
Google management shuffle points to retreat from Alphabet experiment - ilyaeck
https://www.wsj.com/articles/google-management-shuffle-points-to-retreat-from-alphabet-experiment-11575579677
======
dzdt
As usual, I like Matt Levine's take. [1]

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...](https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-12-04/alphabet-
is-google-again)

~~~
mantap
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.

~~~
abalone
_> 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.

~~~
OnlineGladiator
> 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.

~~~
spookthesunset
iPhones were originally an accessory to iTunes. What you complain about is all
software. Software is changeable.

~~~
sneak
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.

~~~
zepto
Yes but that’s irrelevant to the point.

~~~
sneak
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_.

------
melling
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...](https://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/26/opinion/sunday/innovation-
and-the-bell-labs-miracle.html)

~~~
drawkbox
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](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pb5oIIPO62g)

~~~
chooseaname
> 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.

~~~
pasttense01
Nonsense. MBAs believe the money mostly has to be returned to management--who
get paid massive salaries and benefits for often mediocre results.

------
tim333
>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...](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-09-27/waymo-valuation-
slashed-on-autonomous-vehicle-tech-delays)) which would make that 11% of the
valuation and probably other bits of other bets are worth something too.

~~~
endorphone
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.

~~~
drawkbox
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...](https://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Business-trends/Google-s-Waymo-
unseats-Toyota-as-automated-driving-patent-king)

[2] [https://patents.justia.com/assignee/waymo-
llc](https://patents.justia.com/assignee/waymo-llc)

[3] [https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2019-10-09/waymo-
mapp...](https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2019-10-09/waymo-mapping-los-
angeles-driverless-taxis)

~~~
bayarrhea
That’s a long way of saying Waymo isn’t making any money.

~~~
drawkbox
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.

~~~
scarface74
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.

~~~
drawkbox
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...](https://www.howtogeek.com/183766/why-microsoft-
makes-5-to-15-from-every-android-device-sold/)

~~~
scarface74
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.

~~~
drawkbox
> _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.

~~~
scarface74
_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.

~~~
drawkbox
> _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.

~~~
scarface74
* 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...](http://www.cloudcomputing-
news.net/news/2018/may/30/office-365-usage-goes-and-leaving-g-suite-behind-
says-research/)

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?

------
jfoster
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.

~~~
MarkMc
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.

~~~
repsilat
Funny, I'm sure a lot of people think the opposite, and that only proves your
point more.

~~~
OnlineGladiator
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.

~~~
hobofan
> 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?

~~~
OnlineGladiator
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.

------
tyingq
If you're having trouble reading it:
[https://outline.com/pGLZ6U](https://outline.com/pGLZ6U)

~~~
bitpush
I dont know how what you did is legal.

From [https://www.outline.com/dmca.html](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.

~~~
tyingq
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.

------
summerlight
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".

~~~
notatoad
>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.

------
crazygringo
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.

~~~
jorblumesea
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.

~~~
puranjay
Wasn't YouTube a separate entity under Alphabet, and not a part of Google?
That alone would be a $100B company

~~~
skinnymuch
It would be. But it doesn’t make money. Someone has to pay for it still.

~~~
crazygringo
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...](https://www.wsj.com/articles/ok-google-hows-youtube-
doing-11556896078)

~~~
skinnymuch
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.

~~~
crazygringo
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...

~~~
bscphil
> 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.

~~~
skinnymuch
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.

------
giancarlostoro
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](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breakup_of_the_Bell_System)

~~~
basch
why is it assumed they wont appoint a new Google CEO in the next 6 months to a
year?

~~~
tyingq
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.

~~~
basch
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.

~~~
scarface74
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.

~~~
basch
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.

~~~
scarface74
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.

~~~
basch
>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.

------
sys_64738
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.

------
neonate
[http://archive.is/zBtGp](http://archive.is/zBtGp)

------
partingshots
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).

------
HSO
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.

~~~
abvdasker
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).

------
m23khan
I wonder if Google’s project Sidewalk Labs in Toronto would be affected as
well.

------
buboard
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.

------
sunstone
Alternatively it could be seen as retreating from the Larry and Sergey
experiment.

------
irrational
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/alphabet-
is-google-again)

~~~
tssva
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.

~~~
smt88
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.

~~~
SpicyLemonZest
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.

~~~
MereInterest
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.

~~~
SpicyLemonZest
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.

------
varjag
First the Reader, now the Alphabet.

~~~
popup21
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.

~~~
dylan604
>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.

~~~
ghaff
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.

~~~
scarface74
RSS has not “withered”. True very few people use it, but every site still
supports rss where it makes sense.

~~~
ghaff
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.

~~~
scarface74
Why do you care if other people use it as long as it is available?

~~~
ghaff
Because when things aren't used, organizations such as, say, Google tend to
stop supporting them over time.

~~~
scarface74
It’s been over a decade since Google abandoned reader. RSS is just a check box
in most CMSs.

