
Sergey Brin's statement published as SEC filing - poloolop
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1288776/000119312515211328/d935572ddefa14a.htm
======
karissa
It's probably because the shareholders only care about ads and making more
money. He's probably trying to reframe the discussion.

I have a bad feeling that Google is going to have a hard time continuing the
way they are without some serious deliverables. I think this is why you can't
expect C corporations to continue to "be good citizens" and really push the
envelope.

Being on the stock market is a lot like being on the stocks. Hostage.

~~~
dylanjermiah
>It's probably because the shareholders only care about ads and making more
money.

Not necessarily. Firstly, the only reason people purchase a stock is for that
stock to be worth more in the future, they're taking a risk and making an
investment. Nothing at all wrong with that. Secondly, I'm a Google
shareholder, one who hopes the stock will be worth more in the future than I
payed for, the advertising business is very important, the advertising
business is essentially funding all their other ventures, which have the
potential to replace the ad business and continue the cycle.

~~~
crdoconnor
>the advertising business is essentially funding all their other ventures,
which have the potential to replace the ad business and continue the cycle.

I'd never make a bet on any corporation being willing to branch out into
something new that will cannibalize its core business. It just doesn't happen.
Ever.

~~~
NamTaf
He's not saying it'll cannibalise the core business, he said it'd replace it
by becoming a bigger profit centre. For example, Nintendo started out in
playing cards and went via hotels among other things before arriving at
electronics.

~~~
dylanjermiah
Yep :) One day search will not be relevant, Google is trying very hard to
figure out what will be important.

------
kcanini
For all of you pontificating on the meaning of this... This is the annual
founder's letter. The previous one was also published by the SEC:
[http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1288776/0001193125141...](http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1288776/000119312514199146/d726654ddefa14a.htm)

------
DiabloD3
I'm wondering if Google going public was a mistake. Whats the point of being
"rich" and a "Google shareholder" and other temporary states of existence, if
we never get self-driving cars or cure major diseases or get gigabit Internet
or get cell phone service that isn't shit.

Seriously, no matter how rich you are, two of those won't happen for you (cure
diseases, cell phone service), one of them won't happen the way Google
envisions it (the car; even if YOU have a self driving car, you're not likely
going to be the drunk driver that kills you, some other poor shmuck that
doesn't have a self driving car is), and the last, the gigabit Internet, yes,
you can just have the metro ethernet with a gigabit or greater port installed
at your house, but the general Internet, the stuff we access normally, isn't
designed, optimized, or otherwise meant for speeds that fast, and generally
will be massively wasted potential if you're using gigabit for content
consumption instead of production and dissemination.

I'm perfectly happy with Google blowing my money on shit I want. What use is
money if I can't buy what I really want in the first place? Money keeps
turning into some weird hoarding game where the rule are made up and the
points may have never mattered in the first place. Money and resources are
infinite, but so is human suffering, and since I'm still a human being, the
suffering of others fundamentally makes me unhappy.

I'm tired of being unhappy.

~~~
jfoster
Why wouldn't we get those things due to Google having gone public? It seems
they are working on them despite having gone public.

~~~
Tobani
As a publicly traded company they are required to be concerned with
shareholder value. These pet projects may not increase shareholder value in
direct or obvious ways and there is a limit to the amount they can spend on
unprofitable endeavors.

~~~
jfoster
They seem to me like projects that will increase shareholder value in very
obvious ways.

Curing diseases is one of the ways that huge pharmaceutical companies make
money. They sell the cure to people who have no choice but to buy it.

Great cell phone service would allow Google to have a huge advantage over
other telcos, or enable dependence on Google from those telcos licensing the
technology.

Self-driving cars would potentially enable Google to operate a taxi-like
service at massively lower costs than traditional taxi services. By passing a
portion of the cost saving on to the consumer and having more reliable cars
ensuring a safer ride, they would dominate that industry.

I've not seen any evidence that these projects happening at Google are starved
of funding in any way.

~~~
TeMPOraL
The point is - I guess - that those are ways to increase shareholder value
_long-term_ , whereas people playing with money only care about _short-term_
profits. So between more ads making money now and curing cancer next decade,
shareholders will stupidly push for the former.

------
ProAm
Why is this posted to the SEC? Im confused, is there some requirement for
that?

~~~
adventured
It's most likely meant to illuminate topics for discussion at an upcoming
shareholder meeting, or to otherwise inform shareholders in general about the
things contained in the filing.

[http://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/sec-form-
def-14a.asp](http://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/sec-form-def-14a.asp)

------
dekhn
Frankly, I thought computers and displays in contact lenses were a pretty
obvious idea 20 years ago, but didn't seem like there was a market for it (not
clear there is one, beyond geeks who want an email HUD).

~~~
weinzierl
The contact lens in the filing has (almost) nothing to do with display
technology. It measures blood the sugar level continuously (1 Hz).

The only display technology related thing is integrated LEDs and it's not
clear if this has been done or not.

    
    
        [...] so we’re exploring integrating tiny LED lights 
        that could light up to indicate that glucose levels 
        have crossed above or below certain thresholds. 
    

[http://googleblog.blogspot.de/2014/01/introducing-our-
smart-...](http://googleblog.blogspot.de/2014/01/introducing-our-smart-
contact-lens.html)

~~~
dekhn
I understand that (I work for Google).

Surely you can appreciate there might be a longer game.

------
mcguire
Thanks for reminding me how much I hate reading SEC filings. Is this thing
even dated?

~~~
maxerickson
The filing is dated:

[https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1288776/000119312515...](https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1288776/000119312515211328/0001193125-15-211328-index.htm)

