succeed this way basically go from making nothing / losing money for many years before all of a sudden becoming exponentially profitable. The signal doesn’t exist on the financial side, which is why so many people in Wall Street often fail so badly when valuing hard technology companies.
It’s why a company like Waymo will in 10 years be valued more than the entirety of Google, yet many in finance won’t even have an inkling of this in the present day.
Also, by the way, this is why I believe the venture capital industry in Silicon Valley was able to uniquely succeed in the beginning due to a heavy concentration in extremely technical investors compared to the rest of the United States and the world in general (i.e. the VC capital of the world is in Silicon Valley and not New York for a reason).
That Google pretty much remains a one-trick pony after billions of dollars thrown against the wall speaks volumes about the glorification of "success" (or misattribution thereof) and the value of all the hagiographies in its wake.
I wouldn't call Google a one-trick pony. They've created a bunch of wildly successful products -- Search, Maps, Android, Chrome -- that help feed their ad business.
What should be scary if you're at the top of the company is that Google has not had a home-run product in a very long time. It's a strong signal that wherever made Google special in the past is gone (though that doesn't mean it couldn't come back).
What should be scary if you're at the top of the company is that Google has not had a home-run product in a very long time. It's a strong signal that wherever made Google special in the past is gone (though that doesn't mean it couldn't come back).
[deleted]
I wonder if Google’s project Sidewalk Labs in Toronto would be affected as well.
[deleted]
sounds like a good time for a "traitorous 8" group from google's vast AI teams to jump out of advertising and start monetizing their plans.
Alternatively it could be seen as retreating from the Larry and Sergey experiment.
[deleted]
The fact that you linked to an amp version of the page, instead of the real link, is deeply disturbing to me.
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-12-04/alphab...
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-12-04/alphab...
I changed the link in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21730007 and detached this subthread and marked it off topic.
Seriously off topic. There have been two huge threads about AMP in the last week and something like 9 of them in the last year: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...
Seriously off topic. There have been two huge threads about AMP in the last week and something like 9 of them in the last year: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...
So maybe that should inform the powers that be, that the canonical URL should be the one that's used by default?
And I was very appreciative of the AMP version being posted. It made for a much better mobile viewing experience than the typical non-AMP experience from Bloomberg.
A forced redesign, in this case motivated by AMP, is what gave you that better mobile experience. It is not something inherent to AMP, and in other ways AMP is incredibly harmful.
Most mobile browsers now have "reading mode" anyway.
Most mobile browsers now have "reading mode" anyway.
The selling point of AMP is that it's a mobile-friendly web component framework. If someone uses AMP for their website, and as a result you get a better mobile experience, it's hard to see how that's not inherent to AMP.
I turn on the faucet and fill a glass of water. Taking a drink from the glass, I feel less thirsty. If someone turns on a faucet, and as a result feels less thirsty, then that that thirst-removal must be inherent to turning on a faucet, right?
This is obviously silly, but follows the same reasoning that you have stated. Drinking water reduces thirst, not running water from a faucet. Redesigning a website to be less bloated results in a better mobile experience, not designing around AMP. It is possible to redesign a website without using AMP.
Causation does not imply necessity.
This is obviously silly, but follows the same reasoning that you have stated. Drinking water reduces thirst, not running water from a faucet. Redesigning a website to be less bloated results in a better mobile experience, not designing around AMP. It is possible to redesign a website without using AMP.
Causation does not imply necessity.
I think it's fair to say that thirst-removal is inherent to turning on a faucet. It's true that there are other ways to reduce your thirst, and it's true that turning on the faucet has other effects (such as increasing your water bill) that have nothing to do with how thirsty you are. It's even true that the water company behind your faucet might be doing bad things that it ought to stop.
But it doesn't seem helpful to analyze faucets as being a monopolistic plot by Big Water rather than a technology for letting you drink when you're thirsty.
But it doesn't seem helpful to analyze faucets as being a monopolistic plot by Big Water rather than a technology for letting you drink when you're thirsty.
Thank you for this perfect analogy: access to running water isn't relevant to quenching thirst in the same way that amp isn't relevant to having a usable mobile website.
in theory, yes, you're correct. but the reality is that turning on the tap is usually an important step to having a drink of water.
in theory, yes, you're correct. but the reality is that turning on the tap is usually an important step to having a drink of water.
And many websites decide to implement basics like scrolling with js, breaking reading mode.
In this case, AMP doesn't help much...it's still downloading a ton of crap.
464 requests and 12MB of garbage for an AMP hosted article.
https://imgur.com/tPHaHIO
464 requests and 12MB of garbage for an AMP hosted article.
https://imgur.com/tPHaHIO
That's because you are running in a simulator and not doing ad-blocking. Here is the real deal, 1.9MB and took 12 seconds to load completely: https://imgur.com/a/XcsNEsp
The actual Bloomberg page was 5.3Mbytes and took 30 seconds to load completely: https://imgur.com/a/zBaOzeD
If 3X improvement in loading time and data transfer is not much of a help, I don't know what it is.
USERS like AMP because it is an actual improvement of the UX. The industry complaining over AMP is like the music industry going after the MP3 in the early 2000s.
The actual Bloomberg page was 5.3Mbytes and took 30 seconds to load completely: https://imgur.com/a/zBaOzeD
If 3X improvement in loading time and data transfer is not much of a help, I don't know what it is.
USERS like AMP because it is an actual improvement of the UX. The industry complaining over AMP is like the music industry going after the MP3 in the early 2000s.
Running a content blocker makes the original page load quickly and doesn’t require any amp.
If you need an ad blocker to make amp load quickly that defeats the purpose of amp, because the ad blocker makes the original site load quickly without the inherent google bullshittery.
If you need an ad blocker to make amp load quickly that defeats the purpose of amp, because the ad blocker makes the original site load quickly without the inherent google bullshittery.
I have my ad-blocker on all the time. The 3X improvement is with ad-blocker on both. AMP loads multiple times faster, therefore it does have a purpose. On the original site, things jump around until it's usable, on AMP it's right there when you tap on.
The crazy loading times are actually not that important as long as the site is usable quickly.
The crazy loading times are actually not that important as long as the site is usable quickly.
The article itself consists of 20 kB of text. Going from 270x the payload size to 95x the payload size, while impressive, still misses the mark.
12 seconds and 1.9MB isn't anything to brag about either, especially considering you needed an ad-blocker to get there.
1.9MB in 12 seconds says about my internet connection but 3X improvement says about AMP.
Fight AMP as hard as you like, start a Kickstarter for anti-AMP explaining to the public the evils of AMP but when my search results return an AMP site and non-AMP site I am clicking the AMP.
Web tech people can revolt all they want or they can actually find a way to display a few kb of text and image quickly. You can be the music industry trying to protect their CD business or you can own the Napster/iTunes/Spotify and make your money from there.
Web publishing becomes garbage, AMP is fast loading garbage. The fast-loading garbage wins.
Fight AMP as hard as you like, start a Kickstarter for anti-AMP explaining to the public the evils of AMP but when my search results return an AMP site and non-AMP site I am clicking the AMP.
Web tech people can revolt all they want or they can actually find a way to display a few kb of text and image quickly. You can be the music industry trying to protect their CD business or you can own the Napster/iTunes/Spotify and make your money from there.
Web publishing becomes garbage, AMP is fast loading garbage. The fast-loading garbage wins.
How so? The non-amp version loaded basically instantly for me.
If your life was materially impacted by slow mobile speeds you should spend less time on your phone.
Unlike the AMP version, I didn’t have to wait 5+ seconds for the bottom “Signed into Google as ...” banner to disappear to scroll up on the regular site. It made for a worse mobile experience for me.
> And I was very appreciative of the AMP version being posted. It made for a much better mobile viewing experience...
You should try outline: https://outline.com/XT5ULM
You should try outline: https://outline.com/XT5ULM
Reader mode shows a blank page.
Google makes it a pain in the ass to get to the non-AMP version. You have to click the little (i) and then the link.
On Safari at least, hitting the share sheet button and then “copy” will always return the canonical URL (which I believe the amp standard requires sites to define)
Well that's good to know. I usually end up wanting to bookmark a site in my synced bookmarks, so I need to load the non-AMP for that :/
First the Reader, now the Alphabet.
It will never stop.
After they axed Reader, I stopped using anything from the G. Watching them build legit software, gain users, and then dissolve those services over and over and over again had the effect of suffocating any further curiosity towards their products.
Like a Skinner mouse, they literally train you not to give a shit anymore.
After they axed Reader, I stopped using anything from the G. Watching them build legit software, gain users, and then dissolve those services over and over and over again had the effect of suffocating any further curiosity towards their products.
Like a Skinner mouse, they literally train you not to give a shit anymore.
>After they axed Reader, I stopped using anything from the G
I never used Reader, but did anything else come along to fill the void? I ask as I am curious on the market when G kills a product. When G kills off a product, does the rest of the world just assume that if G couldn't make it work then it must not be worth doing? I know HN readers were vocal about the death of lots of G products, but HN readers are edge cases in the grand scheme.
I never used Reader, but did anything else come along to fill the void? I ask as I am curious on the market when G kills a product. When G kills off a product, does the rest of the world just assume that if G couldn't make it work then it must not be worth doing? I know HN readers were vocal about the death of lots of G products, but HN readers are edge cases in the grand scheme.
There are other RSS readers but RSS as a stand-alone thing that people use (where “people” was always somewhat of a niche) has largely withered in the face of social media. Much as the tech crowd likes to complain about Reader’s Denise, it was at least in part a response to RSS’s decline not the cause.
So you're giving G credit for recognizing the world progressing before the rest of the world realizes? Or that the users just adapted to the loss of the product? Just trying to compare G killing software to Apple killing hardware. The transition away from SCSI and ADB to things like USB/FireWire/Thunderbolt, USB-A to USB-C, etc riles the masses during the transition, but ultimately it is the better decision.
To a first approximation, the "rest of the world" never knew what RSS was. Yes, Google kills random projects that have a passionate fan base. But they're mostly not products that actually have broad mainstream appeal.
I'm not really giving Google "credit" for anything. It's just that a lot of people want to identify a bogeyman in RSS's demise. But that bogeyman is really the collective us. There are still plenty of RSS feeds and at least a couple of decent clients for anyone who want to use RSS today.
I'm not really giving Google "credit" for anything. It's just that a lot of people want to identify a bogeyman in RSS's demise. But that bogeyman is really the collective us. There are still plenty of RSS feeds and at least a couple of decent clients for anyone who want to use RSS today.
RSS has not “withered”. True very few people use it, but every site still supports rss where it makes sense.
Very few people using it seems the very definition of withering. Yes, a lot of sites and blog software etc. still default to offering RSS feeds. (Which I take advantage of from time to time and it's presumably used behind the scenes for various purposes.) But that's hardly a ringing endorsement of the role of RSS in today's world.
Why do you care if other people use it as long as it is available?
Because when things aren't used, organizations such as, say, Google tend to stop supporting them over time.
It’s been over a decade since Google abandoned reader. RSS is just a check box in most CMSs.
As ghaff mentioned, it’s the very definition. COBOL is still used by some old banks, but you’d still say it’s popularity has “withered.”
inoreader is another alternative in addition to the ones already mentioned.
> did anything else come along to fill the void?
Yep. I'm using ol'faithful: Mozilla Thunderbird
Yep. I'm using ol'faithful: Mozilla Thunderbird
Doesn't satisfy "synced history across any device".
Unnecessary for my use case. I batch my news consumption in a single session.
Feedly.
Page and Brin ran Alphabet as a highly funded system of moonshot programs with near-infinite runway to make profits, which is unusual or unique. Basically it only worked that way because Page and Brin were idealistic visionary gazillionaires who were bored of thinking about the somewhat dirty business of selling targetted ads. With a more standard corporate governance under a common CEO with the google ad business, the expectation is a more standard corporate focus on making profits from its ventures in some defined timeline.
But read Levine's version; it has detail and humor and insight I can't convey in a summary!
[1] https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-12-04/alphab...