Alphabet Loses $859M on 'Moonshots' in 2Q 2016

Re:Alphabet Loses $859M on 'Moonshots' in 2Q 2016 by mfav on Friday July 29, 2016 @12:57AM (#12185092)

Subtly dishonest journalism in my opinion.

This article could just as easily be titled "Alphabet invests $859M on long-term projects".

In fact, that would be a more accurate title since that is precisely Google's intent.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Alphabet Loses $859M on 'Moonshots' in 2Q 2016 by usrusr on Friday July 29, 2016 @05:10AM (#12185703)

Or maybe "Alphabet invests $859M on brand maintenance"?

Some projects seem more like the Google-scale equivalent of putting the company name on the shirt of a sports team. Would we expect the Oracle boat to ever turn profitable?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Alphabet Loses $859M on 'Moonshots' in 2Q 2016 by anjc on Friday July 29, 2016 @09:49AM (#12186767)

There's nothing dishonest about it. It's a loss because these are explicit investments which haven't produced any earnings. When they produce any sort of revenue then their financial statements (and media reports of the financial statements) will say "Other bets showed an operating profit of $Xm". It's just a media report on a fact.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Alphabet Loses $859M on 'Moonshots' in 2Q 2016 by mfav on Friday July 29, 2016 @12:23PM (#12187886)

There's some intentional provocation going on with the title. Sure, it's factually correct, but choice of words really pulls the truth one way or another.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Alphabet Loses $859M on 'Moonshots' in 2Q 2016 by dredmorbius on Friday July 29, 2016 @03:57AM (#12185516)

There's nothing subtle, and everything dishonest, about this.

[ Parent | on HN ]