6 ms·

https://abc.xyz/investor/news/releases/2019/1203/ https://abc.xyz/investor/news/releases/2019/1203/ Slightly more organized info in the intro bullets. Larry P

https://abc.xyz/investor/news/releases/2019/1203/ https://abc.xyz/investor/news/releases/2019/1203/ Slightly more organized info in the intro bullets. Larry Page and Sergey Brin, the CEO and President, respectively, of Alphabet, have decided to leave these roles. They will continue their involvement as co-founders, shareholders and members of Alphabet’s Board of Directors.

nostromo 7y ago
I'm curious what their continued involvement will look like. For a while after Bill Gates stepped down as CEO, there was this awkward tension where Steve Balmer was CEO, but people still treated Bill like he was the one in control -- because he was.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- lonelappde 7y ago
  Page and Brin have been out of the big picture for a long time.
- steve76 7y ago
  Awkward tension? WTF is this middle school? Money goes up. Hell flows down. No need to complicate business.
- binary_vitamin 7y ago
  > For a while after Bill Gates stepped down as CEO, there was this awkward tension where Steve Balmer was CEO Bill was simply playing politics.
- grappler 7y ago
  “cofounder” isn't “what you're doing now”; it's “what you did 20 years ago” but it's important because people put weight on what the founders say and think. “[large] shareholder” is sort of a role, and often goes together with “member of the board”. Bill Gates is probably a good example to look to. He also stayed on the board (as chair) and remained a large shareholder, and was looked up to as the cofounder. So I'd imagine “like Bill Gates but with less active interest and involvement”.
- s1k3b8 7y ago
  > I'm curious what their continued involvement will look like. Page and Brin, combined, are currently the majority shareholders of alphabet. Each controls 27% of the voting power ( 54% combined ). They are still in charge. They just won't be involved in the day-to-day operation of the company. Sundar will still report to Page/Brin and the board of directors.
  - casefields 7y ago
    Honestly, there’s so much drama and turmoil there, I wouldn’t want to be there either. So many other productive things they could be doing.
    - dfsegoat 7y ago
      Care to elaborate for the uninitiated ?
      - goosehonk 7y ago
        Generally: Founders: Bring your whole selves to work. Employees: great! That one guy: what a relief, because I’m literally a Nazi. Everybody: no. Leave that part at home. Guy: my rights are being trampled by a liberal conspiracy! Other person: my gender expression is the most important aspect of large-scale software development. Anyone who disagrees must be fired. Everyone: that doesn’t seem all that relevant, actually. Person: my rights are being trampled by a cis conspiracy! Everyone: rolling eyes
        greesil 7y ago
        Why is this being downvoted? Now it's flagged. This is ridiculous.
        Sohcahtoa82 7y ago
        Because it's an extremely dishonest take on a highly political issue.
- irjustin 7y ago
  The difference here is that Page and Brin have always been willing to give up the CEO seat i.e. day to day operations. They're 100% still in control of direction and people will always treat them as the boss (esp voting power), but the dynamic will not have nearly as much friction.
tjmc 7y ago
So who takes the role of President now? Neither the parent article or the one you cited makes that clear.
- bwilliams18 7y ago
  I would assume nobody. Unless it's explicitly stated in the Alphabet corporate charter, there's nothing that requires them to have an employee with the title President, or any employee with any particular title at all.
endorphone 7y ago
In a way this seems like an admission of the failure of the "Alphabet" thing. The idea behind that originally was that all of these other projects were going to become so significant that it wouldn't make sense to have them or their management coupled with Google. But a half-decade later, it's still 99.9% Google, so just double-up the Google guy to lead both tiers. Same as it ever was.
- dannypgh 7y ago
  I don't think it was mostly motivated by management separation, as much as it was desire to break out revenue and expenses by unit. And this is unchanged.
  - koheripbal 7y ago
    You can do that even within a company. You certainly dont need separate share classes.
    - dannypgh 7y ago
      You're conflating a lot of things here. GOOG class A versus C (GOOG vs GOOGL) dates to a 2014 restructuring of ownership, whereas the Alphabet reorg was in 2015. Can you break out revenue in a single company? Sure. But you can also easily do it with the structure Alphabet adopted. And, this structure also lends itself to easier valuations of entire units, useful if acquisition of a unit is something being considered.
- dickeytk 7y ago
  I think Waymo still has a solid shot
  - celeritascelery 7y ago
    How much money is waymo making?
    - 7y ago

nostromo 7y ago

I'm curious what their continued involvement will look like. For a while after Bill Gates stepped down as CEO, there was this awkward tension where Steve Balmer was CEO, but people still treated Bill like he was the one in control -- because he was.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
lonelappde 7y ago
Page and Brin have been out of the big picture for a long time.
steve76 7y ago
Awkward tension? WTF is this middle school? Money goes up. Hell flows down. No need to complicate business.
binary_vitamin 7y ago
> For a while after Bill Gates stepped down as CEO, there was this awkward tension where Steve Balmer was CEO Bill was simply playing politics.
grappler 7y ago
“cofounder” isn't “what you're doing now”; it's “what you did 20 years ago” but it's important because people put weight on what the founders say and think. “[large] shareholder” is sort of a role, and often goes together with “member of the board”. Bill Gates is probably a good example to look to. He also stayed on the board (as chair) and remained a large shareholder, and was looked up to as the cofounder. So I'd imagine “like Bill Gates but with less active interest and involvement”.
s1k3b8 7y ago
> I'm curious what their continued involvement will look like. Page and Brin, combined, are currently the majority shareholders of alphabet. Each controls 27% of the voting power ( 54% combined ). They are still in charge. They just won't be involved in the day-to-day operation of the company. Sundar will still report to Page/Brin and the board of directors.
- casefields 7y ago
  Honestly, there’s so much drama and turmoil there, I wouldn’t want to be there either. So many other productive things they could be doing.
  - dfsegoat 7y ago
    Care to elaborate for the uninitiated ?
    - goosehonk 7y ago
      Generally: Founders: Bring your whole selves to work. Employees: great! That one guy: what a relief, because I’m literally a Nazi. Everybody: no. Leave that part at home. Guy: my rights are being trampled by a liberal conspiracy! Other person: my gender expression is the most important aspect of large-scale software development. Anyone who disagrees must be fired. Everyone: that doesn’t seem all that relevant, actually. Person: my rights are being trampled by a cis conspiracy! Everyone: rolling eyes
      - greesil 7y ago
        Why is this being downvoted? Now it's flagged. This is ridiculous.
        Sohcahtoa82 7y ago
        Because it's an extremely dishonest take on a highly political issue.
irjustin 7y ago
The difference here is that Page and Brin have always been willing to give up the CEO seat i.e. day to day operations. They're 100% still in control of direction and people will always treat them as the boss (esp voting power), but the dynamic will not have nearly as much friction.

tjmc 7y ago

So who takes the role of President now? Neither the parent article or the one you cited makes that clear.

bwilliams18 7y ago
I would assume nobody. Unless it's explicitly stated in the Alphabet corporate charter, there's nothing that requires them to have an employee with the title President, or any employee with any particular title at all.

endorphone 7y ago

In a way this seems like an admission of the failure of the "Alphabet" thing. The idea behind that originally was that all of these other projects were going to become so significant that it wouldn't make sense to have them or their management coupled with Google. But a half-decade later, it's still 99.9% Google, so just double-up the Google guy to lead both tiers. Same as it ever was.

dannypgh 7y ago
I don't think it was mostly motivated by management separation, as much as it was desire to break out revenue and expenses by unit. And this is unchanged.
- koheripbal 7y ago
  You can do that even within a company. You certainly dont need separate share classes.
  - dannypgh 7y ago
    You're conflating a lot of things here. GOOG class A versus C (GOOG vs GOOGL) dates to a 2014 restructuring of ownership, whereas the Alphabet reorg was in 2015. Can you break out revenue in a single company? Sure. But you can also easily do it with the structure Alphabet adopted. And, this structure also lends itself to easier valuations of entire units, useful if acquisition of a unit is something being considered.
dickeytk 7y ago
I think Waymo still has a solid shot
- celeritascelery 7y ago
  How much money is waymo making?
  - 7y ago