9 ms·

It's not being too large that forced a split up but their anti-competitive practices and positions. The regional bells still were big enough to run their own re

It's not being too large that forced a split up but their anti-competitive practices and positions. The regional bells still were big enough to run their own research labs. Imagine if Alphabet was broken up, Google search can still afford to run a research lab, as can youtube. The problem I think is how easy it is for large companies to acquire smaller companies. It's how they expand or enter a market, they refuse to be bothered to bootstrap a new org-unit. They just devour smaller, innovative and creative companies. Look at Google, they couldn't be creative and patient enough to compete with youtube so they gulp up youtube. It's the bigcorp M.O. So why bother with R&D when you can just buy a smaller company that does R&D, tests the market and builds a brand for you? My answer: you will suffer from brain drain.and reputation loss,when you buy a smaller company,consumers assume that brand is now dead. You become a cemerery of dreams and ideas. You become an IBM,HP,Xerox and AT&T. Once the damage is done it becomes nearl impossible to recover from. I like IBM as the best example, they are doing superb amounta of innovation even today but look at all their initiatives lack any traction or competitive edge. They have a ton of smart people working on brand new areas of tech like quantum computing,but their reputation and overall culture has not been great. They've been declining consistently. Look at yahoo, yahoo!! They had legitimate means to compete with google toe-to-toe,they relied too much on aquisitions as did Verizon that recently aquired them for a meager $4B. In the end I blame all this on how publicly traded companies prioritize quarterly profits as opposed to multi-year growth. Acquiring bumps up the stock value for a while, spending billions starting from scratch competing or developing a new concept is risky so stocks go down.

rorykoehler 6y ago
Increasingly they don't even buy small companies. They just copy. Look at half of Microsoft recent activity.
- jpadkins 6y ago
  recent? They have been copying since the 1980s...
  - rorykoehler 6y ago
    True. There was a phase of acquisitions in the interim.
TheCabin 6y ago
> My answer: you will suffer from brain drain.and reputation loss,when you buy a smaller company,consumers assume that brand is now dead. Not so sure about that. Maybe if you read HN a lot, but I think most users won't even notice.
- neutronicus 6y ago
  "Facebook bought WhatsApp - guess we're moving the family group chat to Signal"
  - scarface74 6y ago
    if that anecdote was applicable to the broader market, wouldn’t we have seen WhatsApp’s numbers decline and Signal’s numbers rise after the acquisition?
    - neutronicus 6y ago
      I was being sarcastic
    - badrabbit 6y ago
      Signal is very popular but whatsapp was aquired before Signal was well known (2014-15 I think) and their user base mostly don't even know it belongs to FB. I have had multiple people act shocked when I tell them whatsapp and Instagram are FB.
- badrabbit 6y ago
  Your core consumers that are foundational to your brand will always care. But more often than not if there are no alternatives it just becomes a long term disinterest in your brand. Fun example: Star wars fans and Disney aquisition.
  - nck4222 6y ago
    Considering Star wars media continues to print money for Disney, and core Star wars consumers were appalled at the franchise before the acquisition (prequels), that's not the best example.
david_draco 6y ago
> Imagine if Alphabet was broken up, Google search can still afford to run a research lab, as can youtube. This doesn't make sense to me. Google search and youtube are just front-ends for Alphabet to make money through advertising. If Alphabet truly was broken up, Google search and youtube would not be able to use google ads jointly in the same way, and they don't make money otherwise.
kalleboo 6y ago
> My answer: you will suffer from brain drain.and reputation loss,when you buy a smaller company,consumers assume that brand is now dead. You become a cemerery of dreams and ideas. You become an IBM,HP,Xerox and AT&T. Once the damage is done it becomes nearl impossible to recover from. Would Apple be a counter-example? Multitouch, PA Semi, Siri, TouchID, etc etc lots of Apple technology was acquired but nobody laments the death of those “brands”
- tonyedgecombe 6y ago
  I don't know what the current figure is but traditionally Apple's spending on R&D has been quite low for the size of the business.
  - VMisTheWay 6y ago
    Apple should not be used as an example of successful business practices. Not everyone can spin negativities into positives and have fans continue to buy their products. Similarly I don't think there is much to learn from Jeep brand. Big sales, low quality, huge marketing budget.
- partyboat1586 6y ago
  Because all the tech Apple acquired was acquired before it was a big recognisable brand. Also Apple are very good at making it look like they came up with it. Ask someone who doesn't follow the movements of big tech companies 'Who invented Siri?', 'Who invented TouchID?'etc they will say Apple.
  - scarface74 6y ago
    You mention Siri as an example of Apple taking credit. Siri was on the App Store before Apple bought it and they kept the name. But honestly, who cares but geeks about what the general population thinks about who invented it?
    - dguest 6y ago
sumedh 6y ago
> Imagine if Alphabet was broken up, Google search can still afford to run a research lab, as can youtube. Is Youtube even profitable? Doesn't Google make 90%+ revenue from ads?
- badrabbit 6y ago
  Under Google not so much. But you just need liquidity for R&D, the point being you will develop new concepts that will improve profits. Netflix,hulu,amazon prime all came after youtube,perhaps good R&D without Alaphapet's shackles would have let them compete in those markets and more (video conferencing for example like zoom).
  - sumedh 6y ago
    Netflix had a profitable dvd business, Hulu has the backing of major studios, Prime has Amazon. I dont think Youtube would have survived without Google.
- cannabis_sam 6y ago
  Youtube’s main value is it’s market dominance. That’s why it’s so terrible to use, there’s no competitive incentive to actually improve the user aspects of the service (the advertisers are a COMPLETELY different ballgame tho), they already own the video space and have google/alphabet’s financial muscle to keep competitors away.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- nl 6y ago
  > Is Youtube even profitable? Yes, extremely[1]. Google (and most large bandwidth users) doesn't pay for bandwidth because they have peering agreements. Storage is cheap. [1] https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.theverge.com/platform/amp/2020/2/3/21121207/youtube-google-alphabet-earnings-revenue-first-time-reveal-q4-2019 https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.theverge.com/platform/amp/2...
enitihas 6y ago
> Imagine if Alphabet was broken up, Google search can still afford to run a research lab, as can youtube. It is far more likely that YouTube will go bankrupt, since running a free video service where videos are almost infinite and cache hits much lower is very costly. Couple that with all the other advantages of being with Google like access to talent and infra, I don't see YouTube surviving with Google. It's possible that the tab will be picked up by Facebook video, and that is an even worse platform and more closed. I don't see a cheap way of solving the YouTube problem. (Yes P2P exists but has too many problems like battery consumption on phones and NAT).
- cannabis_sam 6y ago
  That would be fantastic tho, we would have an influx of startups competing in the video space, since they don’t have to compete with youtube being artificially propped up by a completely unrelated business model
  - enitihas 6y ago
    Yeah, startups aren't going to magically make things cheaper than YouTube. So if any startups arise, they would follow a paid model most likely. Now that might be fantastic depending on where you come from. If you have disposable income, it is a huge win to have a non ad supported video platform which might even be more privacy protecting. If you are a poor kid using YouTube to watch MIT OCW and khan academy and innumerable other resources, well you are screwed.
    - cannabis_sam 6y ago
      If you are a poor kid, you upload your interpretation of a Bach piece and get slammed by an injust, extralegal pseudo-copyright mechanism, that’s in essence an attack on human culture.. MIT and Khan Academy could easily host their content using BitTorrent and reduce their bandwidth usage by 95% ( https://nrkbeta.no/2008/03/02/thoughts-on-bittorrent-distribution-for-a-public-broadcaster/ https://nrkbeta.no/2008/03/02/thoughts-on-bittorrent-distrib... )
formercoder 6y ago
Ironically, acquiring generally lowers the acquirer’s stock price in the short term.
vulcan01 6y ago
On the other hand, people complain about Apple "sherlocking" apps when they release Sidecar for example. By your logic, > they couldn't be creative and patient enough to compete with youtube so they gulp up YouTube So what can they do? If they had launched "Google Videos" they would have surely been accused of squashing small companies... What option do they have?

rorykoehler 6y ago

Increasingly they don't even buy small companies. They just copy. Look at half of Microsoft recent activity.

jpadkins 6y ago
recent? They have been copying since the 1980s...
- rorykoehler 6y ago
  True. There was a phase of acquisitions in the interim.

TheCabin 6y ago

> My answer: you will suffer from brain drain.and reputation loss,when you buy a smaller company,consumers assume that brand is now dead. Not so sure about that. Maybe if you read HN a lot, but I think most users won't even notice.

neutronicus 6y ago
"Facebook bought WhatsApp - guess we're moving the family group chat to Signal"
- scarface74 6y ago
  if that anecdote was applicable to the broader market, wouldn’t we have seen WhatsApp’s numbers decline and Signal’s numbers rise after the acquisition?
  - neutronicus 6y ago
    I was being sarcastic
  - badrabbit 6y ago
    Signal is very popular but whatsapp was aquired before Signal was well known (2014-15 I think) and their user base mostly don't even know it belongs to FB. I have had multiple people act shocked when I tell them whatsapp and Instagram are FB.
badrabbit 6y ago
Your core consumers that are foundational to your brand will always care. But more often than not if there are no alternatives it just becomes a long term disinterest in your brand. Fun example: Star wars fans and Disney aquisition.
- nck4222 6y ago
  Considering Star wars media continues to print money for Disney, and core Star wars consumers were appalled at the franchise before the acquisition (prequels), that's not the best example.

david_draco 6y ago

> Imagine if Alphabet was broken up, Google search can still afford to run a research lab, as can youtube. This doesn't make sense to me. Google search and youtube are just front-ends for Alphabet to make money through advertising. If Alphabet truly was broken up, Google search and youtube would not be able to use google ads jointly in the same way, and they don't make money otherwise.

kalleboo 6y ago

> My answer: you will suffer from brain drain.and reputation loss,when you buy a smaller company,consumers assume that brand is now dead. You become a cemerery of dreams and ideas. You become an IBM,HP,Xerox and AT&T. Once the damage is done it becomes nearl impossible to recover from. Would Apple be a counter-example? Multitouch, PA Semi, Siri, TouchID, etc etc lots of Apple technology was acquired but nobody laments the death of those “brands”

tonyedgecombe 6y ago
I don't know what the current figure is but traditionally Apple's spending on R&D has been quite low for the size of the business.
- VMisTheWay 6y ago
  Apple should not be used as an example of successful business practices. Not everyone can spin negativities into positives and have fans continue to buy their products. Similarly I don't think there is much to learn from Jeep brand. Big sales, low quality, huge marketing budget.
partyboat1586 6y ago
Because all the tech Apple acquired was acquired before it was a big recognisable brand. Also Apple are very good at making it look like they came up with it. Ask someone who doesn't follow the movements of big tech companies 'Who invented Siri?', 'Who invented TouchID?'etc they will say Apple.
- scarface74 6y ago
  You mention Siri as an example of Apple taking credit. Siri was on the App Store before Apple bought it and they kept the name. But honestly, who cares but geeks about what the general population thinks about who invented it?
  - dguest 6y ago

sumedh 6y ago

> Imagine if Alphabet was broken up, Google search can still afford to run a research lab, as can youtube. Is Youtube even profitable? Doesn't Google make 90%+ revenue from ads?

badrabbit 6y ago
Under Google not so much. But you just need liquidity for R&D, the point being you will develop new concepts that will improve profits. Netflix,hulu,amazon prime all came after youtube,perhaps good R&D without Alaphapet's shackles would have let them compete in those markets and more (video conferencing for example like zoom).
- sumedh 6y ago
  Netflix had a profitable dvd business, Hulu has the backing of major studios, Prime has Amazon. I dont think Youtube would have survived without Google.
cannabis_sam 6y ago
Youtube’s main value is it’s market dominance. That’s why it’s so terrible to use, there’s no competitive incentive to actually improve the user aspects of the service (the advertisers are a COMPLETELY different ballgame tho), they already own the video space and have google/alphabet’s financial muscle to keep competitors away.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
nl 6y ago
> Is Youtube even profitable? Yes, extremely[1]. Google (and most large bandwidth users) doesn't pay for bandwidth because they have peering agreements. Storage is cheap. [1] https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.theverge.com/platform/amp/2020/2/3/21121207/youtube-google-alphabet-earnings-revenue-first-time-reveal-q4-2019 https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.theverge.com/platform/amp/2...

enitihas 6y ago

> Imagine if Alphabet was broken up, Google search can still afford to run a research lab, as can youtube. It is far more likely that YouTube will go bankrupt, since running a free video service where videos are almost infinite and cache hits much lower is very costly. Couple that with all the other advantages of being with Google like access to talent and infra, I don't see YouTube surviving with Google. It's possible that the tab will be picked up by Facebook video, and that is an even worse platform and more closed. I don't see a cheap way of solving the YouTube problem. (Yes P2P exists but has too many problems like battery consumption on phones and NAT).

cannabis_sam 6y ago
That would be fantastic tho, we would have an influx of startups competing in the video space, since they don’t have to compete with youtube being artificially propped up by a completely unrelated business model
- enitihas 6y ago
  Yeah, startups aren't going to magically make things cheaper than YouTube. So if any startups arise, they would follow a paid model most likely. Now that might be fantastic depending on where you come from. If you have disposable income, it is a huge win to have a non ad supported video platform which might even be more privacy protecting. If you are a poor kid using YouTube to watch MIT OCW and khan academy and innumerable other resources, well you are screwed.
  - cannabis_sam 6y ago
    If you are a poor kid, you upload your interpretation of a Bach piece and get slammed by an injust, extralegal pseudo-copyright mechanism, that’s in essence an attack on human culture.. MIT and Khan Academy could easily host their content using BitTorrent and reduce their bandwidth usage by 95% ( https://nrkbeta.no/2008/03/02/thoughts-on-bittorrent-distribution-for-a-public-broadcaster/ https://nrkbeta.no/2008/03/02/thoughts-on-bittorrent-distrib... )

formercoder 6y ago

Ironically, acquiring generally lowers the acquirer’s stock price in the short term.

vulcan01 6y ago

On the other hand, people complain about Apple "sherlocking" apps when they release Sidecar for example. By your logic, > they couldn't be creative and patient enough to compete with youtube so they gulp up YouTube So what can they do? If they had launched "Google Videos" they would have surely been accused of squashing small companies... What option do they have?