4 ms·
Quite a convenient way of structuring things if you're worried about anti-monopoly regulators? In practice everyone knows it's everything which was previously
by jinst8gmi 11y ago
Quite a convenient way of structuring things if you're worried about anti-monopoly regulators?
In practice everyone knows it's everything which was previously under the Google umbrella.
- eropple 11y agoAnd what "everyone knows" is not relevant to WSJ's audience. The company is Alphabet. It is not Google. I don't think this can be stated in simpler terms. The WSJ's news section can be considered jargon of its own. I'm sure you would not react in the same way if a "business guy" criticized a piece of technical reporting for things you expected to be in it.
- gohrt 11y agoGoogle is a company. Alphabet is a company. Alphabet owns Google.
- dragonwriter 11y ago> The company is Alphabet. It is not Google. I don't think this can be stated in simpler terms. Those terms are simple, but not accurate. The company this story is about is Google. Alphabet is the public traded corporation in whom WSJ readers may wish to invest (or disinvest) that owns the company the story is about. (Google and Alphabet are both companies, but Alphabet isn't taking any action that is being reported in this story.)
- eropple 11y agoSure, you are that most important kind of correct: technically so. And so I'll amend it: "the company that matters to the WSJ's audience is Alphabet because they're where the money is." The mixture of pedantry and willful vagueness in this thread is weird.