6 ms·

Nobody gives a crap about these semantic games. Nest is owned by Google. https://nest.com/about/ https://nest.com/about/

deelowe 11y ago
I'm trying to explain (perhaps poorly?) that the change is not simply semantic. No one who is part of Google proper has any say in what nest, glass or those other companies do at this point. None of the culture, support etc... transfers over. The CEOs of these new alphabet companies are free to do as they please. What you're seeing here is this in action. Saying Google are somehow accountable for nest or glass is like saying that dropbox are accountable for the actions of reddit. They are literally that disconnected now when it comes to how the businesses are managed.
- ilyanep 11y ago
  They all ultimately answer to Larry Page, presumably.
  - deelowe 11y ago
    All of the CEOs? Sure. Sundar manages Google though.
- jkelsey 11y ago
  Consumers don't care how about Google/Alphabet organizes itself. Google owns Nest; that fact can't be avoided. When you own a company that intentionally bricks their customers' $300 devices for no other reason that they don't want to support them anymore, you're going to have to deal with the negative perception that it creates.
- mikeash 11y ago
  In this case, being disconnected is a deliberate choice by Google. If that leads to problems, they're still responsible. You can't just take your hands off something and disclaim all responsibility for what happens afterwards.
  - deelowe 11y ago
    It was a deliberate choice by the former Google board, who no longer runs Google and now runs Alphabet. The blame lies with Alphabet, not one of it's many subsidiaries.
    - mikeash 11y ago
      I think the problem is that Alphabet is basically what we used to call Google, and what is now called Google is just one aspect of what we used to call Google. Referring to Alphabet as "Google" is outmoded but it's sort of like saying "Blackwater" instead of "Academi."
- outside1234 11y ago
  If this is so true, then why don't the complete the task and spin the company off and hold a controlling share?
  - knughit 11y ago
    They did. 100% share.
  - deelowe 11y ago
    That's exactly what they did.
- sbashyal 11y ago
  I think this is a little more tricker. When customers make buying decisions, there is "Nest, owned by Alphabet and not likely to be shut because they are broke" benefit that they get. When they fail to meet those expectations, it should and will certainly reflect on the trust for Alphabet. Mainly because of your argument: Alphabet has little control over the companies and one should stop expecting good treatment and product lifecycle just because it is under Alphabet umbrella.

deelowe 11y ago

I'm trying to explain (perhaps poorly?) that the change is not simply semantic. No one who is part of Google proper has any say in what nest, glass or those other companies do at this point. None of the culture, support etc... transfers over. The CEOs of these new alphabet companies are free to do as they please. What you're seeing here is this in action. Saying Google are somehow accountable for nest or glass is like saying that dropbox are accountable for the actions of reddit. They are literally that disconnected now when it comes to how the businesses are managed.

ilyanep 11y ago
They all ultimately answer to Larry Page, presumably.
- deelowe 11y ago
  All of the CEOs? Sure. Sundar manages Google though.
jkelsey 11y ago
Consumers don't care how about Google/Alphabet organizes itself. Google owns Nest; that fact can't be avoided. When you own a company that intentionally bricks their customers' $300 devices for no other reason that they don't want to support them anymore, you're going to have to deal with the negative perception that it creates.
mikeash 11y ago
In this case, being disconnected is a deliberate choice by Google. If that leads to problems, they're still responsible. You can't just take your hands off something and disclaim all responsibility for what happens afterwards.
- deelowe 11y ago
  It was a deliberate choice by the former Google board, who no longer runs Google and now runs Alphabet. The blame lies with Alphabet, not one of it's many subsidiaries.
  - mikeash 11y ago
    I think the problem is that Alphabet is basically what we used to call Google, and what is now called Google is just one aspect of what we used to call Google. Referring to Alphabet as "Google" is outmoded but it's sort of like saying "Blackwater" instead of "Academi."
outside1234 11y ago
If this is so true, then why don't the complete the task and spin the company off and hold a controlling share?
- knughit 11y ago
  They did. 100% share.
- deelowe 11y ago
  That's exactly what they did.
sbashyal 11y ago
I think this is a little more tricker. When customers make buying decisions, there is "Nest, owned by Alphabet and not likely to be shut because they are broke" benefit that they get. When they fail to meet those expectations, it should and will certainly reflect on the trust for Alphabet. Mainly because of your argument: Alphabet has little control over the companies and one should stop expecting good treatment and product lifecycle just because it is under Alphabet umbrella.