Hacker News Reader

Comment by onedev | Hacker News Reader

Really, we're doing "Alphabet’s Google" now?

It's helpful for all the readers who are familiar with Alphabet, Inc., but have never heard of its Google subsidiary.

Maybe they could Google it :). I don't think Alphabet will ever be as popular as Google. That's like knowing that Comedy Central is owned by Viacom. Yes, that's true, but you probably don't care and don't really think about Viacom at all.

Viacom's Comedy Central doesn't quite have the same ring to it.

What about Viacomedy Central?

I see what you did there...

It's going to take some time for news organizations to get used to this brave new holding-company world, eh?

This made me crack up.

It'd like to see them do a story about Alphabet's Google's YouTube.

Or one about Alphabet's Google's use of Alphabet's Google's Google+ for comments on Alphabet's Google's YouTube Red videos.

Somehow this feels like I'm writing C code but am unable to take a pointer to anything but the top-level object.

    GOOGLE PLUS
    GOOGLE
    ALPHABET

It's much more beautiful if you use Android SDK:

  private boolean googleSubsidiaryConnectionSuccess = false;
  private boolean googleSubsidiaryConnectionInProgress = false;
  private GoogleSubsidiary googleSubsidiary = null;
  private GoogleVideoHostingManager googleVideoHostingService = null;

  @Override
  protected void onCreate(Bundle savedInstanceState) {
     GoogleApiClient.Builder builder = new GoogleApiClient.Builder(this)
          .addSubsidiary(AlphabetSubsidiaries.GOOGLE_SUBSIDIARY);
     GoogleApiClient client = builder.build();
     client.connect();
     googleSubsidiaryConnectionInProgress = true;
  }
  
  @Override
  protected void onActivityResult(int requestCode, int resultCode, Intent data /* ignored */) {
     if (requestCode == GoogleSubsidiary.EXISTS_AND_IS_PROFITABLE) { // actual value is -11
          if (responseCode != Activity.RESULT_OK) {
              Log.w(TAG, "could not get subsidiary");
              googleSubsidiaryConnectionSuccess = false;
              if (!client.isConnecting()) {
                  Log.v(TAG, "calling googleApiClient.connect again");
                  client.connect();
              }
          }
      } else {
          Log.w(TAG, "Google subsidiary may be out of business. Not sure.");
          if (!googleSubsidiaryConnectionInProgress && !client.isConnecting()) {
               client.connect();
          }
      }
  }
  
  @Override
  public void onConnected(Bundle connectionHint) {
     googleSubsidiaryConnectionSuccess = true;
     googleSubsidiaryConnectionInProgress = false;
     GoogleSubsidiaryToken googleSubsidiaryToken = GoogleSubsidiaryUtil.getToken(activity, GOOGLE_SUBSIDIARY_TOKEN_REQUEST_SCOPE);
     try {
          googleSubsidiary = (GoogleSubsidiary)GoogleSubsidiaryUtil.getSubsidiaryObjectFromToken(googleSubsidiaryToken);
          googleVideoHostingService = (GoogleVideoHostingManager)googleSubsidiary.getService(GoogleSubsidiary.YOU_TUBE_SERVICE);
          if (googleVideoHostingService == null && !client.isConnecting()) {
               client.connect();
          }
     } catch (SubsidiaryTokenOutOfDateException ex) {
          googleSubsidiaryConnectionSuccess = false;
          if (!client.isConnecting()) {
               client.connect();
          }
     }
  }

In Java:

    Alphabet.getGoogle().use(Alphabet.getGoogle().getGooglePlus().
        getCommentFactory(), Alphabet.getGoogle().getYouTube().
        getVideos(com.alphabet.google.youtube.RED))

In python:

    import alphabet.google as google
    google.apply(google.google_plus.comments,
        google.youtube.videos(google.youtube.RED))

Am i doing it right?

(edited for javaness!)

Almost, just change the getters to lowercase 'g'et and add a bunch of unnecessary Spring boilerplate on top of it all.

Alphabet.subsidarySingletonFactoryFactory("Google").singletonSubsidary("YouTube")

In some ES6 JavaScript:

   import {google} from 'alphabet';
   let {google_plus, youtube} = google;
   google.apply(google_plus.comments, youtube.videos(youtube.RED));

There's a funny chrome extension to be made here. I'll let someone else take the initiative.

You mean, Alphabet Inc.'s Google's Google Chrome operating system's Google Chrome browser extension?

Initiative taken! :)

https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/alphabet-incs-goog...

But does it handle "Google Chrome" and "Google+" correctly? Clearly, these should be written as "Alphabet Inc's Google's Chrome"† and "Alphabet Inc's Google's Google+", respectively.

† Or "Alphabet Inc's Google's Google Chrome".

This is a fantastic interview question.

Have you tried Alphabet's Google's YouTube's Youtube Red?

Isn't that the paid version of redtube?

I'm pretty sure he means redtube where free porn comes from.

Don't forget Alphabet's Google's Google Music All Access.

You missed a word! It's actually Alphabet's Google's Google PLAY Music All Access

Awkward phrasing from News Corp's Wall Street Journal.

Awkward, if you're not considering it as a technical source (and it is, in its field). If your primary concern, as a reader, was monitoring potentially important information as it pertained to your investments, would you not prefer that they lead with the actual thing in which you may be invested? Is it not a lot easier to scan for "News Corp" than to have to make the associations in your head that "Wall Street Journal" is something that one of your investments owns?

IMO it's just "consider your audience" writ large.

Actually, I applaud the WSJ's bold new vision of fully revealing the full chain of ownership of all corporate subsidiaries, components, shell companies, and other mechanisms and methods for hiding true oligarchic control.

I'm guessing WSJ always wants to include the name of the stock involved.

While it looks odd in a technology context, for investors it makes sense because Google is listed officially listed as Alphabet. Therefore, the association between the two concerns is useful for less technically savvy business and investment readers which represent WSJ's primary audience.

Seriously, that's ridiculous.

Alphabet's Nest, for instance, would make sense - it's not a household name.

Consider that the target audience of the WSJ is much more "investor" than "technologist". You really think investors wouldn't want mention of a company that might be in their portfolio? 'Cause that company isn't "Google", it's "Alphabet".

If you've invested in Alphabet without knowing that it's the company formerly known as Google you probably aren't someone who reads many articles about them.

If you thought Alphabet is the company formerly known as Google, you would be wrong. Alphabet is a conglomerate created to hold Google and was created first as a subsidiary of Google, to which a separate dummy subsidiary was created with which Google merged to convert Google stock into Alphabet stock.

Alphabet is not Google. Alphabet never was Google. Alphabet owns Google, and the performance of Google is tracked under Alphabet's own stock (which still uses GOOG, but is a concretely different stock). There is a difference, and these are people to whom it matters.

Quite a convenient way of structuring things if you're worried about anti-monopoly regulators?

In practice everyone knows it's everything which was previously under the Google umbrella.

And what "everyone knows" is not relevant to WSJ's audience. The company is Alphabet. It is not Google. I don't think this can be stated in simpler terms.

The WSJ's news section can be considered jargon of its own. I'm sure you would not react in the same way if a "business guy" criticized a piece of technical reporting for things you expected to be in it.

Google is a company. Alphabet is a company. Alphabet owns Google.

> The company is Alphabet. It is not Google. I don't think this can be stated in simpler terms.

Those terms are simple, but not accurate. The company this story is about is Google. Alphabet is the public traded corporation in whom WSJ readers may wish to invest (or disinvest) that owns the company the story is about. (Google and Alphabet are both companies, but Alphabet isn't taking any action that is being reported in this story.)

Sure, you are that most important kind of correct: technically so. And so I'll amend it: "the company that matters to the WSJ's audience is Alphabet because they're where the money is."

The mixture of pedantry and willful vagueness in this thread is weird.

The stocks are still listed as GOOG and GOOGL.

If your point is "that's the same thing", it's not, see elsewhere in this subtree. If your point is "that would be clearer", I agree; if the WSJ's standards for prose in reporting meant that they put stock ticker names in the headline, I'd guess that they would have (I don't recall ever seeing them do so before). But consistency, in technical publications, is generally valued. The name of the company in which readers hold stock is "Alphabet"--therefore, call it Alphabet.

Nest is actually a name in 100% more households than Google, considering it is nailed to a wall.

One time I tried to nail a Google to my wall. Larry was pissed.

Larry Wall would approve.

Offices, on the other hand? Marginally more competitive. My last office had a Google Mini lying around! Not nailed to a wall, though I suppose it could have been and provided the same utility.

No, that's not true. I was using it to shim a monitor for a while. Nest still reigns supreme.

A business publication would want to include Alphabet as clickbait.

It's especially funny considering they confuse/conflate Chrome (a web browser), ChromeOS (an operating system where all apps run in Chrome) and Chromebook (laptop running ChromeOS).

It took me like 10 times before I got the title. The rest of the sentence doesn't help of course.

Google asked for this, why are you blaming the media?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com