[_xivi]

> Google X is a failure. Waymo is the only worthwhile thing they ever did and it predates X (as Chauffeur).

A failure in what sense? It's their research arm.

It feels crazy to bash down what they're doing even if it led nowhere. I'd prefer the money goes toward funding "failed research" than sit in their bank accounts.

Do you feel the same way about NASA, CERN, scientific research in general? There are many areas that receive significant funding for decades and lead nowhere by the looks of it.

[modeless]

I don't feel that way about the part of NASA that awarded contracts to SpaceX, but I do feel that way about the part of NASA that wastes billions on SLS (I know it's Congress's fault).

It's about efficiency. Even for research that doesn't make revenue, you can do it efficiently or inefficiently. SLS and Google X are way down on the inefficient end of the spectrum.

[_xivi]

What are you expectations of Google X based on? in other words, what are you measuring against? Are there similar research ventures pursuing moonshots that are doing better?

Your comment was pretty harsh. Google X has been around for what? only 14 years? The number of projects they funded and the researchers they employed during that time frame is great initiative and admirable on its own.

[1992spacemovie]

The criticism of SLS is beat to death. The reason it exists is to ensure a viable alternative launch vehicle to space and beyond. It’s good to have redundancy in certain things. The USG has determined space access is one of them.

Yeah it costs more. But it costs less than if you ever needed it suddenly and it didn’t exist.

[bobthepanda]

The question is whether or not Google, either in its bank accounts or as X, is the best steward for funding innovation. One could argue that it isn’t, and they should’ve paid that cash out in dividends and leave their shareholders to do such work.

[dageshi]

As far as I recall the two google founders have controlling shares in the company. Page and Brin have 51% of voting power.

So they decide what google does with its money, not the other shareholders?

[bobthepanda]

Right, which is why I said “pay out their cash in dividends”, which go to any shareholder proportionally.

Tech stocks are weird compared to most company stocks because many of them have never issued dividends to shareholders, which is what companies traditionally do with excess cash.

[rty32]

I mean, NASA and CERN have consistently delivered results over the past few decades. Research fund granting involves significant amount of evaluating the prospect of the project and how successful the PI did historically. It doesn't mean "pour money into something and never expect to get anything out of it" which is what Google X is doing.