Google Is Restructuring Under a New Company Called Alphabet 235
Mark Wilson writes: Sundar Pichai is the new CEO of Google as the company undergoes a huge restructuring. Co-founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin are moving to a new company called Google Alphabet which will serve as an umbrella company for Google and its various projects. Google itself is being, in Page's words, "slimmed down" and the change is quite an extraordinary one. Page quotes the original founders' letter that was written 11 years go. It states that "Google is not a conventional company", and today's announcement makes that perfectly clear. There's a lot to take in...Google Alphabet is, essentially, the new face of Google. Page chose to make the announcement in a blog post that went live after the stock markets closed. This is more than just a rebranding, it is a complete shakeup, the scale of which is almost unprecedented.
Seems like stockholders... (Score:5, Interesting)
may have been getting a little impatient with the many directions that Google was going in.
This allows Google to focus on making money from advertisements, while Alphabet can makes bets on many different products
At least that is my take on it
Re: (Score:3)
It probably also goes some distance to protecting Google's product development from any threats against its advertising business by cranking regulators.
Courts (Score:5, Insightful)
It probably also goes some distance to protecting Google's product development from any threats against its advertising business by cranking regulators.
And courts. This helps to segment Google's advertising business so that if they get slammed by a government for refusing to censor, it's much harder to go after the parent company's assets. It's risk-management for shareholders.
Re:Courts (Score:5, Interesting)
Except that the "Google" division - which contains search, apps, Android, and ads - is still nearly all of their revenue.
Based on the divisions they spun off - Life Sciences, Calico (longevity project), Google X, Google Ventures - it seems like it's more of an effort to separate out the big profit center from the longer term projects that aren't directly generating revenue (ie. short term shareholder value).
It's going to let them invest in these really interesting long term projects without shareholders bitching about the risk. Which is awesome, and really does show they are running the company differently than the usual tech behemoths. Just think if HP, IBM, Microsoft, etc had done this *properly* at their peaks (vs spinning off valuable businesses as entirely separate companies like HP did, or repeatedly shuffling the deck chairs like Microsoft keeps dong) - they might still be relevant.
Re: (Score:2)
It might grow into a Generic Electric conglomerate model though. Conglomerates seldom end well as it's easy to lose corporate focus.
Re: (Score:2)
I meant General Electric. Gah.
Re: (Score:2)
why would it make shareholders bitch less when the same shareholders own this now as well?
I know, I know, that's what larry is hoping for, but nothing is changing in regards to that - its still all stockholders money.
all I see so far is that it shows how gullible google fanboys are that they think just rebranding them into a yet another branded X labs would actually change _anything_ about where the bills are paid from.
the traded stock stays 100% the same as before - who pays for what doesn't change one bit
Re: (Score:3)
Same reason Warren Buffet manages to convince his shareholders to STFU. The more separate companies the harder it becomes to target one bad decision.
Of course that means Google really needs to add "Google Term Life Insurance" subsitiatry. That way they can get the insurance float (like BRK.A) to actually fund their immortality projects so their life insurance never needs to pay off!
Re: (Score:2)
And courts. This helps to segment Google's advertising business so that if they get slammed by a government for refusing to censor, it's much harder to go after the parent company's assets. It's risk-management for shareholders.
read the posting, then if you don't understand it try to make a diagram on a paper or something about the ownership/stock relations before and after this rebranding.
no difference at all!. all you have is sundar as ceo of some part of it, while being in the organizational chart directly under larry and sergei! the friggin BOARD doesn't change, though presumably now they're the board of google alphabet! does larry bother to talk about that even? HECK NO! the only time board is mentioned is that "they" think
"Unconventional" (Score:4, Interesting)
Google is not a conventional company. It'll rob you in ways you've never imagine before, and will continue to rob you as it morph itself in ways you cannot even begin to imagine.
Re:"Unconventional" (Score:5, Insightful)
Tax purposes . . . ? (Score:2, Insightful)
Maybe this change has just a simple purpose in enabling Google to avoid paying taxes . . . ? I mean, in which country will the "Google Letters, A-Z" be incorporated? Ireland? The Cayman Islands . . . ? Will one Google Alphabet subsidiary own other subsidiaries . . . ?
Google could an opaque corporate structure, that would be undecipherable to tax authorities in different countries.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, this is just the preceding steps before they release their new line of soups.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd try that but it would probably spell out ads and spy on my internals as it moved through my system. I just can't risk it.
Coke adds life? I dont remember eating that.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, who knew that Google invested venture capital in Blue Bottle coffee?
Re: (Score:2)
not really at all. the stock doesn't change. the guys who are responsible for what inside google doesn't actually change. it doesn't let anyone focus on whatever any more, it just lets them emphasize one profit number more than actual profit.
THIS IS JUST A REBRANDING. nothing, nothing else. the position of the stock owners doesn't change one bit.
it is just a rebranding and the addition that the "google" finances are reported quarterly separately. it's just a rebranding that makes the google numbers seem bet
Prepare Three Envelopes (Score:5, Funny)
A fellow had just been hired as the new CEO of a large high tech corporation. The CEO who was stepping down met with him privately and presented him with three numbered envelopes. "Open these if you run up against a problem you don't think you can solve," he said.
Well, things went along pretty smoothly, but six months later, sales took a downturn and he was really catching a lot of heat. About at his wit's end, he remembered the envelopes. He went to his drawer and took out the first envelope. The message read, "Blame your predecessor."
The new CEO called a press conference and tactfully laid the blame at the feet of the previous CEO. Satisfied with his comments, the press -- and Wall Street - responded positively, sales began to pick up and the problem was soon behind him.
About a year later, the company was again experiencing a slight dip in sales, combined with serious product problems. Having learned from his previous experience, the CEO quickly opened the second envelope. The message read, "Reorganize." This he did, and the company quickly rebounded.
After several consecutive profitable quarters, the company once again fell on difficult times. The CEO went to his office, closed the door and opened the third envelope.
The message said, "Prepare three envelopes."
Re:Prepare Three Envelopes (Score:5, Insightful)
It is a sad joke when it actually represents how formulaic business management has become
Blame predecessor and cronies
Build wall of well-paid sycophants
Receive bonus
Blame organization
Reorganize
Receive bonus
Blame employees
Outsource
Receive bonus
.
.
.
Rinse and Repeat at next company
Whut (Score:2)
This has got to be a joke somehow, right? I find this shocking.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, Alphabet is becoming an Umbrella Corporation, this cannot end badly.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
google changes its name to Omni Consumer Products...
25 more letters (Score:5, Funny)
Makes a change from everything they do being just Beta.
Re: (Score:2)
actually, this is actually just an actually very regressive change. they actually are just going to be sticking with Alpha and Beta software stages. That's why they're actually calling the new organization ALPHA-BET-a.
if this doesn't work out the plan is actually to just rename it Spaghettios.
captcha: actually
Re: (Score:2)
I believe that's just 23 letters [wikipedia.org].
No, I'm not a pedant. I think "smarty-pants" is a more appropriate term.
In other words (Score:3)
A couple points (Score:5, Informative)
First, the new parent company is just called "Alphabet" - not "Google Alphabet", as the summary claims.
Second, on the face of it this seems more like a rebranding than anything else. Nothing seems to be changing; they're just renaming "Google" to "Alphabet", and then repurposing the Google name to be used for one already-existing division within the renamed company. It doesn't sound like anything functional is really changing, which belies the idea this is a "massive reorganization".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: A couple points (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Alphabet is both a French and a German word, and it doesn't stop there. Go on the wikipedia page for alphabet (the real thing, not the conglomerate) and look at the many language options on the left column, mouse over them : majority of languages there have it as "alphabet" and very minor variations such as "alfabet", "alfabeto". Russian has it as "Alphabet", just written in Cyrillic.
Same for many languages I don't recognize, or such languages as Turkish, Kurd, both Norwegian, Swedish, Basque.
Re:A couple points (Score:4, Funny)
...it it will become just one of several companies under the Alphabet umbrella. It's a refactoring and a modularization.
Not just refactoring and modularization. From a press release:
In order to re-intermediate Google's methodologies and fungibly target an expanded array of elastic corporate deliverables, we are unable to synergistically engage in enabled convergence and be more assertive in seizing multi-functional content in collaborative, target-scalable alignments at this time.
Now I get it.
Conversations will now go like this: (Score:4, Insightful)
- So, there's this new Alphabet project-
- You mean Google project?
- Yeah. So anyway, this new project...
Re: (Score:2)
Let me Alphabet that for you.
It's called a conglomerate (Score:5, Insightful)
Alphabet was their second choice (Score:4, Funny)
Apparently, someone already owns the rights to "Evil Corp".
Re: (Score:2)
they could have had such trollish fun
and called it "Skynet"
Moving their eggs out of the same (legal) basket. (Score:2, Interesting)
Actually it would not surprise me if this were being done for legal protection. Google has diversified in so many different areas since its original creation, and many of these different areas have had their fair share of legal difficulties. Presently any legal attack on one of these areas is an attack on Google as a whole. By splitting the company into a bunch of separate legal entities, albeit under the same corporate umbrella, legal risk to the whole is mitigated.
For instance, Google/Alphabet can roll th
Re: (Score:2)
Alphabet...ically (Score:5, Informative)
Activision (Score:2)
Yet "Activision Blizzard" is before Alphabet, and Activision was named to be before Atari. The race to the front of the phone book continued with three other companies started by Activision alumni: Accolade (Populous; HardBall), Acclaim (home versions of Smash TV, Mortal Kombat, and NBA Jam, as well as numerous movie and TV licenses), and Absolute (A Boy and His Blob; Penn & Teller's Smoke and Mirrors).
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
But not in a list sorted Applebetically!
Can't beat Aardvark (Score:2)
In other news another top Fortune 500 company, based in the caffeine capital of the world, decides to rename itself after a nocturnal African animal that looks like a cross between an anteater and a pig.
Re: (Score:2)
Rewriting history (Score:5, Insightful)
I love how, in the blog post, Larry specifically mentions four things that "seemed crazy at the time" that purportedly began at Google. Unfortunately two of them - YouTube and Google Maps - were actually created by others and eventually purchased by Google.
I can't wait for his future declarations regarding how people thought Google was crazy when they first created Waze!
Re:Rewriting history (Score:5, Funny)
Why not? Google invented web search.
Re:Rewriting history (Score:4, Informative)
I think Google Maps started at Google. But they integrated other functionality later.
You are correct that YouTube was purchased.
Android too (Score:2)
Android was purchased as well, by Android Inc., which was purchased in 2005
Re: (Score:2)
It worked for him at Apple. Not so much outside of Apple. Apparently Pancreatic cancer is immune to reality distorting assertions.
I mis-read that (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm going to 'bet' they'll move to always 'alpha'
ok it's a bit of a stretch for a joke.
This might hinder their innovation (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A promotion for Sundar Pichai, not much else (Score:5, Interesting)
The rumor on the Google blog is that Twitter was looking to offer Sundar Pichai a CEO position, so this move was made to keep him.
Perhaps there are some additional legal protections gained by doing this reorg as well.
whois alphabet.com (Score:2)
Registrant Name: Domain Manager
Registrant Organization: Bayerische Motoren Werke AG
Registrant Street: Petuelring 130, Dept. AJ-35
Registrant City: Munich
Registrant Postal Code: 80788
Registrant Country: DE
Re:whois alphabet.com (Score:4, Informative)
"Bayerische Motoren Werke AG" is the official name of BMW, you know, of the cars and the bikes. I don't think a single person gets richer if Alphabet buys it ;)
For reasons we are not yet aware of.. (Score:2)
It's popular to explain why they created an umbrella company and offer your theories. But I am convinced of this: the general public is not aware of the reason at this time.
I'll offer a very general reason they would do this, I don't have the details: doing this creates a financial/legal advantages for Larry Page and Sergey Brin. What kind of advantage? Why does it create the advantage? I don't know. But why do business people do anything?
I could be wrong, but I don't think it is for the "soft" reasons
Re: (Score:2)
It's popular to explain why they created an umbrella company and offer your theories. But I am convinced of this: the general public is not aware of the reason at this time.
I'll offer a very general reason they would do this, I don't have the details: doing this creates a financial/legal advantages for Larry Page and Sergey Brin. What kind of advantage? Why does it create the advantage? I don't know. But why do business people do anything?
I could be wrong, but I don't think it is for the "soft" reasons that people are positing now, i.e. it explains the structure better, it highlights that Google is not a "conventional company". This is a big change, and probably an expensive and time-consuming one. And making everyone aware of this "Alphabet" brand is a big pain in the ass.
I think the reasons they did this are very specific and concrete, but we just don't know what those reasons are at this point.
There are a lot of reasons as to why this may be happening. It's very possible that it has to do with the fact that Google has had antitrust allegations levied against it in the EU (they were formally filed in April of this year). With separate subsidiaries it may make it easier to shield themselves from certain allegations in that anti-trust case, for instance. I suspect that we'll know within 12-18 months whether it was done for this reason. In any event, I think you are right that it was done for mon
It had to happen, you know (Score:2)
Sooner or later, someone had to try to trademark or copyright the alphabet. :P
Coming soon (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Google can show a profit or their shareholders, while Google Alphabet can show a loss so that the majority share holders in that company can reduce their tax bill, at least until they sell their shares
Re:So? (Score:5, Informative)
No. Google and Alphabet won't have separate stock. Google will become a wholly owned subsidiary of Alphabet. Like, you can't buy Chevrolet stock, you can only buy GM stock.
Existing Google shares will simply be converted to Alphabet shares.
Re:So? (Score:5, Informative)
Not so sure about that, it could become like Berkshire Hathaway where a single company controls multiple companies, each with their own publicly traded stock
Except that it couldn't be clearer:
"Alphabet Inc. will replace Google Inc. as the publicly-traded entity and all shares of Google will automatically convert into the same number of shares of Alphabet, with all of the same rights. Google will become a wholly-owned subsidiary of Alphabet."
From the blog post [blogspot.co.uk]
Which is exactly what Spy Handler said. [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:2)
How long would you expect it to stay that way before profitable companies get their own IPOs?
Re: (Score:2)
How long would you expect it to stay that way before profitable companies get their own IPOs?
How long is a piece of string? I'm not going to speculate on the many different things that may or may not happen in various scenarios. Just that what you speculated here [slashdot.org] is not what is happening given the way the new organisation has been structured.
Re: (Score:2)
Can you just admit you were wrong?
Re: (Score:2)
I would make zero sense financially anytime remotely soon - the new "Google" generates almost ALL of the revenue. They basically spun off all of the long term risky plays (their longevity and biotech research, Google X, Google Ventures) into separate companies. That way they can reduce their risk to the cash cow that is Google search/ads/apps.
Re: (Score:2)
This does nothing to reduce corporate risk as all the companies are all wholly owned subsidiaries.
This move is simply to create more transparency into the financials that google search/ads/apps is providing the company to the large shareholders and create more chairs to promote C-level people (who might want to leave Google for career development).
FWIW, a good bullet to have on your resume is Profit/Loss responsibility to get/keep a ticket to the C-level clubhouse. If a Googler didn't have a way to get that
Re: (Score:2)
That they don't do that right now doesn't matter.
Well actually it does, they're going to find it hard to implement that tax dodge described here [slashdot.org] until they actually do it.
Re: (Score:3)
Previously, Google would not have been able to sell a new stock of "just" (Internet Search Only) Google, or for any of their individual projects, it was all one thing.
Actually, that is categorically not true. A company can create a "tracking" stock [nyu.edu] for a subsidiary or even a business function (like search), as long as it was willing to break out the reporting of that function.
The problem is that tracking stocks are not generally favored anymore by the street and probably wouldn't really work anyhow with the current Google structure (where Larry and Sergey have super-voting rights) as such a tracking stock would suffer the same albatross as GOOGL vs GOOG.
The value of wha
Re: (Score:3)
The article where I first read this news said the same thing:
http://www.theguardian.com/tec... [theguardian.com]
All shares of Google will automatically convert into corresponding shares of Alphabet, which will continue to trade under the stock ticker symbols GOOG and GOOGL. Shares in Google soared 5% in after hours trading. The new structure is said to be similar to Warren Buffettâ(TM)s Berkshire Hathaway, which wholly owns a number of diverse holdings and has stakes in several others.
Re: (Score:2)
Berkshire Hathaway owns 60 companies outright, taking them private through acquisition. Buffet didn't make his insane annual returns by controlling public companies, he did it by owning companies outright and shuffling capital from one to the other. There is only one tax return for 60+ companies, filed by Berkshire Hathaway.
Berkshire's investment in public stock (Coca Cola, Wells Fargo, etc) is mainly through investment of insurance float by its subsidiaries.
The myth that Berkshire Hathaway made its money b
Re: (Score:2)
That's one thing I find so funny about all of the cheesy ads you see like "learn how Warren Buffet makes money", "invest like Buffet", etc. While there definitely lessons that can be learned (consider stocks good dividend, those with a solid product vs speculation, go for long term value, etc) in the end if you *really* want to invest like Buffet you need to buy struggling companies and make them profitable. Good luck for 99.99% of the investors out there :)
Though I guess technically buying BRK.B (BRK.A i
Re: (Score:3)
Don't be silly, you can't put the good bits in bag and all the shite in another.
Unless you're a bank.
Re: (Score:2)
Srsly?
Why not? See Berkshire Hathaway reference above where one company holds controlling interest in multiple companies.
Re: (Score:2)
Or GM... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure it's a prank. lulz!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
My first thought, too.
Re: (Score:3)
If they want to revert the same, then this guy is the needful.
Re: (Score:2)
They were going to use the tagline "Alphabits and Bytes!", but Post would get litigious.
Alphabet... not Google Alphabet (Score:5, Informative)
The letter from Page could not be more clear. The new company name is Alphabet. Google is a wholly owned subsidiary of the new company along with YouTube, and other companies that will be created with their own CEOs.
GOOGL and GOOG stocks will continue to trade under those symbols, although the shares will actually be in the new Alphabet.
Re:Alphabet... not Google Alphabet (Score:5, Funny)
Like that matters around here?
Re: (Score:2)
Like that matters around here?
I'm going to go ahead and spill it so that everyone can abuse it: you reply to the highest most comment to get more visibility, and thus potentially more mod exposure.
Re:Alphabet... not Google Alphabet (Score:4, Insightful)
He's obviously trying to get what he thinks is important information modded up by placing it higher within the discussion.
This isn't an unreasonable thing to do. In fact, it's often quite necessary, given how Slashdot's mod system is pretty badly broken. It may not be completely broken, like reddit's, or Hacker News', or Stack Overflow's are, but it's still broken.
When you combine a limited number of mods, each with a limited number of mod points, and the propensity people have for not reading through all of the comments before using those mod points, the comments that appear highest within the discussion tend to get modded up the most.
Excellent comments that just happened to get posted later tend to be totally ignored, with comparatively shitty comments posted earlier getting the mod points first, just because they appear first when reading the comments from the top down.
So some people are inclined to work around this broken mod system by putting their comments up as early as possible within the discussion.
We can't blame them for doing that. What we should blame is the broken mod system that forces such behavior.
Re:Alphabet... not Google Alphabet (Score:5, Funny)
You are wise and perceptive. And modded a 0.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Read the OP post! The company is twice referred to as Google Alphabet. This is completely unnecessary and really confusing to anyone trying to sort out what has happened.
Re: (Score:3)
why does YouTube still require a fucking Google- account to post?
By "Google- account" are you sarcastically referring to Google+? I thought YouTube dropped the Google+ requirement [marketingland.com].
Or by "Google- account" do you mean a Google account that is "minus" the Google+ profile?
Re: (Score:2)
In context it could be interpreted either of two ways.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You can't have one company that large and remain flexible and innovative
I guess that explains what's happened to Apple?
ABC Television, a Disney company (Score:2)
Alphabet would first have to get past The Walt Disney Company, whose ABC television network is commonly known in the business as the "Alphabet Network".
Re: (Score:2)
Run by Larry "Baghead" Page
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
...about the new Google alphabet! A is for Analytics, B is for Beta, C is for Chrome, D is for Doubleclick, ...
Come to think of it, this might outdo the educational initiatives from Microsoft and Bill Gates combined. Well played, Goog--Alphab--whatever.
NO CARRIER
Re: (Score:2)
I foresee a wave of notices hitting kindergartens soon...
it will, but they've been kind enough to license the patents for educational use.
Re: (Score:2)
Google's shit never quite makes it through beta.
Googah: makin things beta.
Re: (Score:2)
If NPR's Marketplace hadn't covered it this evening I wouldn't have believed it for a second.
Re: (Score:2)
You mean "Alphabet SOAP". :D