Re:Alphabet Loses $859M on 'Moonshots' in 2Q 2016
by eli_gottlieb on Friday July 29, 2016 @07:53AM
(#12186231)
The important question is whether something was designated a "moonshot" before it succeeded or failed, thus giving us an unbiased sample.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Alphabet Loses $859M on 'Moonshots' in 2Q 2016
by zaroth on Friday July 29, 2016 @11:14AM
(#12187354)
I think moonshot, by definition, means 15+ year timeframe to full realization. Google is a very young company, they just haven't had piles of cash to invest in moonshots for long enough for us to have seen the results. X was founded just 6 years ago, Alphabet was founded just last year!
To be asking 6 years in where are all the moonshot successes already? I think this demonstrates exactly how problematic and pervasive short-term thinking is.
The question to ask is in 50 years, how many different $10B+ revenue streams will Alphabet have?
If we really think this R&D isn't going to pay off, at the scale Alphabet operates, that's almost like losing faith in humanity.
Re:Alphabet Loses $859M on 'Moonshots' in 2Q 2016
by eli_gottlieb on Friday July 29, 2016 @06:54PM
(#12190652)
I didn't say moonshots were a bad thing. I just stated the basic standard for collecting a sample of something in a halfway unbiased way.