That's what I'm saying though. They must be getting something out of this deal, otherwise why would they be going through with it?
The explanation that this is just financial engineering (which to me, means neither Google nor SpaceX is getting anything out of this other than looking better on paper) doesn't make sense to me. How does this financial engineering benefit Google?
Even if they have an exit option, why is Google (a private, separate, self-interested firm) giving a single dollar to SpaceX if the deal isn't mutually beneficial?
They’re getting compute. There was a free for all period when xAI did one smart thing and that’s build like there’s no tomorrow. Because tomorrow is today, and today jurisdictions are racing to pause datacenter construction.
This deal can't just be financial engineering, since that wouldn't make sense. They must be getting something out of this, i.e. compute.
Google is buying compute because they need it. That explanation works a lot better to me than one where Google is doing this purely for unrealized future gains on a minority stake in SpaceX.
So you think Google is going to spend $11B in hopes it will boost the value of the SpaceX stock, while pretending to public investors it's a multi-year thing, and then after 1yr sell off their SpaceX stock after the value rises while also ending the contract early?
I absolutely LOVED learning SQL on PostgreSQL, roughly 26-27 years ago (so, close to the 30 years cited there). I think I still retain at least 70-80% of all the knowledge I built back then, and it is the case probably because the way in which I learned was by DOING.
Definitely. Not to mention that their major investor, Sequoia, has been war profiteering and Sequoia partner Shaun Maguire has been publicly islamophobic and a huge supporter of the genocide and occupation in Palestine.
Well done, Drew!! And congrats on building an amazing company. Hope you'll get some rest before embarking in whatever is next.
Coincidentially, I know the new CEO, Ashraf Alkarmi; we met at AWS when he was launching Appstream, I believe back in 2013 if I'm not mistaken. It's funny to recognize a name. I am hopeful that he will do well as a CEO.
> but he correctly realized that it would ultimately be the most profitable to him if he could build legions of cars and had a large customer base that could afford them
I think that this is a common misconception. I can't find the reference, but I remember reading that this might have been a "marketing" or PR spin, rather than reality - which was, simply, that he needed to pay well to keep talented workers or take them from other industries.
Also the "five dollar day" was kind of a marketing gimmick too. Your daily pay was still $2.50, but if you stayed two years, went to church on Sundays, tithed, didn't go to bars, didn't go to union meetings, kept your house clean, and didn't send remittances overseas (and he had people checking on all of these things), you got the rest as a bonus in the form of savings bonds.
reply