12 ms·

Sergey Brin's statement published as SEC filing

51 points by poloolop 11y ago

ProAm 11y ago
Why is this posted to the SEC? Im confused, is there some requirement for that?
- adventured 11y ago
  It's most likely meant to illuminate topics for discussion at an upcoming shareholder meeting, or to otherwise inform shareholders in general about the things contained in the filing. http://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/sec-form-def-14a.asp http://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/sec-form-def-14a.asp
- robertodelori 11y ago
  Why is that a problem / concern / something odd? (I really don't know, no trolling here)
- ganzuul 11y ago
  This seems to be an explanation for how creation of wealth is, in practice, performed. For reference, see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00o1JBsLOBg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00o1JBsLOBg Take home that, once, aluminium was valued above gold.
- notacoward 11y ago
  Free publicity. Google has always relied heavily on using public resources for their own private good.
karissa 11y ago
It's probably because the shareholders only care about ads and making more money. He's probably trying to reframe the discussion. I have a bad feeling that Google is going to have a hard time continuing the way they are without some serious deliverables. I think this is why you can't expect C corporations to continue to "be good citizens" and really push the envelope. Being on the stock market is a lot like being on the stocks. Hostage.
- dylanjermiah 11y ago
  >It's probably because the shareholders only care about ads and making more money. Not necessarily. Firstly, the only reason people purchase a stock is for that stock to be worth more in the future, they're taking a risk and making an investment. Nothing at all wrong with that. Secondly, I'm a Google shareholder, one who hopes the stock will be worth more in the future than I payed for, the advertising business is very important, the advertising business is essentially funding all their other ventures, which have the potential to replace the ad business and continue the cycle.
  - qubex 11y ago
    Actually, no: the whole point is the net present value (NPV) of future dividend payments. The stock rises if there is a collective expectation that the discounted cashflows will rise. That this creates an opportunity to sell the stock at a higher price (foregoing those heightened dividend payments) is largely secondary. Bubbles occur when investors loose track of the fundamentals and focus on the second aspect you mentioned.
    - klipt 11y ago
      Dividends aren't strictly necessary - stock buybacks have the same effect of returning money to those who want it, while being superior (in terms of taxes) for those who would just reinvest dividends anyway.
      - walshemj 11y ago
        But its not real money in the share owners hands buy backs are bad you need to reform taxation of dividends make scrip dividends taxfree if reinvested. Of course the IB make a nice chunk of change for arranging the buy back
    - TeMPOraL 11y ago
      Isn't it the other way around? I.e. sure, dividends are cool in principle but the actual reason people buy stocks is to sell it later, because it's a faster way to make money?
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
jamshadhashmi 11y ago
nice work...keep it up http://bombardier.net.au/kaspersky-antivirus-2015-activation-code-crack-download/ http://bombardier.net.au/kaspersky-antivirus-2015-activation...
DiabloD3 11y ago
I'm wondering if Google going public was a mistake. Whats the point of being "rich" and a "Google shareholder" and other temporary states of existence, if we never get self-driving cars or cure major diseases or get gigabit Internet or get cell phone service that isn't shit. Seriously, no matter how rich you are, two of those won't happen for you (cure diseases, cell phone service), one of them won't happen the way Google envisions it (the car; even if YOU have a self driving car, you're not likely going to be the drunk driver that kills you, some other poor shmuck that doesn't have a self driving car is), and the last, the gigabit Internet, yes, you can just have the metro ethernet with a gigabit or greater port installed at your house, but the general Internet, the stuff we access normally, isn't designed, optimized, or otherwise meant for speeds that fast, and generally will be massively wasted potential if you're using gigabit for content consumption instead of production and dissemination. I'm perfectly happy with Google blowing my money on shit I want. What use is money if I can't buy what I really want in the first place? Money keeps turning into some weird hoarding game where the rule are made up and the points may have never mattered in the first place. Money and resources are infinite, but so is human suffering, and since I'm still a human being, the suffering of others fundamentally makes me unhappy. I'm tired of being unhappy.
- jfoster 11y ago
  Why wouldn't we get those things due to Google having gone public? It seems they are working on them despite having gone public.
  - Tobani 11y ago
    As a publicly traded company they are required to be concerned with shareholder value. These pet projects may not increase shareholder value in direct or obvious ways and there is a limit to the amount they can spend on unprofitable endeavors.
    - jfoster 11y ago
      They seem to me like projects that will increase shareholder value in very obvious ways. Curing diseases is one of the ways that huge pharmaceutical companies make money. They sell the cure to people who have no choice but to buy it. Great cell phone service would allow Google to have a huge advantage over other telcos, or enable dependence on Google from those telcos licensing the technology. Self-driving cars would potentially enable Google to operate a taxi-like service at massively lower costs than traditional taxi services. By passing a portion of the cost saving on to the consumer and having more reliable cars ensuring a safer ride, they would dominate that industry. I've not seen any evidence that these projects happening at Google are starved of funding in any way.
dekhn 11y ago
Frankly, I thought computers and displays in contact lenses were a pretty obvious idea 20 years ago, but didn't seem like there was a market for it (not clear there is one, beyond geeks who want an email HUD).
- TeMPOraL 11y ago
  As a geek who wants an e-mail HUD and other cool things, I'm disappointed in how the market turns out. There's ton of cool tools we could get and use, and which were pretty obvious 20 years ago, but we're not getting because general population thinks it's too nerdy. Or it's hard to fit what would be a pretty useful device into shiny fitness trinket.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- weinzierl 11y ago
  The contact lens in the filing has (almost) nothing to do with display technology. It measures blood the sugar level continuously (1 Hz). The only display technology related thing is integrated LEDs and it's not clear if this has been done or not. [...] so we’re exploring integrating tiny LED lights that could light up to indicate that glucose levels have crossed above or below certain thresholds. http://googleblog.blogspot.de/2014/01/introducing-our-smart-contact-lens.html http://googleblog.blogspot.de/2014/01/introducing-our-smart-...
  - dekhn 11y ago
    I understand that (I work for Google). Surely you can appreciate there might be a longer game.
kcanini 11y ago
For all of you pontificating on the meaning of this... This is the annual founder's letter. The previous one was also published by the SEC: http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1288776/000119312514199146/d726654ddefa14a.htm http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1288776/0001193125141...
mcguire 11y ago
Thanks for reminding me how much I hate reading SEC filings. Is this thing even dated?
- maxerickson 11y ago
  The filing is dated: https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1288776/000119312515211328/0001193125-15-211328-index.htm https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1288776/000119312515...

51 points by poloolop 11y ago

ProAm 11y ago

Why is this posted to the SEC? Im confused, is there some requirement for that?

adventured 11y ago
It's most likely meant to illuminate topics for discussion at an upcoming shareholder meeting, or to otherwise inform shareholders in general about the things contained in the filing. http://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/sec-form-def-14a.asp http://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/sec-form-def-14a.asp
robertodelori 11y ago
Why is that a problem / concern / something odd? (I really don't know, no trolling here)
ganzuul 11y ago
This seems to be an explanation for how creation of wealth is, in practice, performed. For reference, see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00o1JBsLOBg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00o1JBsLOBg Take home that, once, aluminium was valued above gold.
notacoward 11y ago
Free publicity. Google has always relied heavily on using public resources for their own private good.

karissa 11y ago

It's probably because the shareholders only care about ads and making more money. He's probably trying to reframe the discussion. I have a bad feeling that Google is going to have a hard time continuing the way they are without some serious deliverables. I think this is why you can't expect C corporations to continue to "be good citizens" and really push the envelope. Being on the stock market is a lot like being on the stocks. Hostage.

dylanjermiah 11y ago
>It's probably because the shareholders only care about ads and making more money. Not necessarily. Firstly, the only reason people purchase a stock is for that stock to be worth more in the future, they're taking a risk and making an investment. Nothing at all wrong with that. Secondly, I'm a Google shareholder, one who hopes the stock will be worth more in the future than I payed for, the advertising business is very important, the advertising business is essentially funding all their other ventures, which have the potential to replace the ad business and continue the cycle.
- qubex 11y ago
  Actually, no: the whole point is the net present value (NPV) of future dividend payments. The stock rises if there is a collective expectation that the discounted cashflows will rise. That this creates an opportunity to sell the stock at a higher price (foregoing those heightened dividend payments) is largely secondary. Bubbles occur when investors loose track of the fundamentals and focus on the second aspect you mentioned.
  - klipt 11y ago
    Dividends aren't strictly necessary - stock buybacks have the same effect of returning money to those who want it, while being superior (in terms of taxes) for those who would just reinvest dividends anyway.
    - walshemj 11y ago
      But its not real money in the share owners hands buy backs are bad you need to reform taxation of dividends make scrip dividends taxfree if reinvested. Of course the IB make a nice chunk of change for arranging the buy back
  - TeMPOraL 11y ago
    Isn't it the other way around? I.e. sure, dividends are cool in principle but the actual reason people buy stocks is to sell it later, because it's a faster way to make money?

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

jamshadhashmi 11y ago

nice work...keep it up http://bombardier.net.au/kaspersky-antivirus-2015-activation-code-crack-download/ http://bombardier.net.au/kaspersky-antivirus-2015-activation...

DiabloD3 11y ago

I'm wondering if Google going public was a mistake. Whats the point of being "rich" and a "Google shareholder" and other temporary states of existence, if we never get self-driving cars or cure major diseases or get gigabit Internet or get cell phone service that isn't shit. Seriously, no matter how rich you are, two of those won't happen for you (cure diseases, cell phone service), one of them won't happen the way Google envisions it (the car; even if YOU have a self driving car, you're not likely going to be the drunk driver that kills you, some other poor shmuck that doesn't have a self driving car is), and the last, the gigabit Internet, yes, you can just have the metro ethernet with a gigabit or greater port installed at your house, but the general Internet, the stuff we access normally, isn't designed, optimized, or otherwise meant for speeds that fast, and generally will be massively wasted potential if you're using gigabit for content consumption instead of production and dissemination. I'm perfectly happy with Google blowing my money on shit I want. What use is money if I can't buy what I really want in the first place? Money keeps turning into some weird hoarding game where the rule are made up and the points may have never mattered in the first place. Money and resources are infinite, but so is human suffering, and since I'm still a human being, the suffering of others fundamentally makes me unhappy. I'm tired of being unhappy.

jfoster 11y ago
Why wouldn't we get those things due to Google having gone public? It seems they are working on them despite having gone public.
- Tobani 11y ago
  As a publicly traded company they are required to be concerned with shareholder value. These pet projects may not increase shareholder value in direct or obvious ways and there is a limit to the amount they can spend on unprofitable endeavors.
  - jfoster 11y ago
    They seem to me like projects that will increase shareholder value in very obvious ways. Curing diseases is one of the ways that huge pharmaceutical companies make money. They sell the cure to people who have no choice but to buy it. Great cell phone service would allow Google to have a huge advantage over other telcos, or enable dependence on Google from those telcos licensing the technology. Self-driving cars would potentially enable Google to operate a taxi-like service at massively lower costs than traditional taxi services. By passing a portion of the cost saving on to the consumer and having more reliable cars ensuring a safer ride, they would dominate that industry. I've not seen any evidence that these projects happening at Google are starved of funding in any way.

dekhn 11y ago

Frankly, I thought computers and displays in contact lenses were a pretty obvious idea 20 years ago, but didn't seem like there was a market for it (not clear there is one, beyond geeks who want an email HUD).

TeMPOraL 11y ago
As a geek who wants an e-mail HUD and other cool things, I'm disappointed in how the market turns out. There's ton of cool tools we could get and use, and which were pretty obvious 20 years ago, but we're not getting because general population thinks it's too nerdy. Or it's hard to fit what would be a pretty useful device into shiny fitness trinket.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
weinzierl 11y ago
The contact lens in the filing has (almost) nothing to do with display technology. It measures blood the sugar level continuously (1 Hz). The only display technology related thing is integrated LEDs and it's not clear if this has been done or not. [...] so we’re exploring integrating tiny LED lights that could light up to indicate that glucose levels have crossed above or below certain thresholds. http://googleblog.blogspot.de/2014/01/introducing-our-smart-contact-lens.html http://googleblog.blogspot.de/2014/01/introducing-our-smart-...
- dekhn 11y ago
  I understand that (I work for Google). Surely you can appreciate there might be a longer game.

kcanini 11y ago

For all of you pontificating on the meaning of this... This is the annual founder's letter. The previous one was also published by the SEC: http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1288776/000119312514199146/d726654ddefa14a.htm http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1288776/0001193125141...

mcguire 11y ago

Thanks for reminding me how much I hate reading SEC filings. Is this thing even dated?

maxerickson 11y ago
The filing is dated: https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1288776/000119312515211328/0001193125-15-211328-index.htm https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1288776/000119312515...