
G is for Google - dkasper
http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2015/08/google-alphabet.html
======
ChuckMcM
Wow, they are doing letters? Really? Letters? Hey is Eric Schmidt still in the
building somewhere? Ask him how well Planets worked out for Sun Microsystems.

Interesting strategy, hard to second guess from the outside of course. Sun's
motivation was to figure out whether the other parts of the company could
stand on their own[1], it also makes it less fiscally complicated to discharge
an entire group into the void. Think HP selling off the Agilent half of
itself.

Generally though this sort of move is a way of containing and then "fixing"
cost problems. Divestiture is so much easier once you've created the framework
of a whole organization around each chunk. It can also be weirdly inefficient,
at Sun each of the "planets" paid in a sum of money to IT (Bill Raduchel's
organization) for "Corporate IT support" except that Corporate IT didn't work
for them, they were just the only vendor you could use to get your IT
services, so what you ended up with was really crappy IT work that you
couldn't shop around for. It was maddening. But the 'collection of companies'
design pattern requires either that you have your "service providers" that
everyone uses (HR, IT, Legal) which gives little incentive for quality
service, or everyone gets their own version which means a lot of excess
overhead and duplicated work.

I could think of at least two other ways Google could have re-organized
without bringing that pain upon them, and as Eric lived through it at Sun as
well I'm sure he has an opinion.

Oh, and having one of the sub-companies get the world's #3 brand? I wonder how
that works out.

[1] Answer "No" for SunSoft, "Yes" for Sun Hardware, "No" for Sun Labs.

~~~
bcantrill
Ha -- the Sun planets experience was the first thing that occurred to me as
well. In my experience, the planets model was a total, unequivocal failure at
Sun -- and the answer to the question of whether those companies could stand
on their own was actually "no" for all of them (SME, SMCC and SunSoft all
needed one another; the value came from what they delivered together). And Sun
customers should blame the planet model for one of the worst decisions in the
history of a company that had plenty of contenders for the distinction:
unbundling the compilers from the operating system and separately monetizing
them. But at least SunSoft, SMCC and SME came to realize that they had shared
interests -- in stark contrast to JavaSoft which _actually_ thought it was a
separate company (never mind the unending welfare checks from SMI). Sun was a
company prone to tribal warfare; as it turns out, dividing the company into
tribal homelands did nothing for national unity.

In terms of what's happening here with Google/Alphabet, I imagine that there
is some desire to see if some of these companies can make it independently
while still being able to make transfer payments to support those that can't.
The problem, of course, is that this builds much more explicit resentment from
those that are profit-centers towards those that are cost-centers. It will be
interesting to see how this works out, but hard to see how this is a stable
state; it seems that shareholders will demand that businesses be spun out
entirely -- or that the whole thing will have the fate of Google+ and be
quietly folded up three years from now...

~~~
mjn
> this builds much more explicit resentment from those that are profit-centers
> towards those that are cost-centers

An additional bit of trouble, coming from the way Google's current profits are
made, is that the profit centers are mainly perceived as less glamorous than
the cost centers, which seems likely to only add to the resentment. It becomes
much more explicit then, that the people doing the various bits of gruntwork
needed to keep AdSense working (hugely profitable, but full of jobs like
"sales" and "click-fraud arms race") are funding the people getting on the
news for drones (not profitable, but cool). Not impossible to manage, and I'm
sure they've thought about it, but does seem challenging.

~~~
bcantrill
That was _definitely_ true at Sun as well. At one point, Arthur van Hoff told
me with a straight face that "every E10K Sun sold was because of Java." This
was in early 1998 -- and it was categorically (and demonstrably!) false. We at
Sun who had the filthy task of actually making money were looked down upon by
those who were responsible for spending it -- and represented one of the
ultimate failures of the planet model, in my opinion.

~~~
Retra
I can't see why anyone would object to that kind of arrangement. The whole
reason we do the boring stuff is because it pays for the exciting stuff. If
exciting stuff could pay for itself, nobody would ever do anything dull.

~~~
rodgerd
If the dull stuff compensated for the lack of prestige with cash (for
example), that might be true. But in reality, the low prestige tends to go
with low pay, low promotion opportunities, and low recognition.

~~~
LoSboccacc
and that's why you need open allocation in a huge company. keeps everyone
honest and allows economy of work to balance effort and pay.

if you don't balance people not wanting to do the low grunt work, you'll only
get inexperienced or low rank employers to do it which is extremely hurtful in
the medium run (say not in a year, but you'll definitely notice within a
decade)

------
chetanahuja
Actually reading the first few paragraphs of the form 8(K) was more
illuminating than the blogpost.

 _" Under the new operating structure, its main Google business will include
search, ads, maps, apps, YouTube and Android and the related technical
infrastructure (the “Google business”)"_

 _" In connection with the new operating structure and upon completion of the
Alphabet Merger (as defined below), Larry Page will become the Chief Executive
Officer (CEO) of Alphabet, Sergey Brin will become the President of Alphabet,
Eric E. Schmidt will become the Executive Chairman of Alphabet, Ruth Porat
will become the Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer (CFO) of
Alphabet and David C. Drummond will become the Senior Vice President,
Corporate Development, Chief Legal Officer and Secretary of Alphabet. Larry,
Sergey, Eric and David will transition to these roles from their respective
roles at Google, whereas Ruth will also retain her role as the CFO of
Google."_

[http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1288776/0001288776150...](http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1288776/000128877615000039/a20150810form8-k.htm)

~~~
yRetsyM
I find it also interesting the non - Google companies:

 _Businesses such as Calico, Nest, and Fiber, as well as its investing arms,
such as Google Ventures and Google Capital, and incubator projects, such as
Google X, will be managed separately from the Google business._

Fiber is the most notable to me - seems they see this as more than an
experiment and are looking to expand.

YouTube not separating is an interesting one to me, I expected that to be
separate.

~~~
Spooky23
Fiber is the hint about what this really means. Capital intense businesses
like ISPs or car companies are expensive to operate and the financials would
drag down Google.

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

~~~
vonmoltke
This reorganization makes no difference on the financials. The release
explicitly stated the company is trading at the conglomerate level.

~~~
fredkbloggs
Right, this is about power. Specifically, it makes clear that Larry and Sergei
are now in the capital allocation business. When you buy a share of Alphabet,
you are buying shares in Larry and Sergei's opinion about what should be done
with money. If you think they're much better at spending money than you are,
this is a great opportunity. If you don't, it isn't.

~~~
chetanahuja
Well you're still mostly investing in the growth potential of Google's
existing businesses. Don't forget that Alphabet still completely owns all the
money-making businesses of Google.

~~~
fredkbloggs
Wrong. You cannot have your profits and let someone reallocate them for you
too.

You would be right if you owned a controlling interest, but you don't. Because
you don't, all the profits of the money-making businesses go where Larry and
Sergey want them to go. That's not (necessarily) going to be your pockets. If
you owned a controlling interest, you could throw them out if you're unhappy
with their performance as capital allocators, but you don't and you can't. So
those profits are worth little or nothing to you, both now and in the future,
because you aren't entitled to receive them.

~~~
hluska
This is only true if:

a) Neither executive nor any member of the board has any concept of fiduciary
duty.

b) They can keep any mismanagement out of audited financial statements.

~~~
fredkbloggs
Malice is not required. All they have to do is be wrong.

------
rbinv
From the abc.xyz source code:

Sergey and I are seriously in the business of starting new things. Alphabet
will also include our X lab, which incubates new efforts like Wing, our drone
delivery effort<a href="[http://www.hooli.xyz/"](http://www.hooli.xyz/")
target="_blank" class="hidden-link">.</a>

~~~
echelon
I wondered if the reorg would have any impact on the stock price. Given this
joke, now I really wonder.

Are we sure it isn't April 1st? Are we sure this press release isn't a hoax?

This is so wild I'm having trouble believing any of it.

~~~
diminish
Alphabet is only missing a startup accelerator, why wouldn't Sergey and Larry
now focus on earlier stage themselves? All those ambitious things can be
achieved better by a lot of startupa competing in parallel.

~~~
JacobAldridge
V is for Ventures and Capital

W is for Wing

X is for X Lab

Y is for ...

~~~
matmann2001
Youtube

~~~
neuronic
Nope, Alphabet spells YouTube with a G.

~~~
jonlucc
Gootube is Alphabet's new Soylent competitor.

------
igorgue
They gonna fail cause they don't own the .com ¯\\_(ツ)_/¯

~~~
jafitc
How can I upvote this to heaven? Made my day :-)

I could write that I spilled my coffee, except I don't drink coffee.

~~~
rconti
On the Internet, nobody knows that your dog doesn't drink coffee.

------
jordigg
So all google divisions are now individual companies inside a conglomerated
called Alphabet where Larry is the CEO and Sergei the President. Sundar Pichai
is now the new CEO of Google. Is that right? Why do you think they are moving
this way? Regulations? Taxes? What about Eric Schmidt?

I don't know much about trading, but look at that "after hours" spike!
[http://postimg.org/image/ho5ecyr99/](http://postimg.org/image/ho5ecyr99/)

EDIT: All google subsidiaries are now subsidiaries of a conglomerated called
Alphabet. Google is a subsidiary too. Google stock will now be Alphabet stock.

~~~
tptacek
I didn't read it that way. All of Google's subsidiaries are subsidiaries of
Alphabet, as is Google. But divisions inside of Google (Android, Youtube, &c)
remain Google.

The big news is that Larry and Sergey are stepping back into a more Warren and
Charlie kind of role, and Sundar Pichai is taking over as CEO of Google.

My question is, what does "slimmed down" Google mean?

~~~
ChuckMcM
I wonder where platforms (the HW company inside of Google that builds all
their machines and switches) ends up. If they make it their own 'letter' (H is
for Hardware?) then they could potentially have it build data center hardware
for other companies. That would be interesting.

~~~
azernik
Related to my response to another one of your comments, this would be a VERY
Samsung move; I don't know if they'll do it, though. Depends if they see their
infrastructure hardware more as a competitive advantage for their internet-
services business or as a marketable product in itself.

------
loteck
To summarize (correct me if I'm wrong):

\- Google will now be operated as a subsidiary of a new company called
Alphabet.

\- Alphabet will be publicly traded under the same symbols as Google is now
traded.

\- Stock will just transfer as-is.

\- Sundar Pichai is now the CEO of Google.

\- Larry and Sergey will run Alphabet as CEO and President, respectively.

~~~
dragonwriter
Its probably simpler to think of it this way:

* What was called "Google" will now be called "Alphabet", with Larry and Sergey as CEO and President.

* Much of the core business of the old Google will be operated in a division/subsidiary of the new Alphabet called "Google", of which Sundar Pichai will be CEO.

* The rest of the old Google's business will be in other units of Alphabet.

~~~
grkvlt
They are refactoring. Google is being updated to make some of its sub-classes
into new top-level classes (sharing some characteristics with Google) and
retain the rest as sub-classes. But to do this it must create a new parent
class (for Google, and all of the other newly promoted classes) which is the
new Alphabet class.

Obviously s/class/company/g modulo plurals...

~~~
zrail
More of a composition model instead of sub/super classes.:

* Alphabet has-one Google * Google belongs-to Alphabet * YouTube belongs-to Google * Google X belongs-to Alphabet

------
bound008
[http://abc.wtf](http://abc.wtf) -> [http://bing.com](http://bing.com)

~~~
timrpeterson
That's amazing, better than the hooli.xyz Easter egg mentioned elsewhere in
the thread.

~~~
cpeterso
abc.wtf looks like it really is Microsoft:

[http://whois.domaintools.com/abc.wtf](http://whois.domaintools.com/abc.wtf)

    
    
      Created on 2015-08-10
      IP Location 	United States - Washington - Redmond - Microsoft Corporation
      ASN 	United States AS8075 MICROSOFT-CORP-MSN-AS-BLOCK - Microsoft Corporation

~~~
keyle
Read the whois. NZ is New Zealand, no?

~~~
cpeterso
Good point. The whois says Wellington, NZ. I don't know if it is related, but
Microsoft _does_ have an office in Wellington. :)

[http://www.microsoft.com/en-nz/contact.aspx](http://www.microsoft.com/en-
nz/contact.aspx)

------
josh2600
Is this purely a function of sharding liability across a conglomerate of
businesses? It seems like concentrating Google's ad revenue in a smaller, more
efficient business unit is a nod to Berkshire Hathaway's method of business.

I can't recall this sort of thing happening in my lifetime, so it will be
really interesting to see how this plays out. I also wonder how this would be
treated if Google didn't have the crazy corporate structure they have now
(where public shares are essentially non-equity and non-voting).

[http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/04/02/the-many-
classe...](http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/04/02/the-many-classes-of-
google-stock/)

Edit: I am reasonably certain this is a tax and liability optimization
strategy. It allows their more risky units to operate with separate liability
from their cash cow.

Edit 2: I'm actually surprised the stock value hasn't tanked because most of
the future potential of Google just got moved outside of the company. How much
of Google's future value was based on X? I would say a non-trivial amount of
the stock price is the anticipation of future profits, which are now no longer
a part of the company the stock is intended to index.

Edit 3: Disregard Edit 2, I misread the release the second time through and
assumed X was not part of the company :).

~~~
return0
Isn't 96% of Google profits from search ads only? They 've done a million
ventures since then, still remain ad-funded.

~~~
fredkbloggs
Yes. Because the Google part isn't being spun out to the shareholders but
remaining a part of the conglomerate, this does nothing for the shareholders.
The sea change would be if new-Google were a separate listed company returning
its earnings to its shareholders. Instead it's a separate private company
returning its earnings to Larry and Sergei to blow on whatever BS they want...
just like it was yesterday.

About the only thing this changes is that ex-Google is now explicitly
acknowledging to the public markets what everyone already knew: it's a
conglomerate, only unlike other conglomerates, it has only a single viable
business.

Yawn.

~~~
rancur
> its shareholders

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

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

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

------
franciscomello
Here's why I think Google's transformation into Alphabet was not a wise one.

As Google cofounder Larry Page, now CEO of the holding company Alphabet, that
will have as its main subsidiary Google, the search company, said earlier
today:

>As Sergey and I wrote in the original founders letter 11 years ago, “Google
is not a conventional company. We do not intend to become one.” As part of
that, we also said that you could expect us to make “smaller bets in areas
that might seem very speculative or even strange when compared to our current
businesses.” From the start, we’ve always strived to do more, and to do
important and meaningful things with the resources we have.

Well, if Google wants to keep spending investor money into "speculative"
areas, what could be dumber than reporting its financials as "Google: hugely
profitable" and "other random stuff: huge cash drain"? It will just make
investors all the more sensitive to the fact that Google's search business is
basically what makes money, and everything else is - for now, at least - a
huge cash drain.

Raising awareness to Google's - oops, Alphabet's - business unit's individual
financials will attract attention of the likes of Carl Icahn, who's raided
Ebay in the past, and who'll engage in open challenging of Page and Brin's
capital allocation decisions. It will definitely not compensate for the
advantages of having Sundar Pichai take on greater responsibilities as Google
chief, etc.

Not at all a wise move.

~~~
idlewords
Why do they care what Carl Icahn or any other investor thinks? Page and Brin
control the voting shares. The biggest risk is bad PR or a public perception
of failure, not any substantive challenge.

------
daniel-levin
It seems as though Google (Alphabet) is splitting its business divisions into:

1) Google - a company comprised of reliably profitable products that run at
massive scale (search, video, mobile, mail etc), and they know that Sundar
Pichai can manage this

2) Everything else - these are high risk ventures with possibly enormous pay-
offs. This is a breeding ground for positive black swans which Google are keen
to expose themselves too.

To borrow Nassim Taleb's nomenclature, Google is splitting into mediocristan
(1) (bounded variance - existing products [like YouTube] are predictably
profitable) and extremistan (2) (Calico - if a major breakthrough in combating
aging related diseases is made it will be both unpredictable and hugely
materially beneficial)

>> We will rigorously handle capital allocation and work to make sure each
business is executing well.

This sounds like the business restructuring will allow Sergey and Larry to
apply just as much capital as they see fit to the extremistani business
divisions. In other words they would like to control their exposure to
possible consequential rare events in a simple fashion: by controlling a very
simple set of parameters - i.e. how much cash each business division gets.

------
sz4kerto
Does this mean that running high-risk project inside Google started to damage
the reputation of Google? Many (most) of the moonshot projects failed (which
is normal), and I have the feeling that these events had a somewhat bad
fallout on the image of the whole company (questioning its invicibility to
some extent, mostly in the eyes of the press).

~~~
Oletros
Is there a list of moonshots failed?

~~~
coldtea
Wave, Plus, Glasses at least.

If we are to include less ambitious stuff, Google Video, Orkut, Chromebooks
(never went far), Reader, Google Code, Dart, nothing much came out of
Morotola, etc.

And let's see were those "self driving cars" will go, market-wise...

~~~
tapsboy
Google Video was merged into Youtube

Orkut was wildly successful in Brazil and India, until they stopped building
it for Buzz and Plus

Reader was hugely successful, which is why the outcry on its closing

Chromebooks are doing great, atleast on Amazon, the world's biggest retailer.

Dart pivoted into a compile-to-JS language, but is still alive

Motorola streamlined it's product lineup under Google and is doing fairly okay
for Lenovo

Calling above items as failure is inaccurate. None of them were moonshots btw.

~~~
gress
Google Video, and Orkut, were complete failures and no longer exist.
Successful products don't disappear without a trace. If they are closed by
management when they otherwise might have succeeded, that _is_ failure.

Reader was a failure according to Google itself, which closed it due to
supposed lack of interest. Once again, if the decision to close it was an
error by your criteria, then they failed.

The rest I would agree with.

~~~
magicalist
Of course if we go back to the original question, Orkut and Reader were hardly
"moonshots" in the first place (and Google Video was arguably just a standard
project launch).

~~~
gress
Google's own canonical example of a moonshot is Android. By that definition,
Orkut and Reader qualify just fine.

~~~
magicalist
> _Google 's own canonical example of a moonshot is Android_

Is it?

> _By that definition, Orkut and Reader qualify just fine_

If everything is a moonshot, nothing is, etc.

AFAIK both projects were just 20% time projects scaled up to three or four
people[1]. A "moonshot" is obviously a wishy-washy term, but opportunity for
success doesn't seem to be sufficient to call something that.

[1] [http://massless.org/?archive=2007/05/about-google-readers-
bi...](http://massless.org/?archive=2007/05/about-google-readers-birth-part-2)

~~~
gress
> Is it?

Yes. They first used the word when referring to Andy Rubin's departure from
Android.

------
sethbannon
From the SEC form making this official, here are the separate companies under
Alphabet Inc:

Google, Calico, Nest, Fiber, Ventures, Capital, X.

Looks like Search / ads, YouTube, Maps, Apps, and Android will stay under
Google Inc.

[http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1288776/0001288776150...](http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1288776/000128877615000039/a20150810form8-k.htm)

------
axyjo
This is a big move, which might also possibly help with EU anti-trust
accusations by splitting up the big-ol' monolithic GOOG into functionally
separate units.

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

I think this is more about changing what Larry and Sergey do all day.

~~~
tyingq
"so this doesn't ameliorate any of EU's concerns"

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

~~~
tptacek
I don't see how it does that.

~~~
tyingq
Two main areas.

It prepares you, in terms of financial visibility, experience, etc, if the
most painful of anti-trust remedies (breakup) ever happens. AT&T, for example,
would have likely proposed different terms for their breakup if they had
better visibility into how Western Electric would have performed on its own.

It provides more public financial visibility into some areas of concern,
early. For example, it looks like Google fiber isn't staying with Google.
Google fiber is probably a concern for at least US anti-trust regulators.

~~~
sangnoir
The new structure won't affect the EU's investigations, as you had stated
earlier. All the components the EU will whine about are still under the Google
subsidiary (Search, Maps, YouTube, Android).

The only companies exiting from Googles purview are Calico, Nest, Fiber,
Ventures, Capital,and X. None of which were likely candidates for antitrust
prosecution.

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

------
yashap
I wonder if part of this is to make it easier to kill the side businesses if
they fail, since these ventures are inherently very risky, and require people
with very different skills than normal at Google. Say 1000 people are working
on Calico, but it ultimately fails, and there isn't a natural spot for them in
Google anymore. If they were all Google employees, this turns into "massive
layoffs at Google." Now it's just "Alphabet folds Calico business", which
sounds less bad (and possibly even makes layoffs easier? Don't know, IANAL).

------
swalsh
So Alphabet will start a new car company, and google can continue on as a
search giant. It makes a lot of sense.

So many people keep saying their biggest fear of google is that they will turn
devices like Google Glass, or the Google car into products to collect
information on people. When those products themselves are viable business
models.

~~~
kylemk
Yes, but the issue is that Larry and Sergey see more value in user data than
they do in "viable business models." So privacy is still a huge concern with
any subsidiary of Alphabet. Google just became a synonym for privacy issues
because that was the parent company - now Alphabet is that parent company. No
less evil, just new.

------
rottencupcakes
Just a stray observation, but now Microsoft and Google are both run by Indian
born CEOs.

~~~
chrisper
It's funny how Cisco's CEO is not Indian.

~~~
anjanb
how is it funny ? Not getting you

~~~
chrisper
Cisco has the stereotype (at least here in the South Bay) that it has almost
only Indian employees. There is also the idea that since Cisco hired so many
Indians, it is now no longer considered an American company (I don't seem to
be able to find the link anymore). Finally, there is the rumor that Indians
only hire Indians. So after all these stereotypes you would think Cisco would
have an Indian CEO.

Here are some links: [https://www.quora.com/Is-there-any-bias-among-Indians-
of-hir...](https://www.quora.com/Is-there-any-bias-among-Indians-of-hiring-
other-Indian-workers-in-the-IT-industry)

[http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1831365/posts](http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1831365/posts)

------
tashoecraft
Probably was done to be ahead of apple and amazon in the yellow pages.

~~~
spitfire
What's a yellow page?

~~~
citruspi
A directory of businesses, like a phone book for businesses instead of
people[0].

[0]:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_pages](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_pages)

~~~
scott_karana
I think spitfire was being sarcastic, eg, "nobody looks for tech businesses in
annual piles of irrelevant paper anymore"

~~~
citruspi
Yeah. I thought so too, but I wasn't sure, so I figured I might as well
answer. It couldn't hurt.

~~~
scott_karana
It was very polite of you. :-)

------
PascLeRasc
Interesting. I suppose they'd fail PG's test of owning your own .com.

~~~
hodwik
I just paid $250 dollars for a 4 letter domain today (igzi.com) after that
post, and now that rule is broken? Today stinks.

~~~
jegutman
I'll buy it from you for $20 if you want to get out while the market is
tanking.

------
coffeebite
Is Larry Page trolling PG? A day after PG publishes an essay that companies
should own the .com version of their names, he renames Google to Alphabet with
.xyz as the TLD.

~~~
nbakshi
From his blog: "Unless you're so big that your reputation precedes you, a
marginal domain suggests you're a marginal company."

------
Yhippa
Did Google effectively just do a rotate operation on a red-black tree for
their organization?

------
misterbwong
This sounds a lot like Berkshire Hathaway's structure. Buffet + Munger at the
top, mostly as advisers and fund managers, with individual companies given
autonomy. I like it but it all depends on whether Larry & Sergey can hire
well.

~~~
stephen
I was thinking the same thing; the difference is that Buffet & Munger bought
existing companies that were already financially strong/had proven business
models, and tried to leave their existing management (with a proven track
record in that industry) in place.

This seems more like Sergey & Brin going to play in non-Google industries with
unproven business models that they are experimenting in. (I'm likely being
very naive & unfair; obviously they're very smart and wouldn't do this on a
whim.)

Either way, Alphabet definitely sounds fun. It will be interesting to see how
it works out.

------
electic
The most important part of the 8K is how the merger will happen and how stock
will be effected or transformed eventually:

 _“Alphabet will initially be a direct, wholly owned subsidiary of Google.
Pursuant to the Alphabet Merger, a newly formed entity (“Merger Sub”), a
direct, wholly owned subsidiary of Alphabet and an indirect, wholly owned
subsidiary of Google, will merge with and into Google, with Google surviving
as a direct, wholly owned subsidiary of Alphabet.”_

[http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1288776/0001288776150...](http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1288776/000128877615000039/a20150810form8-k.htm)

~~~
zrail
Is that the normal way something like this is structured? It's pretty elegant.

~~~
seiji
Yeah, it's normal business weirdness. It's a reverse triangular merger:
[http://witnesseth.typepad.com/blog/reverse-triangular-
merger...](http://witnesseth.typepad.com/blog/reverse-triangular-merger.html)

------
aesthetics1
I do not know much about big business financials, but this seems like a move
that would allow Google to separate its experimental or research-based
businesses that do not turn a profit from its giant bulging revenue beasts. It
will likely allow Google to post better quarterlies, and push their stock up
even higher.

Appointing Sundar as CEO also allows them to focus more on the cool stuff in
Alphabet and let Sundar run the meat and potatoes Google operations.
Interesting moves.

~~~
vonmoltke
Except it is the conglomerate that is going to trade on the market, not the
individual business units. They are changing their corporate structure to be
more like GE or Lockheed. All the units will still be summed together come
earnings time.

~~~
Nullabillity
According to the blog post the earnings reports will be separated by division.

~~~
cowsandmilk
That is just more transparency into internal operations. Different divisions
of Microsoft report separately, but a division taking a billion dollar write-
off still impacts the share price.

------
hyperpallium
At last, reversing Jobs' advice to combine everything, returning to the
original idea of trying lots of things. Maybe 20% time will see a resurgence,
too? Bonus: small, separate entities makes it easier to tackle new
opportunities (which start small) that wouldn't move the needle for Google -
as per Christensen.

> We did a lot of things that seemed crazy at the time. Many of those crazy
> things now have over a billion users, like Google Maps, YouTube, Chrome, and
> Android.

Seems disingenuous, since YouTube and Android (at least) were acquisitions.

~~~
_delirium
Won't this make it more awkward to do something like 20% time? It sounds like
the experimental stuff will be split out from the core "Google" business, and
employees will work for either one or the other.

~~~
hyperpallium
20% time would be for nascent, university-like pre-startup projects. The
conglomerate structure would give them somewhere to go, without needing to fit
into search. But I admit, that's quite a leap. An internal-YC would fill the
gap, but there's no evidence they're doing that. So I think you've torpedoed
my idea.

------
dluan
Congrats _the founders of Google_. Monumental move.

I have very fond memories of early Google.com, and there always used to be a
vivid spirit in their products that everything was so experimental and
technically on the edge. That feeling has been gone for a very long time, but
since Larry has come back it's been slowly returning. Call me what you want,
but I feel like this is such a smart move for the founders' freedom to
explore.

And the way they announced it is totally in line with the spirit. I'm sure
there was a lot of technical work, and will be more, but they way it's all
hidden in the back so that they can focus on the most important parts. I'm a
fan.

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

~~~
dspeyer
Bored and overwhelmed.

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

This is a better solution.

------
blackbeard
Sounds like Google is turning into Umbrella Corporation:
[http://umbrellacorporation.jp/aboutus.html](http://umbrellacorporation.jp/aboutus.html)

Life sciences, life extension, military, information, telecommunications all
under one umbrella company.

~~~
olalonde
Clicking around the website, this is most likely not an actual company but a
spoof of the evil conglomerate from the Resident Evil games/films:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Resident_Evil_characte...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Resident_Evil_characters#Umbrella_Corporation)

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

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

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

~~~
blackbeard
Good points :)

------
electricblue
I had to look at my system clock a few times to make sure today isn't the
first of april.

------
Osmium
Makes sense. Hopefully this can stabilise the Google brand as something more
reliable (fewer products that are launched one day, taken down the next),
while still allowing them to experiment. The name is genius too; it suggests
that there will be other companies equal to Google's stature one day ("G is
for Google, H is for ...another billion dollar company?").

------
HugoDaniel
I read "mad sex" on the cubes of their alphabet landing page :/ is this on
purpose or am i that much of a pervert ?

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

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

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

------
knes
It's almost as if they read "the outsiders"[0]

[0] [http://www.amazon.com/The-Outsiders-Unconventional-
Radically...](http://www.amazon.com/The-Outsiders-Unconventional-Radically-
Blueprint/dp/1422162672)

~~~
storgendibal
Yes! Both FB and now G are organized this way. Warren Buffet is really
something else.

------
thought_alarm
[http://alphabet.com](http://alphabet.com) is getting hammered right now.

~~~
webXL
Not sure if that's good or bad for Alphabet International. Why would thousands
of people (just a guess) hearing this news just assume that's the new domain??

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

~~~
idlewords
You can't really make this analogy work, because the Ottoman Empire's basic
problem was how to handle succession. It's not that they went broke paying for
pyramid maintenance.

This parallel will be more apt if Alphabet board members start constantly
strangling each other with silken cords, and the company develops a mercenary
slave class that dominates decisions over who runs what division. Time will
tell!

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

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

------
reneberlin
I'd like to know what margin did the namefinding-company get paid for this
extraordinary creation. And who owns all these super simple domains in all the
.tlds. And what will they get paid for to let them own them? "Example" was
under the near winners but didn't succeed. I am waiting for the artworks to
see for "alphabet" in RGBA/cmyk/svg.

------
ErikAugust
They don't even own alphabet.com. Not signaling strength (sarcasm).

Also, feel bad for the owners of that domain as it is effectively being
DDoS'ed.

------
smohnot
Fun game: Name Google products A-Z without looking them up! Here's what I got:
Android, Blogger, Chrome, Drive, Earth, Finance, Google, Hangouts, Inbox,
Jaiku, Keep, Local, Maps, Now, Offers, Picasa, Questions, Reader (RIP),
Search, Translate, U??, Voice, Waze, X Labs, Youtube, Zagat... I couldn't
think of anything for U and Jaiku was a bit of a stretch

~~~
tyingq
>>I couldn't think of anything for U

Also a stretch, but...

universal analytics or maybe url shortener? (goo.gl)

------
zippzom
Doesn't this completely change what you are buying when you buy GOOGL shares?

It used to be you were investing in a search/ad company that owned a lot of
other stuff. Now you are investing in a company that owns the leading
search/ad company.

The difference is obviously academic but I think it will make a difference in
how the shares are traded. Perception drives the market after all.

------
mohaps
ha! Any problem in Software Engineering can be solved by adding another layer
of abstraction! :D

~~~
storgendibal
LOL!

------
mattzito
This seems largely, at my admittedly brief viewing, to try to quell some of
the structural concerns around all of these "non-core" businesses that the
Artist Formerly Known as Google are participating in.

I think it will streamline the management of all of these different
businesses, at least make it clear where Larry and Sergey are focusing their
efforts.

------
allencoin
Oh, I get it. Alphabet.

Alpha Bet.

They're making a Bet on the Alpha versions of these products.

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

~~~
shas3
Many large companies in other sectors are structured like this. Google,
through its diverse acquisitions has now, in that sense, become like a lot of
the older conglomerates like GE, Berkshire Hathaway, Raytheon, DuPont,
Honeywell, UTC, 3M, etc. To different extents, these are all organized like
Alphabet will be. Take branding: core products may be sold under the company's
name, other products may be sold in a nearly autonomous fashion. Similarly,
quarterly earnings calls are centered on the performance of each of these sub-
units.

~~~
mehrzad
I thought the GP was asking whether a conglomerate was formed in this bottom-
up restructuring before. Many of the other conglomerates seemed to have become
large through parent companies making or buying subsidiaries, not a subsidiary
forming the parent.

~~~
akhilcacharya
Yes, that's exactly what I was asking.

------
sethammons
The first thing that went through my mind (with some additional work, and all
that is needed is illustrations and a publisher..):

A is for Asynchronous, the way our code should be

B is for Beta, the first stage of our code the user will see

C is for Capacity, for this planning helps our hardware not fail,

planning capacity helps our product meet our users at scale

.

D is for Datagram, which you may not get from me

E is for E-tag, for caching is key

F is for Freedom, the state information wants to achieve,

follow information through history if you want to believe

.

G is for Google, the advertising and indexing whale

H is for Hystrix, because Netflix Tools are for scale

I is for the Internet, for without it, many start-ups would fail

I is also for iPhone who's apparently in jail

.

J is for Javascript, with a new frameworks each week

K is for Kill, because scripts can misbehave and memory can leak

L is for LifeSize, for meetings about meetings must be

M is for Metadata, because tracking in bulk is (mumble, mumble, something,
something), look! "privacy!"

.

N is for NoSQL, for relational data is dead

O is for Octocat, who houses our code so it is not in our head

P is for a Penguin named tux

Q is for Quiet, lost to the the tide of the open office flux

.

R is for Rabbit, because some problems require a Queue

S is for Secure, for we have our our user's data to lose

T is for the terminal, for how else can we see ascii Star Wars

U is for UTF-8, who's lack of handling makes bugs in our source

.

V is for Vitesse, never has mysql DBs been so easy to scale

W is for the 5 Whys, that guides us in post-motems when we fail

X is for Executable, which chmod can help our script to be

Y is for YCombinator, for many a start up, encubators are key

.

And Z is for Zsh, not your ordinary shell

These are the letters, remember them well

These are the letters, from A to Z

These are the letters, next time will you please say them with me?

[edit: format, typo]

------
sangd
Congrats! It's a new chapter for Google, an exciting beginning for Alphabet.
It definitely broke PG's theory on the .com

~~~
arihant
Not really. Alphabet.com is crashed and is down since the press release. So _a
lot_ of people are doing what PG suspected.

~~~
sangd
Those are conventional. “Google is not a conventional company. We do not
intend to become one.”

------
ucaetano
You can now think of Alphabet/Google as the Berkshire Hathaway of technology.

While BH uses money from a cash cow business (insurance) to build a portfolio
of companies that look like the established economy, and manage those
companies in an exceptional way, improving individual returns while reducing
overall unsystematic risk (effectively using good management to move beyond
the Markowitz efficiency frontier), Google will use money from a cash cow
business (Ads) to build a portfolio of companies the look like the new
economy, using effective management in the same way.

------
_stephan
Will the non-Google Alphabet companies still have access to Google's software
engineering infrastructure?

~~~
ithkuil
They will probably have to "pay" for it. It will make it easier to figure out
net gains and losses within each venture. I expect this to increase the
reported revenue of Google (infrastructure), as significant costs incur in
infrastructure management.

On the other hand is also possible that Alphabet companies can use the
google's "cloud" infrastructure with a significant discount.

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

~~~
_stephan
*can be commoditized

------
anon4
_What is Alphabet? Alphabet is mostly a collection of companies. .... Alphabet
is about businesses prospering through strong leaders and independence. In
general, our model is to have a strong CEO who runs each business, with Sergey
and me in service to them as needed. We will rigorously handle capital
allocation and work to make sure each business is executing well. We 'll also
make sure we have a great CEO for each business, and we’ll determine their
compensation._

The King and his vassals, ladies and gentlemen.

------
scott_karana
I'm really confused why they wouldn't chose to incorporate a "new Google", and
split out all its other ventures, future _and existing_ , as subsidiaries,
rather than make a new brand and relegate their previously mainone to
subsidiary status, with its own sub-subsidiaries.

Legal issues, I presume? Or are Brin and Page just having identity crises?

I don't think anyone will care if they see "Foobar, an Alphabet company" in
the same way they would if it was Google, in any case.

~~~
bsimpson
Are there any prominent ventures (aside from YouTube) that aren't being spun
out?

~~~
scott_karana
The self-driving cars appear to be staying with Google for now.

It would also have been nice to see Drive/Docs/Mail split off from
Search/Advertising, but that's definitely a pie in the sky dream on my part ;)

~~~
jeffgreco
I believe self-driving cars are part of Google X, which is now a separate
division from Google.

------
evanwarfel
I've always wondered why we don't see more of the studio model (like Pixar) in
tech companies. Especially ones focused on innovation -- Thomas Edison didn't
just invent a single product, and that trend still influences how GE operates
today. It's a bit of a stretch, but with some fuzziness around the boundaries,
the idea of an over-arching studio seems to mostly describe YCombinator too.

------
adventured
This is Google moving into a structure akin to Berkshire Hathaway, which is
something the Google founders have admired for a long time. They're changing
into a conglomerate, run with a thin layer of management at the top. Their
talk about empowering strong CEOs, and having the subsidiary companies operate
independently, is an exact copy of what Buffett does in regards to businesses
owned by Berkshire.

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

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

------
ThomPete
This is potentially a very clever move when you put this into the perspective
with one of googles major issues of being too dominant.

If I was a conspiracy nut I would say this way it's harder for ex. the EU or
any other political entity to claim they have any dominant positions as such.

~~~
icebraining
It's not. The parts of Google that caused concern to the EC (Search, Shopping
and Android) are still under the same company.

------
acaloiar
Yesterday upon seeing the headline "Google Forms new Company" elsewhere, I
assumed that Google spun their Google Forms product off into a company named
Alphabet. I was profoundly confused as to how Google Forms necessitated an
entire new business entity.

I'm not a proud man.

------
suprgeek
All of the announcement makes sense except the part where the Conglomerate is
the one that is trading on the market. Are the hived-off business separate in
any sense if at earnings time everything sinks or swims together? the most
logical move would be to trade the new GOOG

------
xbmcuser
Aplphabet is likely to ipo Google fiber now as it is something that needs big
capital investments.

------
wallzz
They just changed the name of the global entity, I wonder why people are
surprised by this move, I think nothing will change for the users or in the
company, they will just try to create next companies by filling the letters of
their alphabet which is a silly move.

------
mrwilliamchang
Sounds like Alphabet is setup to do lots of major acquisitions. Game changer
for tech ecosystem.

~~~
mtgx
Will Alphabet buy Apple? (with the trillions it will make from Planetary
Resources, which I assume will incorporate as well eventually). Apple even has
a letter reserved for it - The A in Alphabet.

~~~
empyrical
I thought the A might end up being Android? (though it doesnt seem as if
Android has split off from Google yet)

------
BashiBazouk
Odd name choice. I would think it would open up all kinds of Trademark
problems. Alphabet as a key word in a business name must be pretty widespread
and across many industries, both trademarked and not.

------
wbillingsley
Is it just the cynic in me that thinks "We wanted to move Larry and Sergei
upstairs, but Eric's in that seat; so we had to create a cool new upstairs to
move them to"?

------
rmason
Am I the only one who came away wondering why they didn't buy the domain
alphabet.com?

The company that owns it, ascio.com, isn't even using it. Or perhaps they were
a bit too greedy?

~~~
mxuribe
If their intent is to continue to be a non-traditional company then it makes
sense to __NOT __stick to a predictable /conventional .COM domain. Specific to
their chosen domain name, while I'm not crazy about this .XYZ domain
extension, I give google...er...I mean, Alphabet awesomely big props for
choosing a very different domain extension. Even though one might consider
these guys Da Man, I feel choosing an alternative domain extension is a mild
manner of "sticking it to Da Man". Since so many decent combos for a .COM are
taken, its like having all new real estate created from next-to-nothing. I for
one greatly favor having an internet with myriad and varied domain extensions.
Kudos to Alphabet/Google for at least this seemingly small gesture!!

------
stephendicato
All I can think of is "Hooli XYZ - The moonshot factory".

[http://www.hooli.xyz/#inspiration](http://www.hooli.xyz/#inspiration)

~~~
tmpforareason
Nice catch, i am curious now if the silicon valley text written by knowing
this?

------
techwizrd
I love how they buried the "Sundar Pichai is new Google CEO" bit in there. In
any case, this sounds promising and it'll be interesting to see how this plays
out.

------
anuraj
The diversification seems to be going in the way of the conglomerate - and
conglomerate tax shall apply - whether it is Google or not! Hope it does not
turn dystopian though.

------
wineisfine
I wonder if, besides the obviously healthy restructuring, this is also to
anticipate on future anti trust issues. It seems like they're getting one step
ahead like this.

------
normloman
Here's another possibility: Google's taking a page from the Innovators
Dilemma, and moving their disruptive projects away from corporate meddling.
Most innovative projects die at big corps because they don't fit into the
companies existing business model. Walling-off self driving cars and contact
lenses from Google's core business could give it the room it needs to grow
(before some VP of whatever cuts the project for not being profitable).

------
pitchups
Larry Page has been described as possibly the most ambitious CEO on the
planet, and this announcement certainly bears that out. Alphabet represents an
ambitious attempt at reinventing Google. Possibly fraught with risk - but
again Larry seems to be following his own advice of "having a healthy
disregard for the impossible". So they are attempting to do something crazy -
break up and restructure the company rather than stay comfortable.

------
FlailFast
Seems like Alphabet (Google/Page/Brin) and Facebook (Zuckerberg) are in a race
to become the Berkshire Hathaway of the Internet.

~~~
eatonphil
Are they really on the same playing field, though?

------
orionblastar
Alphabet is just a way that Google can control its liabilities. Each
subdivision can be closed off or sold if it has trouble. Not take down the
other subdivisions when that happens.

Oracle is suing over Android using Java APIs, Alphabet can move Android to its
own subdivision if they lose the lawsuit and close it off or sell it off and
then develop a new mobile OS to replace it.

------
silasdavis
Perhaps this partly pre-empts threats to split up Google's search from 'other
businesses', [https://recode.net/2015/04/20/eu-competition-
commissioner-i-...](https://recode.net/2015/04/20/eu-competition-commissioner-
i-have-no-grudge-against-google/)

------
franciscomello
Great question now that GOOG/GOOGL is on the spotlight: Why should any
investor pay a multiple (expensive, by the way) and get exposure to Google
Ventures/Google Capital/Google's other crazy ideas, when he/she can just
invest in Sequoia, A16Z, KKR, and other VC, growth equity, or private equity
managers at book value?

------
carlosgg
Sundar Pichai's 2014 interview with Times of India

[http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tech/tech-news/New-
sense-...](http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tech/tech-news/New-sense-of-
excitement-in-India-Googles-Sundar-Pichai-
says/articleshow/42561195.cms?prtpage=1)

------
pgroves
Seems very similar to how Berkshire Hathaway treats it's companies. CEOs run
the companies, a small group at the top adds/removes companies. There is one
company listed on the stock exchange, etc.

It's noteworthy that Berkshire Hathaway _refuses_ to deal with technology
companies, while Google is exclusively tech.

------
xd1936
I'm cool with it. "Google+ Photos" and "Google+ Hangouts" being separated into
"Google Photos" and "Hangouts" helps with clarity. So does splitting Google
(Google X, Nest, Google research stuff, Google Ventures) up into purposeful,
yet distinct, companies.

------
xasos
Wow, didn't know this was so popular overseas as well:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaebol](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaebol)

i.e. Japan Display Inc. is a conglomerate that encompasses the LCD businesses
of Sony, Toshiba, and Hitachi

~~~
ewang1
Chaebols are in a league of their own.

------
teddyuk
I don't understand why everyone thinks this is a bad idea, it is great - run
the profitable business as a separate business, use the profits to invest in
fun things and also promote people to CEO instead of watching them go CEO
somewhere else (yahoo etc).

It is a win win for everyone.

------
jgalt212
I fail to see this as anything but some preemptive move against European Union
findings/rulings.

------
damcedami
Now every school book which have "abc" as hypothetical company name should be
changed.

------
Vaanir
Google does not own [https://www.alphabet.com/](https://www.alphabet.com/)

Thought I'd link this to:

[http://www.paulgraham.com/name.html](http://www.paulgraham.com/name.html)

------
slantedview
To the extent that shareholders are driving pressure to separate the
experimental bets with the more stable parts of the business, I'm not sure
that I understand the point of replacing Google's stock/ticker with a new one.
Any insight here?

------
edpichler
I did not like the name, it remembers me the Amazon original copy (from A to
Z).

But I like Google company, really well administrated, it's easy to see on the
annual release reports. Despite the not so good name, they are doing a great
job and the right next step.

------
archagon
Funny, I would have expected a better hashing algorithm from the likes of
Google. ;)

------
catnaroek
My email is abc.deaf.xyz@gmail.com. I'm pretty sure they used my email as a
source of inspiration for the name of their company. And they aren't giving me
my fair share!

(Just joking. Except for my email, that part is 100% true.)

------
grayclhn
I wasn't expecting a "thanks for joining our incredible journey" post from
google.*

* [http://ourincrediblejourney.tumblr.com/](http://ourincrediblejourney.tumblr.com/)

------
tdaltonc
If android were acquired today, would the really be brought in to the google
core?

~~~
reustle
I think it has to do with how tight Google Services and Android are. Android
is less of an operating system and more of a Google services device in your
pocket (mail/docs/photos/etc)

~~~
tdaltonc
Sure, but would it have become that if it had been segregated in 'A' after
acquisition? Would it have "graduated" into Google proper at some point?

~~~
reustle
I think they are moving away from grading "into" Google. I get the vibe they
want most serious non-related stuff out on its own.

------
xbmcuser
They are separating web and tech companies from its other companies. Google
might be a wholly owned subsidiary but other companies like Google fiber they
could probably now IPO separately to get the capital investments needed to
expand without diluting the google shareholder value or loose control. Today
Alphabet has some good things coming up but as they are tied to google they
are unable to attract talent as they are not expecting much growth overall as
these days as most employees are expecting stock options but those are not
worth much if the upside is so little. Getting stock options in a Alphabet
owned subsidiary that is worth maybe less than a billion but has the upside of
being worth 100 billion. We are looking at the beginning of the Umbrella
corporation.

------
smoyer
Call me cynical but I'm of the opinion that this will help them continue
operating the non-Internet businesses in places where the Internet businesses
are facing regulation and/or sanctions.

------
madhurbehl
A is for Automobiles. H is for Healthcare. D is for Defence. E is for Energy.
M is for Medicine. R is for Robotics

This will become the Umbrella corporation from the resident evil fame :P

------
fuzzythinker
I was really checking if today is April 1st when reading this.

------
breatheoften
What effect will this have on the mono-repo debate?

[http://danluu.com/monorepo/](http://danluu.com/monorepo/)

------
calewis
G is for tax evasion.

------
Animats
It's too early to tell what this means. It may be a first step to spinning off
some of the non-core businesses.

Who gets Google's airport in Mountain View?

------
nicolethenerd
>> Susan is doing a great job as CEO, running a strong brand and driving
incredible growth.

Is this supposed to say Sundar? Kind of an awkward mistake to make.

~~~
sheldoan
Susan Wojcicki is the CEO of YouTube

------
_mikz
[https://www.google.com/search?q=abc.xyz](https://www.google.com/search?q=abc.xyz)

No Alphabet there.

~~~
Aissen
Inside my bubble, they're 6th. Outside, 4th. Google is fast.

~~~
JorgeGT
Second now here

------
akilism
isn't amazon already doing the a->z thing

~~~
bbcbasic
and Andreessen horowitZ

------
loso
I wonder where this puts the robot stuff that Google was doing? I assume it
will be under Alphabet as well as Nest.

------
dspeyer
What do we know about Sundar? It sounds like he's really taking over Google.
Is he likely to be up to it?

------
hkmurakami
And so Google becomes Berkshire Hathaway.

------
have_faith
I'm very interested in the effect this will have on the public perception of
Google as a company.

------
trequartista
Is $GOOG going the Berkshire Hathaway route? Conglomerate with a lot of non-
related subsidiaries?

------
hessenwolf
Alphabet just sounds evil, a bit like Umbrella Corp, E-Corp, etc. I am not a
fan of the name.

------
closetnerd
Something similar to Virgin I suppose. To keep other ventures from harming
Google.

------
31reasons
A for Apple! hmm does that mean they are going to acquire Apple ? :)

------
Yuioup
The guy who owns the @alphabet twitter handle is going to be rich.

------
jonnycowboy
Does Google robotics fall under ventures/capital or Google X?

------
faragon
"Don't bite off more than you can chew", anyone?

------
f00644
Will this still be based as a US registered company then?

------
abcxyz123
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Brother_and_the_Holding_Co...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Brother_and_the_Holding_Company)

------
skybison
Google, you need to watch this:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QTzJ09tqLjY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QTzJ09tqLjY)
#alphabet :) :)

------
sethd
Yet another web page that requires JavaScript to be enabled simply to read
some text: [https://abc.xyz](https://abc.xyz)

------
motyar
Sorry, but isnt .xyz for nsfw sites?

~~~
Noctem
.xyz is intended to be generic; you're probably thinking of .xxx.

~~~
motyar
Yes. I was wrong

------
pietaalpha
Now there are two names one for earth (ads) and one for moon (riskier things),
earth gives money for moon projects.

------
staunch
The Google Guys are now VCs.

~~~
cowsandmilk
_cough_ gv.com _cough_

This is not venture capital.

~~~
staunch
Larry and Sergey never had anything to do with Google Ventures. It was
intentionally kept separate and managed by Bill Maris. It operates on a $100m+
a year fund.

Alphabet, Inc will be operated by the two Google Guys with billions in
funding.

> _We will rigorously handle capital allocation and work to make sure each
> business is executing well. We 'll also make sure we have a great CEO for
> each business, and we’ll determine their compensation._

They're venture capitalists in all but name.

------
dotori
Alphabet (the main company)

B

Calico (focused on longevity)

Capital (investment)

D

E

Fiber

Google (now led by Sundar Pichai and includes search, ads, maps, apps,
YouTube, and Android)

H

I

J

K

Life Sciences ("that works on the glucose-sensing contact lens")

M

Nest

O

P

Q

R

S

T

U

Ventures (investment)

W

X lab ("which incubates new efforts like Wing, our drone delivery effort")

Y

Z

~~~
kevindeasis
A is for Alphabet Android AI B is for Boston Dynamics C is for Calico D is for
Defense E is for Evil / Eden Project F is for Fiber G is for Google H is for
Haptics I is for Intercontinental J is for Justice K is for Kardashev-1 L is
for Lifelike Experiments M is for Memetics N is for Nest O is for Open Source
P is for Paige Q is for Quantum R is for Revitalization S is for
Superintelligence T is for Terraforming U is for Umbrella V is for Variable
Ethics W is for Web Driver Torso X is for X Labs Y is for Yotta Scale
Computing YOutube Z is for Zombies

------
rel
Congratulations to Sundar!

------
asurty
Is it me or is alphabet.com timing out? Can't wait to see what they put up
there. :D

------
reneberlin
I am sure this has nothing to do with the plans the EU has with regulations.
Nothing.

------
bitL
When the letters for the new companies run out, will they form kan.ji? ;-)

------
dcosson
Crazy they picked a name where they don't own the .com

~~~
tschuy
Looks like Alphabet.com whois was updated on August 3rd through a domain
holding company. Maybe they do?

~~~
selllikesybok
B is for BMW.

------
paragpatelone
T is for Tesla

------
faithfone
To be the person who owns alphabet.com right now...

~~~
bbali
that website is getting hammered right now

------
MrBra
Yes, but what's there to upvote like so?

------
oneJob
can't wait to see the updated privacy terms

------
reneberlin
alphabet.com needs a good spam-filter now. Maybe google could help them out?

------
seanbo
am I the only one who wants to hurl reading this?

~~~
overgard
nope. I'm not a google fan boy but it's pretty sad watching a once great
company do.. whatever this is? It's hard to even have a reaction because it
defies reasoning.

~~~
seanbo
thanks just making sure im still sane haha

------
JoeCoder_
And A is for Anti-Trust avoidance

------
beedogs
S is for shark. J is for jumping.

------
hisabness
is this just an admission that they're trying to monopolize every industry in
the world?

------
0x4a42
So I guess A is Adsense.

~~~
twright
This is what I'm really wondering about, how much will things get split up?

\- Y for YouTube (easy)

\- C for Chrome (probably not)

\- ? for Gmail

\- ? for Analytics (or does that stick with AdSense?)

------
tmpforareason
I bought samaltman.xyz, let me know if you need it.

------
Mikho
So, no "OK Google" any more on Android. It's "OK Alphabet"!

------
shogun21
With all their existing products/acquisitions, Alphabet will soon run out of
letters!

------
djhworld
on the one hand, cool, on the other, it just seems like Google has gone up
it's own arse.

I mean, alphabet? really?

------
diablosnuevos
"C is for cookie, that's good enough for me."

------
revelation
So much for "you need that .com".

------
endergen
This is just some razzle dazzle to make it less jarring that Google's founders
want to focus on their hobbies and not run Google proper.

------
tacone
What's N for?

 _update_ : downvoters got the joke :-)

~~~
TheCoreh
Nintendo. Just imagine if they announced that acquisition, hahaha

------
Skunkleton
When does this all roll under the sheinhardt wig company?

------
rch
Looking forward to [https://abc.xyz/soup/](https://abc.xyz/soup/)

------
rm_-rf_slash
The day I call Google "Alphabet" is the day I refer to the rapper as "Snoop
Lion."

~~~
rrss1122
You would be way late on that. Even he dropped Snoop Lion.

------
overgard
Google you're drunk, go home.

Ok more seriously as a customer: uh, what the hell just happened?

"Hey you know that great brand we had? Yeah lets pivot towards ... letters.
That children learn"

~~~
overgard
So I normally don't comment on downvotes because, you know, whatever, but I'm
really looking forward to the posts about how this is a great idea.

"Hey you know how we had this brand that became synonymous with looking up all
information ever? Let's abandon that to be associated with, uh, letters."

Seriously it's not like "google" was a damaged brand. I'm not going to
"alphabet" shit.

~~~
isbadawi
From TFA: "I should add that we are not intending for this to be a big
consumer brand with related products--the whole point is that Alphabet
companies should have independence and develop their own brands."

~~~
overgard
So basically, they're becoming the most generic sounding holding company
possible, because people LOVE generic holding companies.

I know "lovability" isn't exactly a goal for companies, but if berkshire
hathaway became "abcdefg" I would make fun of them equally.

------
smitherfield
The cynic's translation is that the Goog board is cutting off the wackier
ventures (sorry - "making them self-financing") and kicking Larry and Sergei
upstairs.

------
awicklander
And T is for Twitter?

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

~~~
rrggrr
Yes. I think the anti-trust case is weaker if Twitter is wholly owned
subsidiary of Alphabet, instead of Google.

On a broader scale I think Google is gearing up to aquire its way out of areas
of stunted growth for the company. A number of businesses haven't taken off:

Twitter :: Google Real-Time Box :: Google Drive At Enterprise Level 8x8 ::
Google Voice

(I own none of these stocks)

------
reneberlin
Google will do no evil - we know, because we've been told so long (tax
trickeries excluded). But what will Alphabet be allowed to do?

------
pasbesoin
Larry, one nit: It's "have striven". Although these day, I'm guessing "have
strived" may be an accepted alternative form.

------
EGreg
Can we apply for the letter Q?

[http://qbix.com/blog](http://qbix.com/blog) :-)

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

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

~~~
icebraining
What's evil about it?

The idea that they're "hiding" from the EU crackdown is ridiculous. They know
perfectly well it doesn't work like that.

~~~
ocdtrekkie
More of a loophole maybe than hiding. Like perhaps being one big company in
the US, but somehow being "separate" companies that "don't collaborate" in the
EU?

There's other suggestions as to why, either to prevent experiments from
tarnishing Google's brand, or to ensure Google's separate products can survive
the eventual failure of the ad market.

