Google's founders reality distorsion field turns Steve Jobs one into something almost unnoticeable.
Google's scheme of offering free services to the user in exchange of the monetization of his/her private data is a Faustian pact, that is, a diabolic one, in the true meaning of this term.
As it is the rule for such a pact, when the contracting party starts to realize its true implications, it is too late '....
In most corporation, the way they are structured, I'd agree with you. However, Apple's structure is unique and deliberately different. It is lean at the top; more so than must corporations. Even the number of Board of Directors is lean. You list a lot of products and services Apple is involved in, yet Apple see a few products and everything else is to support those products (the ecosystem). This allows a few top visionaries to direct the show as it relates to everything working together so the sum of the parts make a better whole.
Google, on the other hand has these completely unrelated products. One division is making home thermostats while another division is making robotic jackasses for the military. This begs for a whole different management structure. If you can't see this, then I have a barge or two to sell you.
Cool. I will definitely plan to get in touch if I am in the market for barges.
I was showing a group of middle schoolers a rotary phone and explaining how everyone in the household used the same phone... and one of the girls piped up and asked, "So, who got to pick the ring-tone."
I have to laugh though that Page talks about focus when this seems like anything but that. I do think this could put more pressure on Apple to use its cash pile for moonshot type stuff. Some Wall Street types will be calling for Apple's version of Google X.
I think this Alphabet Soup is totally unnecessary. I think it shows that Google needs adult supervision. The current execs are incapable of organizing and managing the company and turning it into an Alphabet soup is not going to help. The 2 most valuable entities at Google at this time are Search and YouTube because of their advertising revenues. Nothing else has caught on at Google not even Android.
Google's top executives need to watch the following the following 2 videos carefully.
I have to laugh though that Page talks about focus when this seems like anything but that. I do think this could put more pressure on Apple to use its cash pile for moonshot type stuff. Some Wall Street types will be calling for Apple's version of Google X.
Apple would do a version that is totally secret, plant fake rumors as cover, and nobody would know about it until the reveal, or until it wrapped up and disappeared.. Google uses their labs as yet another self promotional; more cool kid status.
I can't believe how many in my Twitter feed got a boner over this news. As if holding companies were something new or innovative. Basically this is just a way to promote some people so they don't leave. It's like Tim Cook telling Bob Mansfield and Jony Ive they've been so successful at Apple they can write their own ticket and do whatever the hell they want.
I would disagree. IMO it should make the individual companies much more focused. Now their leadership can concentrate solely on their own businesses, succeed or fail on their own merits. The chances of the various companies being successful enterprises in their own right just went up with the new accountability and opportunities for recognition (and compensation!). I think it will be seen as a brilliant move, thus the excitement from investors.
With the exception of the Google entity, they are all massive money sinks. Like Motorola Iridium money sinks with less potential for profit.
I was showing a group of middle schoolers a rotary phone and explaining how everyone in the household used the same phone... and one of the girls piped up and asked, "So, who got to pick the ring-tone."
Haha that's great! There was only one ringtone, and it was called obnoxious!
It seems to prove that Google's management is much smarter than Apple's management. Apple has poured tens of billions of dollars into share repurchases and all it has done is driven Apple's share price into the toilet and lost the company $120 billion in market cap. Everything that Apple does only makes the share price go lower. Google does a simple company restructure and assigns new CEOs and a president and the share price shoots up 6% and $20 billion in market cap overnight. Why is it that Apple can't figure out how to do anything to increase the value of the company when other companies can do it so easily. Google's $20 billion gain in market cap is like free cash. It's not as if it increased revenue or profits. The only cost was the cost of restructuring the company which might have cost a couple of million dollars tops. On the other hand, Apple is spending money to lose money and that doesn't help shareholders at all. You watch Google's P/E go up to around 50 while Apple's P/E drops even further down. Eventually, Google's market cap will exceed Apple's market cap while only taking in a fraction of Apple's revenue and profits. Google is playing to win value while Apple is playing to lose value. That's a real bitch-slap to Apple shareholders.
sorry, but you have it all wrong. the point of Apple isn't to dick around with market prices, it's to delight its customers.
read this and you can get back on the right track, and start to understand Apple:
I would disagree. IMO it should make the individual companies much more focused. Now their leadership can concentrate solely on their own businesses, succeed or fail on their own merits. The chances of the various companies being successful enterprises in their own right just went up with the new accountability and opportunities for recognition (and compensation!). I think it will be seen as a brilliant move, thus the excitement from investors.
brilliant. absolutely...brilliant. what a stroke of genius.
This is what companies do when they have trashed their brand. Since Google Ads still remains their primary source of income it will continue to fuel their haphazard experiments, they're merely looking to distract from that experimentation, which has had a negative effect on Google stock, and an over-hyped source of vapourware.
Amusingly Sergey even tries to spin Google's rip-offs and loss-leaders as ideas "that seemed crazy at the time", sorry Sergey, but Maps, YouTube, Android and Chrome were never "crazy", three are acquisitions of popular products and the fourth is a fork of a popular open source project, none represent any real risk and each don't produce meaningful profit on their own, rather they are loss-leaders to put google ads in front of users.
Amazon has been doing a better job at diversifying. They're not just an online bookstore and haven't been in a long time. They're building a digital content (media) store, they have their own branded App Store and tablet hardware, and their cloud services are top notch. The cloud services make all the other things possible. Not all their businesses are successes (the Fire Phone was a mega flop), but they are not a one-trick pony.
how do you mean? this is a non product announcement, not dependent on Asian supply chain. kind of like....Apple's Swift announcement at wwdc 2014. complete surprise. had you heard of it beforehand? had it leaked? nope.
It seems to prove that Google's management is much smarter than Apple's management. Apple has poured tens of billions of dollars into share repurchases and all it has done is driven Apple's share price into the toilet and lost the company $120 billion in market cap. Everything that Apple does only makes the share price go lower. Google does a simple company restructure and assigns new CEOs and a president and the share price shoots up 6% and $20 billion in market cap overnight. Why is it that Apple can't figure out how to do anything to increase the value of the company when other companies can do it so easily. Google's $20 billion gain in market cap is like free cash. It's not as if it increased revenue or profits. The only cost was the cost of restructuring the company which might have cost a couple of million dollars tops. On the other hand, Apple is spending money to lose money and that doesn't help shareholders at all. You watch Google's P/E go up to around 50 while Apple's P/E drops even further down. Eventually, Google's market cap will exceed Apple's market cap while only taking in a fraction of Apple's revenue and profits. Google is playing to win value while Apple is playing to lose value. That's a real bitch-slap to Apple shareholders.
Shut the **** up, Constable Odo. Don't you feel shame creating so many sock puppet accounts?
Sell your AAPL, buy GOOG, and please spare us your never-ending, literally crazed verbal vomit. Oh, and get some help.
Amazon has been doing a better job at diversifying. They're not just an online bookstore and haven't been in a long time. They're building a digital content (media) store, they have their own branded App Store and tablet hardware, and their cloud services are top notch. The cloud services make all the other things possible. Not all their businesses are successes (the Fire Phone was a mega flop), but they are not a one-trick pony.
The problem with Amazon is profit margins in the retail sphere and they are not as competitive in selling as they were 10 years ago. Many are just as cheap or good these days.
Their backend, which they can leverage to offer Business services will be more profitable, but they'd also need more service oriented personnel to really make a stand there. They also have to contend with Microsoft and Google in that area (Apple is not a competition, they'll only "sell" to themselves).
Investors have been pretty sweet on Amazon considering how ridiculous its PE is. They have potential, but none that reflect their stock price.
I think this Alphabet Soup is totally unnecessary. I think it shows that Google needs adult supervision. The current execs are incapable of organizing and managing the company and turning it into an Alphabet soup is not going to help. The 2 most valuable entities at Google at this time are Search and YouTube because of their advertising revenues. Nothing else has caught on at Google not even Android.
Google's top executives need to watch the following the following 2 videos carefully.
Probably the best Steve "performance" ever. Amazing how forward thinking and clear it was. And how it has all played out almost exactly as outlined then, is quite incredible.
"There's a sucker born every minute." (usually attributed to P. T. Barnum)
First there were banking institutions and investment houses that, when trying to figure out how to get rid of those 'nasty stocks' that kept on losing money and were getting increasingly harder to dump, er, sell, that they came up with the bright idea of taking several hundred of them, throw them in a basket with a few good stocks and give the basket a name, pay a 'ratings company to give the basket a rating (positive please) and sell them to the suckers, er, masses. That worked out really swell, didn't it ? ....... as long as you were a part of the banking industry. The masses? Not so much.
Next came the European countries who had a lot of flailing and failing currencies that just could not get their s**t together. Hey, they thought. Let's do a "derivative" move. Take them all, throw them in a basket, give the basket a name, uh, I dunno, say, euro dollar, maybe? Sounding familiar? How's that working out? (See Greece, and soon to follow maybe, France)
Now we have Google doing, what is now a very familiar move. Put all of your (rotten) eggs in one basket, give it a name and throw it at the masses. Here's the thing 'tho. Throwing all the losers under the same blanket doesn't hide them very long. Sooner or later they get discovered to be the loser that they are and then the s**t will hit the fan once again.
In the banking scenario, 10 years after the last financial meltdown, the vast majority of the financial houses and banks, other than a few sacrificial lambs given up to appease the masses, are making record profits again, thanks in part, to governments who are only to happy to follow the advice of those 'crafty experts' in the industry, to 'open the floodgate' on the printing presses and print, print print our way to a better economy. Hallelujah, we be saved. The masses, a lot of which had their pension funds wiped out, lost their houses, etc. etc.? not so much.
brilliant. absolutely...brilliant. what a stroke of genius.
Yes, getting the stock market to provide accountability instead of the CEO and a tighter structure... Man, how can such a thing not go wrong... (sic).
This is basically to separate their "lets throw a rock in the pond and see if it floats" investments,, from their more staid and probably declining ones. The same way small tech firms often get better PE than old workhorse, they anticipate that if they left those more speculative business in house, the declining search business would severely effect their stock price.
By separating them this way, they get a "bonus" (at least for awhile); they are evaluated higher than they're really worth (like most tech firms).
Often these kind of operations are the sign of flailing and more than anything, and wanting to keep the stock up at all cost before disaster strikes. One of those businesses may work, but not for 5-10 years; better to sell now, wait till the stock falls and buy back later if any of them is viable.
Astonished about the many remarks thinking Apple could have any interest in own search. I don't see it. The only way to capitalize on search is targeted ads, ideally including the give-away of detailed (not necessarily identifiable) user information. This does not line up with Apple's interests at all. And it does not line up with their M&A activity. They have not bought a single company they rely on for POI data, only companies working on very specific things. They want to eliminate search (taking that step out of the UX), the OS will give you the right source depending on what the question is, not own it.
You're missing the point. The goal of Apple taking over more search functions would not be as a primary revenue driver, but for siphoning searches away from Google, which has many benefits.
Comments
Google's scheme of offering free services to the user in exchange of the monetization of his/her private data is a Faustian pact, that is, a diabolic one, in the true meaning of this term.
As it is the rule for such a pact, when the contracting party starts to realize its true implications, it is too late '....
Cool. I will definitely plan to get in touch if I am in the market for barges.
I was showing a group of middle schoolers a rotary phone and explaining how everyone in the household used the same phone... and one of the girls piped up and asked, "So, who got to pick the ring-tone."
Let's see where it ends up tomorrow.
I have to laugh though that Page talks about focus when this seems like anything but that. I do think this could put more pressure on Apple to use its cash pile for moonshot type stuff. Some Wall Street types will be calling for Apple's version of Google X.
I think this Alphabet Soup is totally unnecessary. I think it shows that Google needs adult supervision. The current execs are incapable of organizing and managing the company and turning it into an Alphabet soup is not going to help. The 2 most valuable entities at Google at this time are Search and YouTube because of their advertising revenues. Nothing else has caught on at Google not even Android.
Google's top executives need to watch the following the following 2 videos carefully.
Because nobody cares about Google's secrets.
Let's see where it ends up tomorrow.
I have to laugh though that Page talks about focus when this seems like anything but that. I do think this could put more pressure on Apple to use its cash pile for moonshot type stuff. Some Wall Street types will be calling for Apple's version of Google X.
Apple would do a version that is totally secret, plant fake rumors as cover, and nobody would know about it until the reveal, or until it wrapped up and disappeared.. Google uses their labs as yet another self promotional; more cool kid status.
With the exception of the Google entity, they are all massive money sinks. Like Motorola Iridium money sinks with less potential for profit.
Haha that's great! There was only one ringtone, and it was called obnoxious!
sorry, but you have it all wrong. the point of Apple isn't to dick around with market prices, it's to delight its customers.
read this and you can get back on the right track, and start to understand Apple:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2011/11/28/maximizing-shareholder-value-the-dumbest-idea-in-the-world/
brilliant. absolutely...brilliant. what a stroke of genius.
Amazon has been doing a better job at diversifying. They're not just an online bookstore and haven't been in a long time. They're building a digital content (media) store, they have their own branded App Store and tablet hardware, and their cloud services are top notch. The cloud services make all the other things possible. Not all their businesses are successes (the Fire Phone was a mega flop), but they are not a one-trick pony.
how do you mean? this is a non product announcement, not dependent on Asian supply chain. kind of like....Apple's Swift announcement at wwdc 2014. complete surprise. had you heard of it beforehand? had it leaked? nope.
It seems to prove that Google's management is much smarter than Apple's management. Apple has poured tens of billions of dollars into share repurchases and all it has done is driven Apple's share price into the toilet and lost the company $120 billion in market cap. Everything that Apple does only makes the share price go lower. Google does a simple company restructure and assigns new CEOs and a president and the share price shoots up 6% and $20 billion in market cap overnight. Why is it that Apple can't figure out how to do anything to increase the value of the company when other companies can do it so easily. Google's $20 billion gain in market cap is like free cash. It's not as if it increased revenue or profits. The only cost was the cost of restructuring the company which might have cost a couple of million dollars tops. On the other hand, Apple is spending money to lose money and that doesn't help shareholders at all. You watch Google's P/E go up to around 50 while Apple's P/E drops even further down. Eventually, Google's market cap will exceed Apple's market cap while only taking in a fraction of Apple's revenue and profits. Google is playing to win value while Apple is playing to lose value. That's a real bitch-slap to Apple shareholders.
Shut the **** up, Constable Odo. Don't you feel shame creating so many sock puppet accounts?
Sell your AAPL, buy GOOG, and please spare us your never-ending, literally crazed verbal vomit. Oh, and get some help.
Amazon has been doing a better job at diversifying. They're not just an online bookstore and haven't been in a long time. They're building a digital content (media) store, they have their own branded App Store and tablet hardware, and their cloud services are top notch. The cloud services make all the other things possible. Not all their businesses are successes (the Fire Phone was a mega flop), but they are not a one-trick pony.
The problem with Amazon is profit margins in the retail sphere and they are not as competitive in selling as they were 10 years ago. Many are just as cheap or good these days.
Their backend, which they can leverage to offer Business services will be more profitable, but they'd also need more service oriented personnel to really make a stand there. They also have to contend with Microsoft and Google in that area (Apple is not a competition, they'll only "sell" to themselves).
Investors have been pretty sweet on Amazon considering how ridiculous its PE is. They have potential, but none that reflect their stock price.
Probably the best Steve "performance" ever. Amazing how forward thinking and clear it was. And how it has all played out almost exactly as outlined then, is quite incredible.
Great read
"The more things change, the more they remain the same" (an aphorism by Jean-Baptiste Alphonse Karr) ......
"There's a sucker born every minute." (usually attributed to P. T. Barnum)
First there were banking institutions and investment houses that, when trying to figure out how to get rid of those 'nasty stocks' that kept on losing money and were getting increasingly harder to dump, er, sell, that they came up with the bright idea of taking several hundred of them, throw them in a basket with a few good stocks and give the basket a name, pay a 'ratings company to give the basket a rating (positive please) and sell them to the suckers, er, masses. That worked out really swell, didn't it ? ....... as long as you were a part of the banking industry. The masses? Not so much.
Next came the European countries who had a lot of flailing and failing currencies that just could not get their s**t together. Hey, they thought. Let's do a "derivative" move. Take them all, throw them in a basket, give the basket a name, uh, I dunno, say, euro dollar, maybe? Sounding familiar? How's that working out? (See Greece, and soon to follow maybe, France)
Now we have Google doing, what is now a very familiar move. Put all of your (rotten) eggs in one basket, give it a name and throw it at the masses. Here's the thing 'tho. Throwing all the losers under the same blanket doesn't hide them very long. Sooner or later they get discovered to be the loser that they are and then the s**t will hit the fan once again.
In the banking scenario, 10 years after the last financial meltdown, the vast majority of the financial houses and banks, other than a few sacrificial lambs given up to appease the masses, are making record profits again, thanks in part, to governments who are only to happy to follow the advice of those 'crafty experts' in the industry, to 'open the floodgate' on the printing presses and print, print print our way to a better economy. Hallelujah, we be saved. The masses, a lot of which had their pension funds wiped out, lost their houses, etc. etc.? not so much.
I guess that P T. Barnum was correct. How sad.
brilliant. absolutely...brilliant. what a stroke of genius.
Yes, getting the stock market to provide accountability instead of the CEO and a tighter structure... Man, how can such a thing not go wrong... (sic).
This is basically to separate their "lets throw a rock in the pond and see if it floats" investments,, from their more staid and probably declining ones. The same way small tech firms often get better PE than old workhorse, they anticipate that if they left those more speculative business in house, the declining search business would severely effect their stock price.
By separating them this way, they get a "bonus" (at least for awhile); they are evaluated higher than they're really worth (like most tech firms).
Often these kind of operations are the sign of flailing and more than anything, and wanting to keep the stock up at all cost before disaster strikes. One of those businesses may work, but not for 5-10 years; better to sell now, wait till the stock falls and buy back later if any of them is viable.
Astonished about the many remarks thinking Apple could have any interest in own search. I don't see it. The only way to capitalize on search is targeted ads, ideally including the give-away of detailed (not necessarily identifiable) user information. This does not line up with Apple's interests at all. And it does not line up with their M&A activity. They have not bought a single company they rely on for POI data, only companies working on very specific things. They want to eliminate search (taking that step out of the UX), the OS will give you the right source depending on what the question is, not own it.
You're missing the point. The goal of Apple taking over more search functions would not be as a primary revenue driver, but for siphoning searches away from Google, which has many benefits.