[wsetchell]

It is interesting to see the low revenue, slow revenue growth (~20% YoY), and quickly growing expenses from "Other Bets".

If the Alphabet model made sense, I'd expect to see a company starting to clearly take off after 5 years. The data shows the opposite.

[riyadparvez]

People constantly criticizing companies not taking long-term bets. When some company does take long-term bets, then some internet expert come along and find some arbitrary timeline to succeed without any justification and start criticizing without offering anything any substantial.

I wish we can have more thoughtful discussion, instead of Twitter style self aggrandizing comments.

[wsetchell]

Google takes large long-term bets that are closely related to their core business / competency. Some of those seem to be clearly working (see Cloud, Deepmind). As a shareholder, I want to see more of those.

Back when I was at Google, X (which many Other Bets came from) had a goal of all their projects having meaningful impact in 10 years. They've been working on Wing and Waymo for close to 10 years now. Those projects are not yet meaningfully impacting many people.

As an armchair CEO, I have doubts about the compensation (more salary / less equity vs startups) and funding (fewer choices funding sources for the companies, weird incentives for the investors vs VC funds) model for "Other Bets". Based off of that and the lack of results, I think they should force the Other Bets to stand on their own vs handing them more cash to burn.

[why_only_15]

It's true they haven't had a lot of real world impact, but it seems to be widely recognized in self-driving spheres that Waymo is #1, and they're valued at $100B (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-09-27/waymo-val...) which seems like a pretty good return. I think it's fair for them to continue plowing money into Waymo when the money they've put in so far people think could have returns.

[wsetchell]

Waymo has the best technology in self driving.

They have not deployed their tech at scale, when competitors (Tesla) has widely deployed worse technology.

Even if they deploy their tech widely, it isn't clear it will generate significant revenue/profit. It might not be that expensive (think less than 1B) to build a good enough self driving car in 10 years. That'd create competition and drive down prices.

Someone else might figure out how to capture the value of self driving cars too. Maybe the profitable parts of self driving cars are the "apps" you can build once self driving cars are cheap.

I wouldn't invest in Waymo at 100B until they have a real business with real revenue and a real moat to protect that business.

[scarface74]

You don’t find it disconcerting that none of Google’s non advertising bets have been successful. Compare Google’s revenue and profit mix to Amazon, Apple and Microsoft.

[webpaymentsguy]

I have rejuvenated confidence in Google after seeing the push on Pixel phones and Nest devices, though that confidence still isn't very high.

[scarface74]

How long has Google been selling their own phones without making a dent in the market?

It’s estimated that Google sold between 10-12 million Pixels last year (https://www.zdnet.com/article/pixel-3-by-the-numbers-googles...)

It’s estimated that Apple sold four times as many in one quarter (https://www.gartner.com/en/newsroom/press-releases/2019-11-2...)

And Samsung sold twice as many as Apple.

[sytelus]

I want to get on the Pixel phones but every time I dig details of the latest models, I get turned off. They seem to be always one generation behind, For example, Pixel's highest memory model is always 2nd highest for iPhone and now Pixel can be expected to carry the camera system of iPhone 10 instead of 11 Pro. All these show off in their unveiling events. Google Android events are often held in venues that are ted better than the high school conference room as emergency meetings with amaturish audio/video system. It's as if they have determined that no one is watching this so why even bother. To me, iPhone always felt like they work hard to be a state of the art while Android is something that the rest of the world would have to buy anyway due to lower cost. Given the available cash and talent, they can do MUCH better.

[ksec]

>And Samsung sold twice as many as Apple.

Oh no, quite far from it. More like 50-60% Max. For the past few years Apple sold around 200M iPhone per year, Samsung on average sold around 300M per year.

But your point still stand, Google Pixel shipment isn't making much difference on the market.

[scarface74]

I was basing the number on the 3rd quarter figures in the link I cited.

But, fair enough 3rd calendar quarter is Apple’s lowest quarter for iPhone sales - before the new ones are shipped.

[skinnymuch]

This is more of a reply to your child comment about Pixel sales, but because this is a day old and unlikely to get any attention or replies as is. I’m posting this here:

I’ll prob geek out and look this up later. I’d be interested in the difference of products in their categories between the major tech companies:

Google: Pixel, Nest, Google Home, Chrome stick

Microsoft: Xbox, Surface tablets/laptops, upcoming Surface phone

Amazon: Ring doorbell, Ring’s other stuff, Alexa Echo/Dot, all the other Alexa devices, Fire tablets, Fire stick

Facebook: Portal, Oculus

Just to throw Apple in here outside their core: HomePod, ?

I’m sure I’m missing some things. Perhaps a company or two as well. Anyone know of anything else or something I wrote down wrong?

There’s also differences between market share and profitability/losses. Apple makes money with [almost] all hardware. While I think Alexa devices don’t make a profit though seem pretty dominant.

[scarface74]

My point isn’t so much that the Pixel itself has a low sales volume, but more that Google is almost completely reliant on advertising for profits despite their “other bets” for over two decades.

Compare that to Apple’s product mix.

https://sixcolors.com/images/content/2020/financials-2020-1-...

If you go more fine grained on wearables, it’s estimated that Apple Watch and headphones taken individually or both larger than the iPod ever was.

[drcode]

I think part of the issue is that their "very long bets" (i.e. AI and self driving) have shown enough progress to now be merely "long bets" now which increases R&D expenses and means GOOG is essentially doubling down on the future via "other bets" in lieu of nearer-term revenue.

Time will tell if that's a good strategy.

[sytelus]

It's not very long bets but very few bets. The YC model has shown us that success is highly unpredictable and if you want to have big winners, make a lot of small bets. This is exactly the Nasim Taleb's philosophy and other well-known approaches to cultivating the long tail and outliers. Google actually had right model 15 years ago where they were churning out one product after another and today's big winners like Gmail and Maps are the survivors of that era. The story goes that Larry Page went to Steve Jobs and Jobs told him to cut down on all the random projects and do fewer things. Unfortunately what works for Apple apparently doesn't work for others.

[pfarnsworth]

20% YoY for a company this size is ridiculous. If anything it shows the power of their market share and position.

[wsetchell]

Overall revenue going up 20% YoY is amazing. The other bets going up 20% YoY is disappointing.