Sounds like Google is trying to hide it's name to not seem as imposing and threatening as it is. Their data collection is super creepy. The amount of metrics/stats that they disclose is already stomach wrenching...imagine what data they have privately/internally. Hi i'm Google, I can look at your search history, and know if your hungry, sick, planning a trip. I can look at your NEST Thermostat and see when you sleep, leave the house, or go to work, get up in the middle of the night all thanks to a clever motion/light sensor built-in. But don't worry we only use that to detect when the sun rises/falls. I can also tell where you go, and for how long you go if you have My Andriod phone. Since my platform is essentially "FREE" I'm not too concerned with privacy/security, so yes I can see your D pics very easily, via google drive or by allowing simple string of crafted text messages to overrun and escalate privileges on my system. : ) ok so I got a bit carried away. :P /end rant.
Sounds like they're hiding something or fear the future. But what do I know? This isn't my expertise...
Hiding something?
How about the ability to pay even less tax pretty well everywhere they operate. Coming soon the 'Starbucks' move. Where you charge your companies 99.999% of their proits a licensing fee to use the 'Part of the AlphaBet/Google Group'. No profits === No tax.
Google are past masters in avoiding paying tax in Europe but the legislators are catching up with them. I see this as the next move in a game of financial chess.
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.
Good catch there Slurpy!
I recognized that sorry ass prose but had long forgot who it originally belonged to. :no:
An Alpha bet by those who cornered the best darn search engine in the world.
What's the chances they spin off subsidiaries of anything remotely, possibly successful ? Shareholders will take the risk - the Alpha company will scoop the profit, if any.
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.
Imagine you have a farm and produce "apples", at end of season you can put profits in bank or spend everything purchasing another farm producing "pears". Until Amazon is able to convince investors that profits are "zeroed" to make company bigger and more valuable, investors will be happy (more than piling up profits).
Everything that Apple does only makes the share price go lower.
Share-repurchases are often the best thing to do when your company has "too much money", because that neuters the bears ability to manipulate the stock price in short-sales.
However, there are often much much better things that money could be spent on.
Google meanwhile has been nothing short of harmful to everything they touch outside the search engine. Sure you might have a lot of smart people, but Google hasn't learned the lesson Apple learned when Steve Jobs came back to Apple.
Stop making crap nobody is using. (and when nobody wants to use the product, get rid of it.)
All Google has managed to do in the last 4 years is piss off it's loyal customer base, from trying to force people to use Google+, to the half-assed Android operating system, to completely sucking any value out of using Google Adwords so that nobody wants Adwords on their sites, to not fixing the very exploits in Chrome that enable ads to hijack the browser.
Like, by comparison, Apple's only stillborn product is really the AppleTV, and that can largely be blamed on the PayTV market's willingness to die an accelerated death than allow their content on another platform.
I fail to see the positivity in this. Sounds to me like Google are panicking, and foresee a future profit drop. Making preparations to ditch all the crap overboard if you ask me
Oh and all those suggesting Apple makes a similar restructure... really? What a terrible idea.
And to all those who keep repeating the lines "Wall street does not understand Apple", they do, reality is more like "You don't understand wall street!" they do the opposite of retail investor expectations, deliberately, to maximise profits. But fear not, AAPL always rebounds, just not when your average Joe expects it to.
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.
asdf
I think Apple execs should also watch this video. I don´t like whats happening at Apple software wise after Steve passed away. They need to focus more on the software and what experience they offer to the customer. IOS and Os X and the features that are implemented these days are just not always polished enough and sometimes very, very badly thought of if you think about how they fit with old features, functions and services. Some are just not making any sense. Things have to be understandable and simple for the customer to understand. Not so that you really don't understand what it really is supposed to do. I'm sorry if anybody feels offended about this but sometimes the truth hurts. If you really don't get what I´m talking about here are some examples: itunes match/apple music, photos/iphoto, file shearing mac/ios, photo shearing, etc, etc.
Eg, if you are using some older Apple services and want to try some newer ones, you might get a message like "this service cant support that old function, going to delete 957 photos, yes or no?" I mean WTF?!?! Apple needs to focus more on the product. Not saying that they don't get it right, but _sometimes_ it really gets screwed in a bad way.
I think Apple execs should also watch this video. I don´t like whats happening at Apple software wise after Steve passed away. They need to focus more on the software and what experience they offer to the customer. IOS and Os X and the features that are implemented these days are just not always polished enough and sometimes very, very badly thought of if you think about how they fit with old features, functions and services. Some are just not making any sense. Things have to be understandable and simple for the customer to understand. Not so that you really don't understand what it really is supposed to do. I'm sorry if anybody feels offended about this but sometimes the truth hurts. If you really don't get what I´m talking about here are some examples: itunes match/apple music, photos/iphoto, file shearing mac/ios, photo shearing, etc, etc.
Eg, if you are using some older Apple services and want to try some newer ones, you might get a message like "this service cant support that old function, going to delete 957 photos, yes or no?" I mean WTF?!?! Apple needs to focus more on the product. Not saying that they don't get it right, but _sometimes_ it really gets screwed in a bad way.
I tend to agree. in particular, the "sum of things" part of SJ's answer. Just looking at the iPad variants' mess, the same beginning on the MB side, the lack of clarity where they want to take the Mini and MacPro. On the software side I don't see their strategy with "a bit of office", "a bit of pro(Sumer) editing applications where you never know how long you'll be able to rely on its existence and a bag of some cloud stuff. Each in itself may have something great and unique but like OpenDoc - how do they contribute to an overall consistent value-add? Home-automation, content curation and streaming services, ok. But again: is there a focus sled vision like with the iPad introduction eg, or a more or less "natural" extension of core competencies and solutions in search of a problem and revenue increase? And is the increased complexity of things the reason for moving from "it just works" to "it works mostly and you have to learn about all the on obvious features buried in the UI"?
Don't get me wrong, expansion is great as long as there is no a a focused vision behind it and the user experience still comes first. I'm just seeing this less that I used to.
Google's just playing market games. It's not real business and never sustainable. Meanwhile, Apple is furiously buying back shares because their stock is so low. They are making a killing on their own stock
They can't really make a killing on their own stock can they? Once it's re-purchased it's retired and has no further value, correct?
They can't really make a killing on their own stock can they? Once it's re-purchased it's retired and has no further value, correct?
Buying in a depressed market for AAPL. Good for Apple's buyback, good for stockholder's long on AAPL. Bonds to fund the buyback are a good deal now, but if the Feds up the Prime, that may not continue.
Is all the stock fully retired or is some set aside for employee incentives? The real interest will be what happens if Apple is able to return a sizable portion of its overseas funds to the U.S? What would it do with those funds? Does it even want to at this point?
Buying in a depressed market for AAPL. Good for Apple's buyback, good for stockholder's long on AAPL. Bonds to fund the buyback are a good deal now, but if the Feds up the Prime, that may not continue.
Is all the stock fully retired or is some set aside for employee incentives?
Apple stated that the repurchased shares will be canceled, meaning they can't be reissued. They have no market value. I think the only other option they had was holding as treasury stock but to accomplish the goal of increasing the stock price they filed notice to the SEC that they would take the first option, canceling the shares. They can't do both AFAIK.
EDIT:
BTW, the rule governing stock repurchase is Rule 10b-18. Anyone curious about it can do a quick search for the details.
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."
Just wait til you try to explain to them what a 'party line' was. They still had those when I was a kid.
IMO this move is to hide Google's inability to grow their Search/Advertising business.
Bottom line is Google still gets the bulk of its advertising revenue from desktop search. And desktop search is constantly shrinking each year. Google is failing in mobile search. They only get about $3 billion in Android search. Facebook will surpass that number this year.
Google makes another $10 billion on iOS search/adverstising. But that money train could stop anytime now if Apple decides to remove Google as the default search. So what are you left with? A company that makes 90% of its revenue from search yet is losing desktop search revenue because of the move to mobile and losing mobile because of the move away from iOS. Google is a few quarters away from flat or negative earnings growth. They can't cook the books anymore.
So they split the books.
By having 7 companies they can show that 6 of their 7 companies are growing revenue at a fast rate. They can show Nest, Fiber, ect all showing nice revenue growth and can set pie in the sky expectations.
But the truth is those other companies make miniture revenue compared to advertising. And even if they grow 100% a year it will not offset the shrinking advertising revenue.
I think you nailed it. Google can't keep this up before investors will see that they are in trouble...their status as a provider of Internet advertising is going to be precarious as the mobile revolution continues to dominate....they needed to have some smoke and mirror action for a few quarters to buy them some time.
I think you nailed it. Google can't keep this up before investors will see that they are in trouble...their status as a provider of Internet advertising is going to be precarious as the mobile revolution continues to dominate....they needed to have some smoke and mirror action for a few quarters to buy them some time.
If that's what they are trying to do they would have left things as they are. Separating the elements into separate companies is going to make it a lot harder to hide anything from investors, not easier. The now smaller and more focused Google will report their own specific results. Calico? Fiber? Nest? Those will no longer be hidden under the overall Google revenue figures and will report results separately.
This is a great move by Google. It is proven that smaller independent companies are more innovative and drive better net results...if they truly allow such autonomy then this could be effective. Time will tell.
No, it's certainly not a better explanation. In fact it doesn't really say much at all (and what it does is a bit confusing) except for the authors opinion that nothing really changes.
Horace, who really is a smart guy, doesn't like Google very much on a personal level but he does like Apple... a LOT. Nothing at all wrong with being a fan.
Comments
Sounds like they're hiding something or fear the future. But what do I know? This isn't my expertise...
Hiding something?How about the ability to pay even less tax pretty well everywhere they operate.
Coming soon the 'Starbucks' move.
Where you charge your companies 99.999% of their proits a licensing fee to use the 'Part of the AlphaBet/Google Group'.
No profits === No tax.
Google are past masters in avoiding paying tax in Europe but the legislators are catching up with them. I see this as the next move in a game of financial chess.
Good catch there Slurpy!
I recognized that sorry ass prose but had long forgot who it originally belonged to. :no:
What's the chances they spin off subsidiaries of anything remotely, possibly successful ?
Shareholders will take the risk - the Alpha company will scoop the profit, if any.
Goog, poof - now you see it, now you don't.
Imagine you have a farm and produce "apples", at end of season you can put profits in bank or spend everything purchasing another farm producing "pears". Until Amazon is able to convince investors that profits are "zeroed" to make company bigger and more valuable, investors will be happy (more than piling up profits).
Share-repurchases are often the best thing to do when your company has "too much money", because that neuters the bears ability to manipulate the stock price in short-sales.
However, there are often much much better things that money could be spent on.
Google meanwhile has been nothing short of harmful to everything they touch outside the search engine. Sure you might have a lot of smart people, but Google hasn't learned the lesson Apple learned when Steve Jobs came back to Apple.
Stop making crap nobody is using. (and when nobody wants to use the product, get rid of it.)
All Google has managed to do in the last 4 years is piss off it's loyal customer base, from trying to force people to use Google+, to the half-assed Android operating system, to completely sucking any value out of using Google Adwords so that nobody wants Adwords on their sites, to not fixing the very exploits in Chrome that enable ads to hijack the browser.
Like, by comparison, Apple's only stillborn product is really the AppleTV, and that can largely be blamed on the PayTV market's willingness to die an accelerated death than allow their content on another platform.
I fail to see the positivity in this. Sounds to me like Google are panicking, and foresee a future profit drop. Making preparations to ditch all the crap overboard if you ask me
Oh and all those suggesting Apple makes a similar restructure... really? What a terrible idea.
And to all those who keep repeating the lines "Wall street does not understand Apple", they do, reality is more like "You don't understand wall street!" they do the opposite of retail investor expectations, deliberately, to maximise profits. But fear not, AAPL always rebounds, just not when your average Joe expects it to.
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.
asdfI think Apple execs should also watch this video. I don´t like whats happening at Apple software wise after Steve passed away. They need to focus more on the software and what experience they offer to the customer. IOS and Os X and the features that are implemented these days are just not always polished enough and sometimes very, very badly thought of if you think about how they fit with old features, functions and services. Some are just not making any sense. Things have to be understandable and simple for the customer to understand. Not so that you really don't understand what it really is supposed to do. I'm sorry if anybody feels offended about this but sometimes the truth hurts. If you really don't get what I´m talking about here are some examples: itunes match/apple music, photos/iphoto, file shearing mac/ios, photo shearing, etc, etc.
Eg, if you are using some older Apple services and want to try some newer ones, you might get a message like "this service cant support that old function, going to delete 957 photos, yes or no?" I mean WTF?!?! Apple needs to focus more on the product. Not saying that they don't get it right, but _sometimes_ it really gets screwed in a bad way.
I tend to agree. in particular, the "sum of things" part of SJ's answer. Just looking at the iPad variants' mess, the same beginning on the MB side, the lack of clarity where they want to take the Mini and MacPro. On the software side I don't see their strategy with "a bit of office", "a bit of pro(Sumer) editing applications where you never know how long you'll be able to rely on its existence and a bag of some cloud stuff. Each in itself may have something great and unique but like OpenDoc - how do they contribute to an overall consistent value-add? Home-automation, content curation and streaming services, ok. But again: is there a focus sled vision like with the iPad introduction eg, or a more or less "natural" extension of core competencies and solutions in search of a problem and revenue increase? And is the increased complexity of things the reason for moving from "it just works" to "it works mostly and you have to learn about all the on obvious features buried in the UI"?
Don't get me wrong, expansion is great as long as there is no a a focused vision behind it and the user experience still comes first. I'm just seeing this less that I used to.
They can't really make a killing on their own stock can they? Once it's re-purchased it's retired and has no further value, correct?
Buying in a depressed market for AAPL. Good for Apple's buyback, good for stockholder's long on AAPL. Bonds to fund the buyback are a good deal now, but if the Feds up the Prime, that may not continue.
Is all the stock fully retired or is some set aside for employee incentives? The real interest will be what happens if Apple is able to return a sizable portion of its overseas funds to the U.S? What would it do with those funds? Does it even want to at this point?
EDIT:
BTW, the rule governing stock repurchase is Rule 10b-18. Anyone curious about it can do a quick search for the details.
EDIT2: Here's a good explanation of Apple's stock repurchase program and what it's meant to accomplish.
http://seekingalpha.com/article/3017336-myth-vs-reality-with-apples-stock-buyback
Just wait til you try to explain to them what a 'party line' was. They still had those when I was a kid.
I think you nailed it. Google can't keep this up before investors will see that they are in trouble...their status as a provider of Internet advertising is going to be precarious as the mobile revolution continues to dominate....they needed to have some smoke and mirror action for a few quarters to buy them some time.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/google-creates-new-company-alphabet-1439240645
Better explanation here;
http://www.asymco.com/2015/08/11/the-alphabet-of-google-a-and-google-b/#disqus_thread
So there will be more transparency, not less.
This is a great move by Google. It is proven that smaller independent companies are more innovative and drive better net results...if they truly allow such autonomy then this could be effective. Time will tell.
Horace, who really is a smart guy, doesn't like Google very much on a personal level but he does like Apple... a LOT. Nothing at all wrong with being a fan.