3 ms·

... because none of them are going to succeed? That's an excellent reason to cut. Just look at Google's financials. If they "sacrifice the future" and nuke eve

... because none of them are going to succeed? That's an excellent reason to cut. Just look at Google's financials. If they "sacrifice the future" and nuke everything other than search and search advertisements, they'd make a LOT more profit.

zaidf 11y ago
Apply that retreospectively and Android or YouTube would have never been part of Google. It is reasonable to argue that had that happened, googe's core search business would be under significantly more risk today.
- 3pt14159 11y ago
  Neither of those examples are apt. YouTube was purchased and Android was a carefully planned, institutionally supported move in order to safeguard existing revenue streams. The closest thing I can think of happening at Google is Gmail, and that was over a decade ago.
spc476 11y ago
Xerox PARC invented a lot of stuff we now take for granted, network computers, the GUI, object oriented programming, etc. And it wasn't cheap, and almost all of it has nothing to do with the core mission of Xerox. But one invention that popped out of PARC did---the laser printer. That one invention paid for Xerox PARC many times over (maybe a hundred times over---PARC spent a few million but the laser printer pulled in a few billion). Fundamental research is expensive in the short term, but it pays off handsomely in the long term (unfortunately, longer than Wall Street will allow it seems).
- booop 11y ago
  > maybe a hundred times over---PARC spent a few million but the laser printer pulled in a few billion Difference being Xerox made billions after spending a few million on research. Alphabet/Google on the other hand have poured in billions into what are now called their 'Other Bets' over the past two years and despite what impact they've made the revenues have been dismal and growth was stagnant last year.
  - AnthonyMouse 11y ago
    You're looking at it on the wrong timescale. Two years is nothing. This is, again, the failing of modern business school and investor logic. If you spend a billion dollars a year to produce something that will go on to generate ten billion dollars a year in profit forevermore, but produces nothing for the first five or so years, looking at it on a two year timescale is clearly not going to produce an accurate picture of its long-term profitability.

zaidf 11y ago

Apply that retreospectively and Android or YouTube would have never been part of Google. It is reasonable to argue that had that happened, googe's core search business would be under significantly more risk today.

3pt14159 11y ago
Neither of those examples are apt. YouTube was purchased and Android was a carefully planned, institutionally supported move in order to safeguard existing revenue streams. The closest thing I can think of happening at Google is Gmail, and that was over a decade ago.

spc476 11y ago

Xerox PARC invented a lot of stuff we now take for granted, network computers, the GUI, object oriented programming, etc. And it wasn't cheap, and almost all of it has nothing to do with the core mission of Xerox. But one invention that popped out of PARC did---the laser printer. That one invention paid for Xerox PARC many times over (maybe a hundred times over---PARC spent a few million but the laser printer pulled in a few billion). Fundamental research is expensive in the short term, but it pays off handsomely in the long term (unfortunately, longer than Wall Street will allow it seems).

booop 11y ago
> maybe a hundred times over---PARC spent a few million but the laser printer pulled in a few billion Difference being Xerox made billions after spending a few million on research. Alphabet/Google on the other hand have poured in billions into what are now called their 'Other Bets' over the past two years and despite what impact they've made the revenues have been dismal and growth was stagnant last year.
- AnthonyMouse 11y ago
  You're looking at it on the wrong timescale. Two years is nothing. This is, again, the failing of modern business school and investor logic. If you spend a billion dollars a year to produce something that will go on to generate ten billion dollars a year in profit forevermore, but produces nothing for the first five or so years, looking at it on a two year timescale is clearly not going to produce an accurate picture of its long-term profitability.