If that is your criteria then you should invest in farms.

This bollocks was certainly written by a highly-paid administrative busybody that has never had an idea or solved a problem in his life.

You want Google to be run like Amazon ? Go invest in Amazon.

Yes, indulging in 20-20 hindsight doesn't work when running a company like this, being first* often matters.

* or a very close second with a prettier product.

Says (very) minority stock holder, did they buy a year ago at peak?

oh dear, how sad, never mind.

No, they bought in 2017 and have seen a considerable increase in their stake.

Does Google get everything right? Certainly not but the reorganisation into Google + other bets did provide some transparency. $ 20 billion loss over 5 years is a lot but compares favourably with, say, Uber. And the investments in things like Waymo aren't supposed to generate short term profitability. TCI might think there's no future in autonomous vehicles but, in that case, I suggest they don't fly in any modern aircraft. Autonomous cars are not easy but significant progress has been made in the last decade.

FWIW I don't work for Google or have any share and there's a lot of things the company does that I don't like. But, credit where credit's due for a Silicon Valley company.

TCI might think there's no future in autonomous vehicles but, in that case, I suggest they don't fly in any modern aircraft. Autonomous cars are not easy but significant progress has been made in the last decade.

I don't think there is any real future in autonomous vehicles. The pinnacle of their usefulness should be lane keeping cruise control on a motorway and anything else should be banned until it actually works.

Aircraft are a whole different kettle of fish. Aircraft fly in straight lines in the sky where (assuming you select an appropriate altitude above ground allowing for mountains etc) on a flight path clear of other aircraft then it's effectively impossible to hit anything on a practical level. And if an aircraft on autopilot does depart the designated flightpath then an irate air traffic controller will ask the aircraft to fly the right path, or get everybody else to move around it while writing the pilot up for losing their license.

Put it this way; How many aviation autopilot errors result in deaths that weren't as a result of human error (eg programming the aircraft to to fly from A to B at 10,000ft without realising that there was an 11,000 ft mountain between A & B).

Autonomous cars are not easy but significant progress has been made in the last decade.

Which is good. But the "significant progress" should be made in a lab, and in controlled tests on designated testing grounds.

They shouldn't really have an attitude that says "that works some of the time; let's deploy it live to cars on the road". I know that I might get killed by a human driver who's either incompetent, or just having a bad day. It's unlikely, because they usually manage to take themselves out by ramming trees etc. They generally receive a summary punishment via the laws of physics, and if they survive then occasionally by the law of the land and most human drivers accept that result.

The people deploying unsafe "self driving cars" that have performances below that expected of a learner driver (Tesla's ramming stationary police/fire vehicles in a road complete with sirens and flashing lights; we're looking at you) appear to get away with this with zero consequences, and then blame the driver for the accident. Unsurprisingly, this does impact on the willingness of meatbags at risk of being mown down by them somewhat to share the public roads that we pay for out of our taxes with them.

Especially since if driverless vehicles actually worked then they would be a benefit for the richest 1% of society who already skip their obligations to pay tax required to maintain infrastructure, and they would like to avoid paying their drivers too via automation, imposing yet more misery on the bottom paid workers acting as taxi drivers, delivery drivers etc.

..."some of the most talented and brightest computer scientists and engineers" but claimed this is just a "fraction" of the total workforce and those in general sale, marketing and admin functions should be paid in line with other tech businesses. About how many failed tech companies could you say, "great product, but nobody bought it"? And about how many successful companies can you say, "shit product - it was just hype and marketing"? *

You don't just need engineers. You need marketing and good admin. And you get the best bees with the sweetest nectar. If you want to be best of class, you need to be best of class in all flowerbeds. (Nor do you want the talent going to your competitors.) It all smacks of short-termism and lack of understanding.

Declaration of interests: I'm principally a coder and have zero affiliation with Google.

* Maybe Google falls into this camp. Discuss.

Yeah, maximise short term profit for a quick investor return and screw the long term prospects of the business. So glad I work for a privately owned company where they actually care about fixing technical debt and having the resources to compete.

I bet they don't look at their own company that way. Perhaps TCI could cut its own costs. It is located right in the heart of Mayfair, one of the most expensive places in London. Why not move to a nasty office building in, say, Basingstoke? Then they can eat sandwiches from the travelling sandwich man rather than expensive lunches at expensive restaurants in Mayfair.

Let me rewrite the headline for you: Greedy money grabbing people want more money.

Ah, yes, "activist investors". What an utter load of bollocks. The same kind of people who buy a company with its own money (or rather its own debts), so it is not your and your cronies' money that is at risk but only the future of the whole company you bought. Then drive it into ground, let it rake up more debt, flip it for a buck to some sucker, claim the loss on investment on your tax form.

-> The same kind of people who buy a company with its own money (or rather its own debts)

Those people are literally the worst scum of the earth. They saddle a company with debts which it cannot pay, but somehow walk off with loads of money themselves.

You'd have thought that if TCI were so knowledgeable about running a tech company they'd be doing that, rather than a coin-clipping business.

Let's just think about this.

UK based hedge fund advice: "cheapskate it on employee pay"

UK economy: notoriously underproductive through lack of investment in employee skills

I think I'm starting to see a connection here.

File this one in the recycling bin along with Rees-Moggery and Trussonomics.

God help us given Rishi Rich's pre-parliament career.

Let's race headlong for mediocrity in a downward death spiral like all those other tech companies (though it could be argued that Google+Alphabet is a marketing company that happens to produce tech as a side effect).

Take a one size fits all approach and let it become a McCompany with McJobs run by McManagers.

As can be observed by the fact it is a failing and unprofitable company. Oh wait.

It's funny.

My own impression of a successful company will be one which will be able to afford a hiring spree when the rest of the industry is reducing headcount, spending alot of money on research and development, so that when the economy picks up, they will be up and running with their improved / new products and services.

If everyone is reducing headcount and cutting R&D during an ecnomy downturn, noone will be well placed to be first out of the gate when the economy picks up.

Of course on the other hand it must be understood that google has a history of killing many products and services before it can take off. Maybe they can just dont bother doing new products/services, since it can be expected that it will be killed off soon after.