Google introduces new parent company, Alphabet
- Thread starter souen
- Start date
-
- Tags
- alphabet google rebranding
GIANT_CRAB
New Member
One of the many speculations is that they do this so that they can avoid as much car accident liability as possible. This is because of their recent driverless technology cars having accidents, etc.
Not sure if that really is the case but it sounds possible.
Not sure if that really is the case but it sounds possible.
Licensecart
Active Member
I think it's stupid lol… I so prefer Google Inc.
drmike
100% Tier-1 Gogent
Fill in duh blanks
A is for Ads
B is for Brin or
C is for Cars
D is for Disruption or is that DARPA
E is for Egypt
F is for Furries
G is for god
H is for Hype
I is for
J is for
K is for
L is for Liability
M is for
N is for Nest
O is for
P is for Page
Q is for
R is for Retard
S is for Surveillance
T is for
U is for
V is for
W is for Wealth
X is for
Y is for YouTube
Z is for Zero
A is for Ads
B is for Brin or
C is for Cars
D is for Disruption or is that DARPA
E is for Egypt
F is for Furries
G is for god
H is for Hype
I is for
J is for
K is for
L is for Liability
M is for
N is for Nest
O is for
P is for Page
Q is for
R is for Retard
S is for Surveillance
T is for
U is for
V is for
W is for Wealth
X is for
Y is for YouTube
Z is for Zero
It all makes sense (in my opinion anyways).
Originally Google was an online company. I mean their biggest revenue generation was advertisements (they made an entire advertisement platform... They technically control big portion of that market because of it), their enterprise Applications setup (Google Docs/Drive/etc.), and their search algorithm (let's face it, it's one of the best tools we have available to us). Major organization such as the United States NOAA, NASA, and even other countries (Australia, New Zealand, etc.) have outsourced some of their government emails and just productivity systems to Google. Some of my colleagues from these areas all use their own internal Google Apps logins to access their emails and share their documents with each other. In terms of their search algorithm, we're in a time of Big Data applications. Google is obviously one of the companies leading in Big Data research and has shown it with how quick and responsive each search result is. Polling a database that has billions if not much MUCH more data in a fraction of a second. (as a minor blurb, companies that advertise their "big data" support on low end VPSes really need to get their head of of their asses and actually know what they're talking about.)
But now Google has expanded to other interests. In addition to self-driven cars, Google has their own operating system (most commonly used on phones and tablets), their own phone applications marketplace, sells hosting (Google Cloud Platform), is an ISP (Google Fiber), and has in all diversified their assets. If I recall Google also has invested tremendous resources into finding a cure for cancer and other philanthropic organizations. Google has grown to more than just a technology giant. Having this all under a single company and label (I'm not a corporation lawyer so please correct me if I'm wrong) provides risk in addition to making things a bit complicated down the line such as selling off a "division" of their organization that doesn't provide enough income. Having it all under a single holding company, Alphabet, is most definitely the next logical direction to go. In addition, by placing it under a single holding company, this allows the people who run Google to continue expanding and diversifying the company's assets into multiple different markets.
Now some people (understandably so) believes that Google is way too big, involved in too many markets, and that (because one of Google's key features is their integrated accounts system, as in Youtube, Drive, Gmail, all their services are all connected through a single account) they control/contain too much information of each individual person a single company should not be allowed to have. They believe this will result in some kind of mass surveillance (referencing the documents released by Snowden and other whistleblowers) or repackaging and selling of this information to advertisers (since Google by itself is a major advertising platform). Now this topic is another can of worms that I'm not going to get into, but these are fair criticisms that should not be ignored. Google has positioned themselves as one of the biggest communication platforms used all around the world, so it's definitely a concern if there's something wrong with it. I mean look at Standard Oil and how they ended up being broken up. Or Bell Systems. Or hell recent Comcast + Time Warner attempted merger.
In the end though, having an "Umbrella" company that reorganizes and basically redistributes Google's assets is an obviously great idea in a business sense. To name some, it maximizes risk management (probably insurance-related... not just car either), I'm sure there's also some legal risk management going on in there, and most definitely improved asset management.
For the end user, nothing will change. Google's brand name was valued at 65 billion dollars and that's definitely an asset they're not going to get rid of anytime soon. They'll continue to provide service and business will go on as usual.
Originally Google was an online company. I mean their biggest revenue generation was advertisements (they made an entire advertisement platform... They technically control big portion of that market because of it), their enterprise Applications setup (Google Docs/Drive/etc.), and their search algorithm (let's face it, it's one of the best tools we have available to us). Major organization such as the United States NOAA, NASA, and even other countries (Australia, New Zealand, etc.) have outsourced some of their government emails and just productivity systems to Google. Some of my colleagues from these areas all use their own internal Google Apps logins to access their emails and share their documents with each other. In terms of their search algorithm, we're in a time of Big Data applications. Google is obviously one of the companies leading in Big Data research and has shown it with how quick and responsive each search result is. Polling a database that has billions if not much MUCH more data in a fraction of a second. (as a minor blurb, companies that advertise their "big data" support on low end VPSes really need to get their head of of their asses and actually know what they're talking about.)
But now Google has expanded to other interests. In addition to self-driven cars, Google has their own operating system (most commonly used on phones and tablets), their own phone applications marketplace, sells hosting (Google Cloud Platform), is an ISP (Google Fiber), and has in all diversified their assets. If I recall Google also has invested tremendous resources into finding a cure for cancer and other philanthropic organizations. Google has grown to more than just a technology giant. Having this all under a single company and label (I'm not a corporation lawyer so please correct me if I'm wrong) provides risk in addition to making things a bit complicated down the line such as selling off a "division" of their organization that doesn't provide enough income. Having it all under a single holding company, Alphabet, is most definitely the next logical direction to go. In addition, by placing it under a single holding company, this allows the people who run Google to continue expanding and diversifying the company's assets into multiple different markets.
Now some people (understandably so) believes that Google is way too big, involved in too many markets, and that (because one of Google's key features is their integrated accounts system, as in Youtube, Drive, Gmail, all their services are all connected through a single account) they control/contain too much information of each individual person a single company should not be allowed to have. They believe this will result in some kind of mass surveillance (referencing the documents released by Snowden and other whistleblowers) or repackaging and selling of this information to advertisers (since Google by itself is a major advertising platform). Now this topic is another can of worms that I'm not going to get into, but these are fair criticisms that should not be ignored. Google has positioned themselves as one of the biggest communication platforms used all around the world, so it's definitely a concern if there's something wrong with it. I mean look at Standard Oil and how they ended up being broken up. Or Bell Systems. Or hell recent Comcast + Time Warner attempted merger.
In the end though, having an "Umbrella" company that reorganizes and basically redistributes Google's assets is an obviously great idea in a business sense. To name some, it maximizes risk management (probably insurance-related... not just car either), I'm sure there's also some legal risk management going on in there, and most definitely improved asset management.
For the end user, nothing will change. Google's brand name was valued at 65 billion dollars and that's definitely an asset they're not going to get rid of anytime soon. They'll continue to provide service and business will go on as usual.
Last edited by a moderator:
souen
Active Member
Yeah, I agree a new parent company makes sense when they've diversified their tech and research portfolio. It might be easier to sell off if one venture doesn't work out. The move also drew attention to a bigger picture. I mean, people have been hearing about a venture here and there, but put together, they've already got a starting list (Glass, Fiber, cars, etc.) along with the older projects like Earth/Street View that have impact on the physical world. The name is like an affirmation of something that's been happening for years, i.e. it's no longer a company just making web applications, they're building tech/infrastructure that can collect data in the physical world. Big Data implications.
That naming is going to be fun for web search, as often happens when some company adopts 1-word common nouns as a name (e.g. looking for a language's alphabet and search thinks you're looking for Google company).
@drmike: haha, why Egypt and Furries?
That naming is going to be fun for web search, as often happens when some company adopts 1-word common nouns as a name (e.g. looking for a language's alphabet and search thinks you're looking for Google company).
@drmike: haha, why Egypt and Furries?
Last edited by a moderator:
Microsoft responds with http://abc.wtf ...
eva2000
Active Member
LOL
drmike
100% Tier-1 Gogent
Because Google was behind the Egyptian spring. Self confessed out there being behind it. That was in addition to their VP smacked in the middle of it.
The Fur part, ahh not saying which Googler has an expensive suit habit. But yeah, the freaky deaky continues.
Last edited by a moderator:
To be honest, this "Alphabet" name sounds like a bit of a gimmick and rather childish, but I suppose Google did too when it was first announced. I'm not sure if they're going for a childish and jokey sounding name, but they succeed (or fail, depends how you look at it).
Last edited by a moderator:
souen
Active Member
Latest twist: apparently BMW owns a trademark to "Alphabet" and the .com domain.
Potential for confusion with car fleets and self-driving cars?
Potential for confusion with car fleets and self-driving cars?
BMW might try and pull something but I'm fairly certain Google's lawyers looked into it before they finalized and announced it.
That's hilarious!
AuroraZero
Active Member
Reminds me of the cereal Alphabits. Next thing you know they will be sending me messages in them.
Seriously though it does make sense to diversify, but the name does seem kind of odd to me anyways. I suppose they thought of the english language and went off that perhaps. In that way of thinking it does encompass I suppose. Bah it is just to weird to try to think like them.
Seriously though it does make sense to diversify, but the name does seem kind of odd to me anyways. I suppose they thought of the english language and went off that perhaps. In that way of thinking it does encompass I suppose. Bah it is just to weird to try to think like them.