6 ms·

Out of curiosity, why not?

by Leszek 11y ago

virtualSatai 11y ago
I'm pretty sure it has been seen before that Google or another big tech company buys a smaller up-and-comming company/great idea, and it is never heard from again.
- mschuster91 11y ago
  Well, Google has fairly much experience in the automobile sector with their self-driving cars. Shit, a self-driving Tesla, now that is a car worth saving every penny for...
  - eclipxe 11y ago
    Tesla's upcoming autopilot feature is part of the way there. Only a matter of time.
    - mikeash 11y ago
      In the context of self-driving cars, autopilot is in the category of "we're 90% done, only 90% to go!" Except much worse than that, because that implies you're about halfway there, and autopilot is maybe 10% of the way towards full self-driving. Don't get me wrong, autopilot is super cool and really useful. The autopilot features that are currently enabled in my Model S are wonderful, and I can't wait until they're all there. But they won't be even close to full self-driving. All it will do is maintain speed intelligently based on the car in front of you, automatically stay in your lane, and switch lanes on command. It won't switch lanes on its own, it won't stop at stoplights, it won't make turns for you, or do any of the hundred other really difficult (for computers) things that are part of everyday driving.
- jkestner 11y ago
  Sibling: Google has made a prototype that drives on a virtual track. That's far away from manufacturing a car, let alone a self-driving one. Relevant: http://www.asymco.com/2015/02/23/the-entrants-guide-to-the-automobile-industry/ http://www.asymco.com/2015/02/23/the-entrants-guide-to-the-a...
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  > I'm pretty sure it has been seen before that Google or another big tech company buys a smaller up-and-comming company/great idea, and it is never heard from again. I'm pretty sure the opposite has also been seen [0]; what's the basis for concluding a Google acquisition would have put Tesla closer to the "never heard from again" side? [0] Google's acquisition of Android, for instance.
eco 11y ago
Haven't you heard what happened to Google Reader? If Google can't even keep small projects with no revenue stream going then how can we trust them with much harder projects for which they will have invested billions of dollars? They'd probably buy Tesla then shut it down immediately. Even if they didn't shut it down Google is an ad company which means it is incapable of deriving profit from anything but advertisements. Google Tesla of today may have been nothing more than a company that sells in-home battery backup for AdWords.
- eco 11y ago
  It's hard to tell if I flew too close to Poe's law, failed at sarcasm, have an minority opinion, or just wasn't contributing to the conversation. Probably a combination.
mikeash 11y ago
Acquisitions in general are often bad for the product being acquired. It often gets dismantled for the technology and re-incorporated into different products, or stagnates because the parent company's priorities are different, or just falls victim to internal politics as it becomes just one part of a larger company with many different priorities. Google seems like a particularly bad acquirer for this as well, since they have no relevant expertise, market position, interests, etc. They don't manufacture anything, they don't sell physical products, they don't even really sell nonphysical products other than ads. Look at what happened with Motorola Mobility, for example. Google paid a ton of money for it, basically dicked around for a couple of years with it doing nothing of note, then vomited it back up again. Thankfully Motorola Mobility was not terribly remarkable to begin with so it wasn't a big loss.
- kbenson 11y ago
  Google acquired Motorola for its patents as ammunition in a larger war. I agree it supports your main point about acquisitions in general, but I'm not sure it's indicative of what being bought by Google is like in the general case.
  - mikeash 11y ago
    It seems like that is the default case for acquisitions with just about any company, and ones where more interesting stuff happens with the acquired company are not the norm.
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  > Look at what happened with Motorola Mobility, for example. Google paid a ton of money for it, basically dicked around for a couple of years with it doing nothing of note, then vomited it back up again. Google fairly overtly bought it for the patent portfolio and had the plan to resell most of the rest from day one. The thing Google was buying was the patents, the rest of Motorola Mobility was packaging. Contrast with Android, YouTube, or anything else where Google wasn't buying patents or doing an acquihire, but actually buying a company for a product. (Google probably looks worse in some respect for products because it has the kind of reserves that let it spend money for big acquisitions when all it wants is an acquihire or some resource like Motorola's patent portfolio and doesn't have any plan or concern for the main product, but I think that's an indication that it is bad when it actually is buying for product.)

Out of curiosity, why not?

by Leszek 11y ago

Out of curiosity, why not?

I'm pretty sure it has been seen before that Google or another big tech company buys a smaller up-and-comming company/great idea, and it is never heard from again.

mschuster91 11y ago
Well, Google has fairly much experience in the automobile sector with their self-driving cars. Shit, a self-driving Tesla, now that is a car worth saving every penny for...
- eclipxe 11y ago
  Tesla's upcoming autopilot feature is part of the way there. Only a matter of time.
  - mikeash 11y ago
    In the context of self-driving cars, autopilot is in the category of "we're 90% done, only 90% to go!" Except much worse than that, because that implies you're about halfway there, and autopilot is maybe 10% of the way towards full self-driving. Don't get me wrong, autopilot is super cool and really useful. The autopilot features that are currently enabled in my Model S are wonderful, and I can't wait until they're all there. But they won't be even close to full self-driving. All it will do is maintain speed intelligently based on the car in front of you, automatically stay in your lane, and switch lanes on command. It won't switch lanes on its own, it won't stop at stoplights, it won't make turns for you, or do any of the hundred other really difficult (for computers) things that are part of everyday driving.
jkestner 11y ago
Sibling: Google has made a prototype that drives on a virtual track. That's far away from manufacturing a car, let alone a self-driving one. Relevant: http://www.asymco.com/2015/02/23/the-entrants-guide-to-the-automobile-industry/ http://www.asymco.com/2015/02/23/the-entrants-guide-to-the-a...
dragonwriter 11y ago
> I'm pretty sure it has been seen before that Google or another big tech company buys a smaller up-and-comming company/great idea, and it is never heard from again. I'm pretty sure the opposite has also been seen [0]; what's the basis for concluding a Google acquisition would have put Tesla closer to the "never heard from again" side? [0] Google's acquisition of Android, for instance.

eco 11y ago

Haven't you heard what happened to Google Reader? If Google can't even keep small projects with no revenue stream going then how can we trust them with much harder projects for which they will have invested billions of dollars? They'd probably buy Tesla then shut it down immediately. Even if they didn't shut it down Google is an ad company which means it is incapable of deriving profit from anything but advertisements. Google Tesla of today may have been nothing more than a company that sells in-home battery backup for AdWords.

eco 11y ago
It's hard to tell if I flew too close to Poe's law, failed at sarcasm, have an minority opinion, or just wasn't contributing to the conversation. Probably a combination.

mikeash 11y ago

Acquisitions in general are often bad for the product being acquired. It often gets dismantled for the technology and re-incorporated into different products, or stagnates because the parent company's priorities are different, or just falls victim to internal politics as it becomes just one part of a larger company with many different priorities. Google seems like a particularly bad acquirer for this as well, since they have no relevant expertise, market position, interests, etc. They don't manufacture anything, they don't sell physical products, they don't even really sell nonphysical products other than ads. Look at what happened with Motorola Mobility, for example. Google paid a ton of money for it, basically dicked around for a couple of years with it doing nothing of note, then vomited it back up again. Thankfully Motorola Mobility was not terribly remarkable to begin with so it wasn't a big loss.

kbenson 11y ago
Google acquired Motorola for its patents as ammunition in a larger war. I agree it supports your main point about acquisitions in general, but I'm not sure it's indicative of what being bought by Google is like in the general case.
- mikeash 11y ago
  It seems like that is the default case for acquisitions with just about any company, and ones where more interesting stuff happens with the acquired company are not the norm.
dragonwriter 11y ago
> Look at what happened with Motorola Mobility, for example. Google paid a ton of money for it, basically dicked around for a couple of years with it doing nothing of note, then vomited it back up again. Google fairly overtly bought it for the patent portfolio and had the plan to resell most of the rest from day one. The thing Google was buying was the patents, the rest of Motorola Mobility was packaging. Contrast with Android, YouTube, or anything else where Google wasn't buying patents or doing an acquihire, but actually buying a company for a product. (Google probably looks worse in some respect for products because it has the kind of reserves that let it spend money for big acquisitions when all it wants is an acquihire or some resource like Motorola's patent portfolio and doesn't have any plan or concern for the main product, but I think that's an indication that it is bad when it actually is buying for product.)