7 ms·

This is terrible corporate speak. It should be titled "We are killing Google Fiber for any new cities". Why do companies do this? Why sugar coat all of this a

This is terrible corporate speak. It should be titled "We are killing Google Fiber for any new cities". Why do companies do this? Why sugar coat all of this and why make me think your actually going to expand only to let me down. It's terrible double speak and it does not help your cause, it just makes me dislike your company for two reasons now. One for canceling a service I was excited about and two for being, in my opinion, dishonest.

yabatopia 10y ago
Not just for new cities. Reading between the lines they're basically saying that they're shutting down and current assets are up for sale. I wonder who will pick up the pieces?
- fowlerpower 10y ago
  ISPs need to be disrupted so badly. This was actually one of the few initiatives that I thought would really force everyone to change.
  - toast0 10y ago
    ATT is rolling out new fiber (and running fiber they already had at decent speeds), Comcast has their 2G offering and a 1G doccis offering. Speeds have changed, but the fundamental issue is still there: It's impractical to have robust competition in the last mile, and nobody wants to wholesale last mile and make competition an option. Google fiber's early press releases included it, but stopped before they started building. The 1996 telecom act included it, but the FCC abandoned it in the last decade.
    - magila 10y ago
      While Comcast does offer higher speeds, it's prohibitively expensive. In a typical market where Comcast has an effective monopoly the 2Gb service is $300/month and even just 250Mb is $150. Their upload speeds are also pathetic, the 250Mb service is only 30Mb up.
      - toast0 10y ago
        Yes, the 2G service is expensive (it's also delivered over 10G fiber, rate limited on the required router), but their 1G service is more reasonable (i saw $140 on http://www.xfinity.com/gig-offer http://www.xfinity.com/gig-offer ), not sure what the upload is, and availability is meager, of course.
        deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
        matt_wulfeck 10y ago
        The question is whether it's symmetric speeds and in-metered. Asymmetric speeds with caps is a fantastic way to offer 1Gb speeds with almost none of the real benefits or innovation opportunities.
        alcari 10y ago
        Those are symmetric(!); the real killer is the contract duration, the installation/activation fees (up to $1000 total), and the installation time frame (up to 8 weeks).
        toast0 10y ago
        The 2G is symmetric, but I'm not sure about the 1G
      - lorenzhs 10y ago
        For comparison, I pay 50€/month for 200/10 Mbps in Germany (including some phone / TV service that I don't use)
        JetSpiegel 10y ago
        I pay 34€ a month for 100/100 Mbps in Portugal, including TV and Phone too. And that's because I missed the promotion for a few days or it would be 25€/month.
GavinMcG 10y ago
It turns out saying "we failed and are canceling a product, again" hurts the stock price more.
- fowlerpower 10y ago
  Sure I follow that but I think that the stock will take the hit no matter what. In the very least be honest with us.
- TaylorAlexander 10y ago
  Which, said another way, is lying for profit.
  - matt4077 10y ago
    Which, in yet another way, would be called "fraud". But may (s)he throw the first press release who does has never couched bad news in sweet sweet quantum leaps of paradigm-shifting.
- s8-0913458 10y ago
  No, that's not how the stock market works. If a company's project/product were failing and/or losing money, then investors would have priced the loss into the stock price long ago. If a company announces that it is ending a money-losing effort, then investors will value the company more highly. In theory, therefore, this announcement should raise the stock price. In practice, who knows.
  - chii 10y ago
    > investors would have priced the loss into the stock price long ago That's a misconception. The investors had done expectations. They were either met or unmet. But unless there is insider info, a project going bad won't get priced before the news is known. Stuck prices isn't some magical thing that knows all. It's simply an average of what everyone believes. Beliefs are sometimes wrong.
    - 10y ago
cpayne 10y ago
The problem is - what's the alternative? Was it a sackable offence? Very unlikely! Google have shareholders/ investors to keep on side. As others have already have said, you can see through the marketing talk to see what is really being said.
marcoperaza 10y ago
A big part of Google's value is in having convinced everyone that they're a super innovative company pumping out new successful products all the time. This keeps talent coming in, keeps talent away from competitors, and acts as a shield against regulation and bad perception by the public. The secret is that they're just a search and ads company that doesn't know what to do with all the money and is having a hard time making any new products stick.

yabatopia 10y ago

Not just for new cities. Reading between the lines they're basically saying that they're shutting down and current assets are up for sale. I wonder who will pick up the pieces?

fowlerpower 10y ago
ISPs need to be disrupted so badly. This was actually one of the few initiatives that I thought would really force everyone to change.
- toast0 10y ago
  ATT is rolling out new fiber (and running fiber they already had at decent speeds), Comcast has their 2G offering and a 1G doccis offering. Speeds have changed, but the fundamental issue is still there: It's impractical to have robust competition in the last mile, and nobody wants to wholesale last mile and make competition an option. Google fiber's early press releases included it, but stopped before they started building. The 1996 telecom act included it, but the FCC abandoned it in the last decade.
  - magila 10y ago
    While Comcast does offer higher speeds, it's prohibitively expensive. In a typical market where Comcast has an effective monopoly the 2Gb service is $300/month and even just 250Mb is $150. Their upload speeds are also pathetic, the 250Mb service is only 30Mb up.
    - toast0 10y ago
      Yes, the 2G service is expensive (it's also delivered over 10G fiber, rate limited on the required router), but their 1G service is more reasonable (i saw $140 on http://www.xfinity.com/gig-offer http://www.xfinity.com/gig-offer ), not sure what the upload is, and availability is meager, of course.
      - deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
      - matt_wulfeck 10y ago
        The question is whether it's symmetric speeds and in-metered. Asymmetric speeds with caps is a fantastic way to offer 1Gb speeds with almost none of the real benefits or innovation opportunities.
      - alcari 10y ago
        Those are symmetric(!); the real killer is the contract duration, the installation/activation fees (up to $1000 total), and the installation time frame (up to 8 weeks).
        toast0 10y ago
        The 2G is symmetric, but I'm not sure about the 1G
    - lorenzhs 10y ago
      For comparison, I pay 50€/month for 200/10 Mbps in Germany (including some phone / TV service that I don't use)
      - JetSpiegel 10y ago
        I pay 34€ a month for 100/100 Mbps in Portugal, including TV and Phone too. And that's because I missed the promotion for a few days or it would be 25€/month.

GavinMcG 10y ago

It turns out saying "we failed and are canceling a product, again" hurts the stock price more.

fowlerpower 10y ago
Sure I follow that but I think that the stock will take the hit no matter what. In the very least be honest with us.
TaylorAlexander 10y ago
Which, said another way, is lying for profit.
- matt4077 10y ago
  Which, in yet another way, would be called "fraud". But may (s)he throw the first press release who does has never couched bad news in sweet sweet quantum leaps of paradigm-shifting.
s8-0913458 10y ago
No, that's not how the stock market works. If a company's project/product were failing and/or losing money, then investors would have priced the loss into the stock price long ago. If a company announces that it is ending a money-losing effort, then investors will value the company more highly. In theory, therefore, this announcement should raise the stock price. In practice, who knows.
- chii 10y ago
  > investors would have priced the loss into the stock price long ago That's a misconception. The investors had done expectations. They were either met or unmet. But unless there is insider info, a project going bad won't get priced before the news is known. Stuck prices isn't some magical thing that knows all. It's simply an average of what everyone believes. Beliefs are sometimes wrong.
  - 10y ago

cpayne 10y ago

The problem is - what's the alternative? Was it a sackable offence? Very unlikely! Google have shareholders/ investors to keep on side. As others have already have said, you can see through the marketing talk to see what is really being said.

marcoperaza 10y ago

A big part of Google's value is in having convinced everyone that they're a super innovative company pumping out new successful products all the time. This keeps talent coming in, keeps talent away from competitors, and acts as a shield against regulation and bad perception by the public. The secret is that they're just a search and ads company that doesn't know what to do with all the money and is having a hard time making any new products stick.