7 ms·

Before people go too far with not actually reading the article, here are the main points to actually understand: 1. This is Verily, not Google, owned by Alphab

Before people go too far with not actually reading the article, here are the main points to actually understand: 1. This is Verily, not Google, owned by Alphabet. 2. They are releasing male mosquitoes (that don't bite) in the area, where the species is not native. They are attempting to remove the species only from their unnatural habitat. 3. The headline is clickbait, as Google is not involved and no one is trying to eliminate mosquitoes "around the world." In all cases I've seen of countering mosquitoes in any way, all researchers are aware of risks and take them very seriously. The goals tend to be similar to this one or have to do with eliminating the spread of malaria and other mosquito-transmitted disease.

ardy42 8y ago
> This is Verily, not Google, owned by Alphabet. That's a minor distinction without a difference in the public's mind. Alphabet == Google unless you care an unusual amount about that corporation's org charts.
- bun_at_work 8y ago
  It's very different. They are literally different companies with different mission statements. Just because you don't want to take the time to understand, being content to become outraged whenever you read a specific six letters in sequence, doesn't mean everyone else should, or that you should contribute to FUD.
  - sooheon 8y ago
    The immediate jump to assuming outrage and FUD in others strange. I associate Alphabet as ~= Google and I am not outraged that they're researching this topic. Why the overeager apologia?
    - bun_at_work 8y ago
      I'm not particularly interested in defending anyone here, but I am very concerned with how easy it is to lead online opinion by misrepresenting the facts. The article is clickbait, the comment I responded to is misdirected outrage without a genuine effort to understand the context. This is a problem that is plaguing our society, and therefore gets me a bit worked up. It's so much easier to drop a snarky remark that is irrelevant to the conversation or doesn't actually refute any point than it is to engage with the context, but that's bad for society and the current conversation. I generally associate Alphabet and Google because they are related. However, only through a parent relationship are Verily and Google related - and there is no "ad company" trying to "eliminate" mosquitos.
      - influx 8y ago
        Are you an employee or have invested in any Alphabet associated companies? You comment very frequently on Google related threads.
        bun_at_work 8y ago
        Nope - I'm not an employee and don't own stock, but I have spent a good deal of time trying to understand how Google makes money, as well as how their company is structured. I tried to understand Alphabet and Google because I use Google products and care about what they do with the data. Given an understanding of how they work, I see a lot of misrepresentation of their business model and lack of understanding around it. So I try to help with that. On HN in general, there is a ridiculous level of mistrust for Google. I think it's good for everyone to be critical, but to be critical, people need to actually think and understand what they are being critical of. Instead, they often skip past all the thinking and go straight to worst-case doomsday scenarios. In this case, that means only reading the clickbait title of an article and assuming Google has some nefarious plot to destroy the ecosystem worldwide. That type of behavior is dangerous. People should be critical of Google. There are real issues with advertising revue, how that industry is motivated and incentivized, damage that can be done by the industry and powerful players, etc etc. When people don't think about and engage with the topics they are discussing it causes more harm, because it distracts from real problems. People in this thread are looking at the article's headline and questioning why an advertising company would try to kill mosquitos worldwide, which is a far cry from what the article is actual talking about. These problems arise in a number of topics, I just happen to see it a lot in Google related articles and say something because I know more about Google than other topics.
        influx 8y ago
        Awesome, thanks for clarifying.
  - lettergram 8y ago
    Most companies are broken up into separate entities. For instance, nearly 100% of the banks you interact with are more than one "company". You have mortgage, auto loan, credit cards, etc. The reason for this is liability and billing (same as Alphabet). They may even have different mottos and definitely different management. All that is to mitigate risk and work more effectively, but they are the same entitity owned by the same people, typically with the same driving factor or competitive advantage.
    - bun_at_work 8y ago
      In the case of Verily and Google, however, they don't have the same driving factor or competitive advantage. Google's profits and business strategy revolve around advertising. Verily revolves around life sciences.
      - chatmasta 8y ago
        And where does Verily get the money to pay for its ventures?
        bun_at_work 8y ago
        Great question. I'll look into it later, but you should do the same. I'm fairly certain they have their own profit model, and don't cover all costs strictly from Google's advertising business.
  - ardy42 8y ago
    > It's very different. They are literally different companies with different mission statements. Only if you care an unusual amount about that corporation's org charts. Corporate mission statements are meaningless, except to an even smaller group of people. Insisting that Alphabet isn't Google, is sort of like insisting that Puffs [1] tissues aren't Kleenex. While it may technically be true in some legalistic sense, a vanishingly small number of people actually care and colloquial language disagrees. People will look at you funny if you act like the distinction matters, because it doesn't. [1] https://puffs.com/en-us https://puffs.com/en-us
    - sonnyblarney 8y ago
      "Corporate mission statements are meaningless, except to an even smaller group of people." They are point blank different companies. Different CEO, HR, contracts, locations, resources. The only thing they have are common ownership. There might be some hints in strategic overlap. They are more like 'different companies' than they are 'the same company'. They could be peeled off from their parent owner and much would be the same.
      - ardy42 8y ago
        Do you happen to work for Google/Alphabet or have you in the past? I imagine that the distinction is actually pretty meaningful and important for people who work there, but pretty meaningless to everyone else in the world who doesn't.
      - cwyers 8y ago
        > The only thing they have are common ownership. Companies that are actually independent besides common ownership don't share a stock symbol and they don't comingle revenues.
        sonnyblarney 8y ago
        Any company that owns 51% or more of another company has to put the owned company on their balance sheet. It's legally a subsidiary and must have 'co mingled' accounting. Also there's no reason for Alpha to break out revenues in their reports if they don't want to. The whole point of Alpha was to in fact treat the sub companies as effectively independent, which is mostly what is going on.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - supermatt 8y ago
    https://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/goog https://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/goog Let's not kid ourselves, Alphabet Inc is Google.
  - briffle 8y ago
    So in your mind, AWS is a completely different company than Amazon, right? They have their own CEO.. What Stock does one acquire to own part of this company? Oh, GOOG
  - onetimemanytime 8y ago
    Yeah and P Diddy changed his name again.
  - dang 8y ago
    This comment and a few of your others have crossed into flamewar, which is the opposite of what we want here, so please don't do that. As for your main point, I don't see a good solution. No one has heard of Verily. If we /s/Google/Alphabet/ in the title, that feels a bit like weasling to me. Everybody knows this company as Google. On the other hand, if we leave Google in the title, we get irrelevant (and worse) comments about search engines and ads.
    - bun_at_work 8y ago
      Hey - I realize that comment was a little over the top, not sure what others you're referring to, though. My irritation got the best of me. Regarding your other point, I think the good solution is to accurately address the topic/subject, even if that means some people don't recognize the connection. If the headline was referencing Verily, instead of Google, then a good number of people would learn about Verily, right? Pandering to the uninformed doesn't help anyone, except in this case, the publisher, which was clearly going for clickbait. I really don't think it's a good idea to favor inaccurate information over writing a few extra sentences (maybe just one?) in the article. As a better alternative: "Verily Has a Plan to Fight Mosquitos in California" Then in the article, something like "Verily, a subsidiary of Alphabet, Google's parent company, ..." Boom, no false info, people learn who Verily is, and the world is better off for not leaning into clickbait and outrage-based journalism.
tjpnz 8y ago
How is this new from solutions that others have already proposed? And what business does an ad company have in getting into this?
- zebrafish 8y ago
  If it works, they can sell it to governments I assume.
  - onetimemanytime 8y ago
    Correct and there's money there. Other then disease they also bother you: a whole industry exists to keep them from biting you.
- bun_at_work 8y ago
  Again, this is Verily [0], not an ad company. [0] https://verily.com/ https://verily.com/
- owlmirror 8y ago
  Alphabet is not only Google Anymore, it's a conglomarate with a portfolio of a very diverse range of industries.
  - giobox 8y ago
    Alphabet never was “only Google” even on day 1. Google was long a conglomerate containing Google and “Other Bets”, other companies such as Nest etc before the alphabet shuffle. Google was more or less just as much a holding company for a diverse range of other companies such as this Verily then as Alphabet is now, which is why the distinction between the two is considered so artificial by many here, an idea further compounded by the fact Google stock was converted to Alphabet stock and still uses Google’s ticker symbols.
- dirkgently 8y ago
  > And what business does an ad company have in getting into this? Yes, instead of applauding the effort of solving a very difficult problem that could help people in real meaningful way, I am just going to go for cheap potshots to show how elite I am.
cdibona 8y ago
Also we're talking about the one type of mosquito that carries malaria to people. The rest are tickety-boo and can continue to make your figs happen.
boomboomsubban 8y ago
Alphabet was a corporate restructuring of Google, which also changed the name "Google Life Sciences" to "Verily." The search engine Google is not involved, but the company everyone knows as Google is involved.
- bun_at_work 8y ago
  Yep - that's true. However, they are different companies with different staff, mission statements, and overall goals now. Conflating them to suggest that an ad company is trying to eliminate mosquitos is misleading, at best.
  - cwyers 8y ago
    Alphabet is a company that still makes the bulk of its revenue from advertising, and invests that money in its other ventures. It's not misleading at all to suggest that this project is being funded by advertising revenue.
    - bun_at_work 8y ago
      Sure, Alphabet makes a good chunk of revenue from advertising, and re-invests it. Verily is not an advertising company, even if they get some money from advertising. Furthermore, Verily has its own profit streams, and isn't doing anything with mosquitos that increasing advertising streams to Google. The projects are unrelated. If I work on software and work and later clean my toilet at home, you wouldn't say the gloves I wear are my IDE and that I'm programming. However, I bought the gloves using money from my software development job.
      - cwyers 8y ago
        Look, it's pretty simple. https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/02/alphabet-business-units-revenue-contribution-and-ceos.html https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/02/alphabet-business-units-reve... Google makes the bulk of its revenue from advertising. Google generates substantial profits. The non-Google parts of Alphabet are, as a group, running at a loss. Google's advertising profits are used to subsidize Alphabet's "other bets."

ardy42 8y ago

> This is Verily, not Google, owned by Alphabet. That's a minor distinction without a difference in the public's mind. Alphabet == Google unless you care an unusual amount about that corporation's org charts.

bun_at_work 8y ago
It's very different. They are literally different companies with different mission statements. Just because you don't want to take the time to understand, being content to become outraged whenever you read a specific six letters in sequence, doesn't mean everyone else should, or that you should contribute to FUD.
- sooheon 8y ago
  The immediate jump to assuming outrage and FUD in others strange. I associate Alphabet as ~= Google and I am not outraged that they're researching this topic. Why the overeager apologia?
  - bun_at_work 8y ago
    I'm not particularly interested in defending anyone here, but I am very concerned with how easy it is to lead online opinion by misrepresenting the facts. The article is clickbait, the comment I responded to is misdirected outrage without a genuine effort to understand the context. This is a problem that is plaguing our society, and therefore gets me a bit worked up. It's so much easier to drop a snarky remark that is irrelevant to the conversation or doesn't actually refute any point than it is to engage with the context, but that's bad for society and the current conversation. I generally associate Alphabet and Google because they are related. However, only through a parent relationship are Verily and Google related - and there is no "ad company" trying to "eliminate" mosquitos.
    - influx 8y ago
      Are you an employee or have invested in any Alphabet associated companies? You comment very frequently on Google related threads.
      - bun_at_work 8y ago
        Nope - I'm not an employee and don't own stock, but I have spent a good deal of time trying to understand how Google makes money, as well as how their company is structured. I tried to understand Alphabet and Google because I use Google products and care about what they do with the data. Given an understanding of how they work, I see a lot of misrepresentation of their business model and lack of understanding around it. So I try to help with that. On HN in general, there is a ridiculous level of mistrust for Google. I think it's good for everyone to be critical, but to be critical, people need to actually think and understand what they are being critical of. Instead, they often skip past all the thinking and go straight to worst-case doomsday scenarios. In this case, that means only reading the clickbait title of an article and assuming Google has some nefarious plot to destroy the ecosystem worldwide. That type of behavior is dangerous. People should be critical of Google. There are real issues with advertising revue, how that industry is motivated and incentivized, damage that can be done by the industry and powerful players, etc etc. When people don't think about and engage with the topics they are discussing it causes more harm, because it distracts from real problems. People in this thread are looking at the article's headline and questioning why an advertising company would try to kill mosquitos worldwide, which is a far cry from what the article is actual talking about. These problems arise in a number of topics, I just happen to see it a lot in Google related articles and say something because I know more about Google than other topics.
        influx 8y ago
        Awesome, thanks for clarifying.
- lettergram 8y ago
  Most companies are broken up into separate entities. For instance, nearly 100% of the banks you interact with are more than one "company". You have mortgage, auto loan, credit cards, etc. The reason for this is liability and billing (same as Alphabet). They may even have different mottos and definitely different management. All that is to mitigate risk and work more effectively, but they are the same entitity owned by the same people, typically with the same driving factor or competitive advantage.
  - bun_at_work 8y ago
    In the case of Verily and Google, however, they don't have the same driving factor or competitive advantage. Google's profits and business strategy revolve around advertising. Verily revolves around life sciences.
    - chatmasta 8y ago
      And where does Verily get the money to pay for its ventures?
      - bun_at_work 8y ago
        Great question. I'll look into it later, but you should do the same. I'm fairly certain they have their own profit model, and don't cover all costs strictly from Google's advertising business.
- ardy42 8y ago
  > It's very different. They are literally different companies with different mission statements. Only if you care an unusual amount about that corporation's org charts. Corporate mission statements are meaningless, except to an even smaller group of people. Insisting that Alphabet isn't Google, is sort of like insisting that Puffs [1] tissues aren't Kleenex. While it may technically be true in some legalistic sense, a vanishingly small number of people actually care and colloquial language disagrees. People will look at you funny if you act like the distinction matters, because it doesn't. [1] https://puffs.com/en-us https://puffs.com/en-us
  - sonnyblarney 8y ago
    "Corporate mission statements are meaningless, except to an even smaller group of people." They are point blank different companies. Different CEO, HR, contracts, locations, resources. The only thing they have are common ownership. There might be some hints in strategic overlap. They are more like 'different companies' than they are 'the same company'. They could be peeled off from their parent owner and much would be the same.
    - ardy42 8y ago
      Do you happen to work for Google/Alphabet or have you in the past? I imagine that the distinction is actually pretty meaningful and important for people who work there, but pretty meaningless to everyone else in the world who doesn't.
    - cwyers 8y ago
      > The only thing they have are common ownership. Companies that are actually independent besides common ownership don't share a stock symbol and they don't comingle revenues.
      - sonnyblarney 8y ago
        Any company that owns 51% or more of another company has to put the owned company on their balance sheet. It's legally a subsidiary and must have 'co mingled' accounting. Also there's no reason for Alpha to break out revenues in their reports if they don't want to. The whole point of Alpha was to in fact treat the sub companies as effectively independent, which is mostly what is going on.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- supermatt 8y ago
  https://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/goog https://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/goog Let's not kid ourselves, Alphabet Inc is Google.
- briffle 8y ago
  So in your mind, AWS is a completely different company than Amazon, right? They have their own CEO.. What Stock does one acquire to own part of this company? Oh, GOOG
- onetimemanytime 8y ago
  Yeah and P Diddy changed his name again.
- dang 8y ago
  This comment and a few of your others have crossed into flamewar, which is the opposite of what we want here, so please don't do that. As for your main point, I don't see a good solution. No one has heard of Verily. If we /s/Google/Alphabet/ in the title, that feels a bit like weasling to me. Everybody knows this company as Google. On the other hand, if we leave Google in the title, we get irrelevant (and worse) comments about search engines and ads.
  - bun_at_work 8y ago
    Hey - I realize that comment was a little over the top, not sure what others you're referring to, though. My irritation got the best of me. Regarding your other point, I think the good solution is to accurately address the topic/subject, even if that means some people don't recognize the connection. If the headline was referencing Verily, instead of Google, then a good number of people would learn about Verily, right? Pandering to the uninformed doesn't help anyone, except in this case, the publisher, which was clearly going for clickbait. I really don't think it's a good idea to favor inaccurate information over writing a few extra sentences (maybe just one?) in the article. As a better alternative: "Verily Has a Plan to Fight Mosquitos in California" Then in the article, something like "Verily, a subsidiary of Alphabet, Google's parent company, ..." Boom, no false info, people learn who Verily is, and the world is better off for not leaning into clickbait and outrage-based journalism.

tjpnz 8y ago

How is this new from solutions that others have already proposed? And what business does an ad company have in getting into this?

zebrafish 8y ago
If it works, they can sell it to governments I assume.
- onetimemanytime 8y ago
  Correct and there's money there. Other then disease they also bother you: a whole industry exists to keep them from biting you.
bun_at_work 8y ago
Again, this is Verily [0], not an ad company. [0] https://verily.com/ https://verily.com/
owlmirror 8y ago
Alphabet is not only Google Anymore, it's a conglomarate with a portfolio of a very diverse range of industries.
- giobox 8y ago
  Alphabet never was “only Google” even on day 1. Google was long a conglomerate containing Google and “Other Bets”, other companies such as Nest etc before the alphabet shuffle. Google was more or less just as much a holding company for a diverse range of other companies such as this Verily then as Alphabet is now, which is why the distinction between the two is considered so artificial by many here, an idea further compounded by the fact Google stock was converted to Alphabet stock and still uses Google’s ticker symbols.
dirkgently 8y ago
> And what business does an ad company have in getting into this? Yes, instead of applauding the effort of solving a very difficult problem that could help people in real meaningful way, I am just going to go for cheap potshots to show how elite I am.

cdibona 8y ago

Also we're talking about the one type of mosquito that carries malaria to people. The rest are tickety-boo and can continue to make your figs happen.

boomboomsubban 8y ago

Alphabet was a corporate restructuring of Google, which also changed the name "Google Life Sciences" to "Verily." The search engine Google is not involved, but the company everyone knows as Google is involved.

bun_at_work 8y ago
Yep - that's true. However, they are different companies with different staff, mission statements, and overall goals now. Conflating them to suggest that an ad company is trying to eliminate mosquitos is misleading, at best.
- cwyers 8y ago
  Alphabet is a company that still makes the bulk of its revenue from advertising, and invests that money in its other ventures. It's not misleading at all to suggest that this project is being funded by advertising revenue.
  - bun_at_work 8y ago
    Sure, Alphabet makes a good chunk of revenue from advertising, and re-invests it. Verily is not an advertising company, even if they get some money from advertising. Furthermore, Verily has its own profit streams, and isn't doing anything with mosquitos that increasing advertising streams to Google. The projects are unrelated. If I work on software and work and later clean my toilet at home, you wouldn't say the gloves I wear are my IDE and that I'm programming. However, I bought the gloves using money from my software development job.
    - cwyers 8y ago
      Look, it's pretty simple. https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/02/alphabet-business-units-revenue-contribution-and-ceos.html https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/02/alphabet-business-units-reve... Google makes the bulk of its revenue from advertising. Google generates substantial profits. The non-Google parts of Alphabet are, as a group, running at a loss. Google's advertising profits are used to subsidize Alphabet's "other bets."