Linked List: August 11, 2015

Tuesday, 11 August 2015

Conglomeration 

Ben Thompson:

That, though, begs a bigger question: why should all of these disparate ventures be a part of the same company at all? While conglomerates were in vogue in the late 60s and early 70s, over the last thirty years the accepted wisdom has been it is better for companies to specialize and for investors to diversify on their own, a viewpoint I agree with: one need only look at Microsoft’s litany of failed acquisitions to appreciate how wasteful many companies can be, and how justified investors usually are in demanding a return of their money. What right does Alphabet have to buck this trend?

That is actually an easy one to answer: Page and Brin can do whatever they want because of Google’s dual-class structure.

Liz Stinson and Margaret Rhodes, writing for Wired:

Whereas Google’s goofy logo reflected a not-quite-mature web, Alphabet’s rational, bright red wordmark signals a growing-up phase. If Google’s logo reflects a campus with multi-story slides and themed conference rooms, Alphabet’s says, “I have a lobby full of Knoll furniture.”

It’s a good, simple mark.

The Ethics of Modern Web Ad-Blocking 

Marco Arment:

All of that tracking and data collection is done without your knowledge, and — critically — without your consent. Because of how the web and web browsers work, the involuntary data collection starts if you simply follow a link. There’s no opportunity for disclosure, negotiation, or reconsideration. By following any link, you unwittingly opt into whatever the target site, and any number of embedded scripts from other sites and tracking networks, wants to collect, track, analyze, and sell about you.

That’s why the implied-contract theory is invalid: people aren’t agreeing to write a blank check and give up reasonable expectations of privacy by clicking a link. They can’t even know what the cost of visiting a page will be until they’ve already visited it and paid the price.

And it’s all getting so much worse, so quickly.

It’s not just about privacy. There are other costs: network bandwidth (which for many of us is metered on cellular), page load times, and increased CPU usage, are real costs — paid entirely by the visitors to websites.

I don’t want to block “ads”. I want to block garbage JavaScript. I’ve been using Ghostery on my Macs for a few months now, and the results are impressive. I expect the results to be even more significant on the phone with content blockers in iOS 9.

The Big AlphaBet 

Om Malik:

The new company is called Alphabet. We should think of its as the Berkshire Hathaway for the Burning Man crowd — where instead of good, old fashioned value investments, the management is betting big on the future possibilities. And every single one of those efforts if done right could be Google sized companies in their own right. […]

Just like Berkshire Hathaway, Alphabet can contemplate betting for the long term, either by controlling the companies or having substantial stakes, that allow them to also skirt the regulatory limitations. In his blog post, Page said Alphabet is about “businesses prospering through strong leaders and independence. In general, our model is to have a strong CEO who runs each business, with Sergey and me in service to them as needed.”

Berkshire Hathaway is a good comparison. But Berkshire Hathaway has only 24 employees. I think staying that lean and mean at the top is central to Berkshire Hathaway’s success. Is Alphabet going to be that lean?

Google Shakeup Theory: Sundar Pichai Offered Twitter CEO Job 

Matt Rosoff, writing for Business Insider:

There’s an interesting theory making the rounds among some Silicon Valley insiders today.

Twitter is looking for a new CEO. Perhaps it made an offer to Sundar Pichai, who’s been leading Google’s core businesses since last October. To keep Pichai, Google decided to pull the trigger on an organizational change it’s been considering for some time, giving Pichai the CEO title while keeping the same set of duties.

I’ve gotten at least a dozen emails and tweets from DF readers suggesting this same theory, but I don’t buy it. Twitter may well have been looking at Pichai, but I don’t buy it that Page and Brin would radically change the structure of Google just to keep Pichai. Pichai is obviously very smart, and very talented. He’s kicking ass. But I don’t see him as irreplaceable. And even if he is that important to Google, would co-founders Page and Brin see him that way? And why the hell would Pichai be tempted to go to Twitter? The company is a mess and its executive history is a mess.

I think this Alphabet move is about what Page and Brin want for themselves and want for the company, not about making Sundar Pichai happy. But I think Page was being straightforwardly honest in his praise for Pichai in today’s announcement.