[gonehome]

The general idea of a global telecom is a good one.

The strategic failure was not recognizing that starlink’s approach to the problem made way more sense.

They didn’t see that as the existential threat it was.

Instead they downsized their implementation to running the network over poor countries and hand waved a bit about being able to provide connectivity in congested areas.

Loon has no viable future in a world with starlink.

[Dylan16807]

> Loon has no viable future in a world with starlink.

That's a real shame if true, because they solve different problems. Loon is like a super high range cell tower and could fill in a lot of gaps.

[wcoenen]

I wouldn't call this a strategic failure. Google is a big SpaceX investor.

[gonehome]

Well a nine year investment in a company to end in failure isn’t what I’d call a strategic success.

[wcoenen]

A single investment is not strategy though.

Think of the investments in Loon, Taara, SpaceX and Google Fiber as part of a larger strategy to bring internet access with decent bandwidth to a larger number of humans. Some investments will not pan out, others will bear fruit.

[gonehome]

I think we’re talking about different things.

Does this make sense for alphabet? I agree that it does as one of their many bets.

Does it make sense for Loon which spun off as its own company under alphabet with its own leadership and its own stock? That’s the strategic failure I’m talking about, Loon’s not alphabet’s.

[ncallaway]

I agree with wcoenen.

They invested in multiple potential paths to a global internet. It's not surprising that they'd drop the investments that aren't as promising as the investments that are showing significant promise.

It's like saying I applied to multiple colleges, and because I only accepted one application, that the other applications were a failure. But, no, it could just mean that I preferred to go to the college that I accepted, but the others were a hedge against that path not working out.