5 ms·

They can send all the letters they want. Larry & Sergey have controlling interest[0] in Alphabet and can very much decide to ignore any of this if they want. In

They can send all the letters they want. Larry & Sergey have controlling interest[0] in Alphabet and can very much decide to ignore any of this if they want. In effect, TCI can't compel them to do anything they don't want to do. I think merging Waze and Google Maps teams is actually smart, whether it cuts cost or not seems like they have similar goals as a product. That said, doesn't mean Alphabet won't head some investors letters or something, so its always possible [0]: https://capital.com/alphabet-shareholder-who-owns-most-googl https://capital.com/alphabet-shareholder-who-owns-most-googl

ramesh31 4y ago
> In effect, TCI can't compel them to do anything they don't want to do. Yes, they can. It’s called fiduciary responsibility, and shareholders sue for it all the time.
- brewdad 4y ago
  In the US you can sue anyone for anything. It doesn't mean you'll win a damn cent though.
- UncleMeat 4y ago
  "We took a 50 billion dollars and lit it on fire" is meaningfully different from "we structured our teams in a way that you think is inefficient."
- gumby 4y ago
  Their fiduciary responsibility is not to defraud the shareholders. Milton Friedman’s idea that management’s only constituency is the shareholders is not actually a matter of law. Management can just say “in our judgement X is the right thing to do, not Y”. Google is too big for TCI to try to gain control over.
  - baryphonic 4y ago
    Courts of law would beg to differ https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2021/12/01/dodge-v-ford-what-happened-and-why/ https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2021/12/01/dodge-v-ford-what...
    - joshuamorton 4y ago
      The wikipedia page pretty accurately summarizes why Dodge v. Ford isn't really a useful citation. Firstly, if an executive says "we believe this is in the interest of long-term shareholder value", the courts basically just defer to their judgement. You can't get the courts to run a company for you. And second, the precedent has been softened since 1916 (or wasn't even true at the time), and for example some corporations like B-corps explicitly reject it, without any legal consequences.
hackerbrother 4y ago
I think they've been merging the codebases already anyways. Maps has added Waze's selling points already (speed trap warnings, etc).
- uoaei 4y ago
  The re-routing in Waze always seems a little better than the offers in GMaps.
  - dietr1ch 4y ago
    I'm guessing it's a preference setting at this point, Waze was acquired long ago and they should have the same information to pick a route. Waze seems more willing to save time even if the path gets more complicated. Maps on the other hand even exposes a "greener" path that minimizes fuel when it won't cost too much time.
  - mattzito 4y ago
    In my experience, Waze is more about the perception of progress - it optimizes for reducing the amount of time you are _waiting_, sometimes at the expense of _progress_. In NYC, it often makes absurd suggestions - I once got in an uber on 33rd and 2nd trying to get to penn station on 31st and 7th avenue. Far and away the most straightforward path is to head west on 31st street all the way to 7th avenue, but there's always a backup between 5th ave and 7th avenue - but that's still the fastest route. Waze directed the uber to head north on 3rd avenue to 39th street, head west, make a left on 5th avenue, then make a right on 35th, then make a left on 7th. It took twice as long, but we were always moving - it just wasn't taking into account how long it can take to make a turn on nyc streets.
- giggyhack 4y ago
  Related question here, do you know if they have done anything public with that data besides showing you a speed trap in real time? Like are there any summary maps of where speed traps typically occur?
- bmitc 4y ago
  I just hope they keep Waze as it is and don’t make it worse.
user3939382 4y ago
I can’t comment on Google specifically but it is possible to have de jure controlling interest, while another party has de facto control because they can threaten to unload a huge position and tank the price.
- usea 4y ago
  Even in that scenario, the people making that threat are not actually in control. The ones with control are choosing to do this, rather than lose money. These people are not forced to make more money at the expense of others. It's their choice.
  - FPGAhacker 4y ago
    What a useless distinction.
    - cool_dude85 4y ago
      Seems pretty useful to me, as it accurately depicts who holds decisionmaking power and what the actual threat is.
      - ggm 4y ago
        But it completely ignores the commercial reality: 10% of your holdings making a move is sometimes enough to swing a board decision. Look at AGL in Australia and the recent play by Grok ventures. Nothing like 50% + 1. They moved the mountain.
        s1artibartfast 4y ago
        You are conflating control with influence. Control is the ability to make a unilateral decision, consequences be damned. Influence is the ability to impose costs and benefits on a decision maker so that they do what you want
        4y ago
phpisthebest 4y ago
>>I think merging Waze and Google Maps teams is actually smart, Only if the Waze teams takes over for the Maps team.. Google Maps is TERRIBLE app, I hate it. and if the Maps team is going to start messing with Waze it will be ruined
- km3r 4y ago
  As someone who only really uses google maps, what makes Waze so much better? (Specifically non car driving directions)
  - phpisthebest 4y ago
    >>Specifically non car driving directions I would never use anything other than driving directions I only walk to and from my car, and i do not own a bike, and if a business does not have parking less than 300ft from the door I am going to a different business
    - hkxer 4y ago
      Not dissing on you by any means, it’s just crazy to me how different this is than London. My train station in Surrey is a good 1.3km walk from my home, but all of my neighbors do the exact same thing.
      - GauntletWizard 4y ago
        Having lived both ways: I was healthier when I walked, but I'm happier not doing so.
        hgsgm 4y ago
    - ghaff 4y ago
      Google generally is poor for hiking trails etc. Use Open Street Maps in that case. (Which isn't perfect but is at least better given there's no money for Google in better hiking trail maps.)

ramesh31 4y ago

> In effect, TCI can't compel them to do anything they don't want to do. Yes, they can. It’s called fiduciary responsibility, and shareholders sue for it all the time.

brewdad 4y ago
In the US you can sue anyone for anything. It doesn't mean you'll win a damn cent though.
UncleMeat 4y ago
"We took a 50 billion dollars and lit it on fire" is meaningfully different from "we structured our teams in a way that you think is inefficient."
gumby 4y ago
Their fiduciary responsibility is not to defraud the shareholders. Milton Friedman’s idea that management’s only constituency is the shareholders is not actually a matter of law. Management can just say “in our judgement X is the right thing to do, not Y”. Google is too big for TCI to try to gain control over.
- baryphonic 4y ago
  Courts of law would beg to differ https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2021/12/01/dodge-v-ford-what-happened-and-why/ https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2021/12/01/dodge-v-ford-what...
  - joshuamorton 4y ago
    The wikipedia page pretty accurately summarizes why Dodge v. Ford isn't really a useful citation. Firstly, if an executive says "we believe this is in the interest of long-term shareholder value", the courts basically just defer to their judgement. You can't get the courts to run a company for you. And second, the precedent has been softened since 1916 (or wasn't even true at the time), and for example some corporations like B-corps explicitly reject it, without any legal consequences.

hackerbrother 4y ago

I think they've been merging the codebases already anyways. Maps has added Waze's selling points already (speed trap warnings, etc).

uoaei 4y ago
The re-routing in Waze always seems a little better than the offers in GMaps.
- dietr1ch 4y ago
  I'm guessing it's a preference setting at this point, Waze was acquired long ago and they should have the same information to pick a route. Waze seems more willing to save time even if the path gets more complicated. Maps on the other hand even exposes a "greener" path that minimizes fuel when it won't cost too much time.
- mattzito 4y ago
  In my experience, Waze is more about the perception of progress - it optimizes for reducing the amount of time you are _waiting_, sometimes at the expense of _progress_. In NYC, it often makes absurd suggestions - I once got in an uber on 33rd and 2nd trying to get to penn station on 31st and 7th avenue. Far and away the most straightforward path is to head west on 31st street all the way to 7th avenue, but there's always a backup between 5th ave and 7th avenue - but that's still the fastest route. Waze directed the uber to head north on 3rd avenue to 39th street, head west, make a left on 5th avenue, then make a right on 35th, then make a left on 7th. It took twice as long, but we were always moving - it just wasn't taking into account how long it can take to make a turn on nyc streets.
giggyhack 4y ago
Related question here, do you know if they have done anything public with that data besides showing you a speed trap in real time? Like are there any summary maps of where speed traps typically occur?
bmitc 4y ago
I just hope they keep Waze as it is and don’t make it worse.

user3939382 4y ago

I can’t comment on Google specifically but it is possible to have de jure controlling interest, while another party has de facto control because they can threaten to unload a huge position and tank the price.

usea 4y ago
Even in that scenario, the people making that threat are not actually in control. The ones with control are choosing to do this, rather than lose money. These people are not forced to make more money at the expense of others. It's their choice.
- FPGAhacker 4y ago
  What a useless distinction.
  - cool_dude85 4y ago
    Seems pretty useful to me, as it accurately depicts who holds decisionmaking power and what the actual threat is.
    - ggm 4y ago
      But it completely ignores the commercial reality: 10% of your holdings making a move is sometimes enough to swing a board decision. Look at AGL in Australia and the recent play by Grok ventures. Nothing like 50% + 1. They moved the mountain.
      - s1artibartfast 4y ago
        You are conflating control with influence. Control is the ability to make a unilateral decision, consequences be damned. Influence is the ability to impose costs and benefits on a decision maker so that they do what you want
        4y ago

phpisthebest 4y ago

>>I think merging Waze and Google Maps teams is actually smart, Only if the Waze teams takes over for the Maps team.. Google Maps is TERRIBLE app, I hate it. and if the Maps team is going to start messing with Waze it will be ruined

km3r 4y ago
As someone who only really uses google maps, what makes Waze so much better? (Specifically non car driving directions)
- phpisthebest 4y ago
  >>Specifically non car driving directions I would never use anything other than driving directions I only walk to and from my car, and i do not own a bike, and if a business does not have parking less than 300ft from the door I am going to a different business
  - hkxer 4y ago
    Not dissing on you by any means, it’s just crazy to me how different this is than London. My train station in Surrey is a good 1.3km walk from my home, but all of my neighbors do the exact same thing.
    - GauntletWizard 4y ago
      Having lived both ways: I was healthier when I walked, but I'm happier not doing so.
      - hgsgm 4y ago
  - ghaff 4y ago
    Google generally is poor for hiking trails etc. Use Open Street Maps in that case. (Which isn't perfect but is at least better given there's no money for Google in better hiking trail maps.)