Instead of arguing with me, and being wrong, why don't you go look it up in the published accounts? You'll find I'm right.Milos wrote: ↑Sat Aug 24, 2019 11:50 amWell servicing losses in the correct phrase since there is simply no way one makes 500 million loss by paying wages. DeepMind has 700 employees. So even if average salary is 300k, which is highly unlikely, that is only 200 million for salaries. So where did those 300 million go?chrisw wrote: ↑Sat Aug 24, 2019 8:10 amgoogle doesn’t have any debt to service. you mean “carry on shelling out for the huge wages bill”. They don’t have any choice. Only choice is to rationalise, get rid of the dross (usually half of all programmers are lying to their managers/employers and do nothing constructive) and manage what they’ve got, better.Milos wrote: ↑Sat Aug 24, 2019 1:01 amWell, taking into consideration that just this year alone DeepMind made more losses than the money Google paid to buy them, and also considering that Google probably already absorbed any useful expertise from this company, it really is questionable whether Google should continue servicing its debt.chrisw wrote: ↑Fri Aug 23, 2019 8:39 pmAs far as one can tell, the owners of Google, Alphabet, make 100 billion sales, 30 billion profits annually. Their entire future rests on staying cutting edge, hence the big spend buying up broad swathes of highly qualified talent, preferably all of it, I think is the line taken. If this costs 0.5 billion a year, well, they won’t be able to stop, or cut back, they have no choice but to continue paying out, anything else would be to give up. 0.5 billion out of 30 billion profits is nothing, they would be spending more, if they knew what to spend it on, which is basically the problem.
These guys from DeepMind obviously have some deeper philosophy of "making the world a better place by using AI".
Google on the other hand is probably nothing but the worst morally corrupt money grabbing monopolist company in IT in the world. Considering this, I really don't see how DeepMind can continue existing inside Google much longer.
Since I didn't comment on him, the wrong seems to belong to you.Simple answer, financing the cost of dubious projects led by the very shady incompetent Mustafa Suleyman.
And sorry but you are wrong about that guy.
I said that pilots don't run airlines, bus drivers don't run bus companies and programmers don't run companies, or shouldn't. Running businesses well, is a thing in itself. Remind yourself what happened to Apple when they let the programmers run everything in 1990s.
With good advisers, you probably can. It does help not to be clueless, but what's important is the ability to hold overview and not be taken in by programmer-promises bullshit, I guess neither you, nor me, know how good the guy and his advisers was at that.You can't be a successful CPO of an essentially highly specialized research cutting-edge hi-tech company worth half a billion at age of 26 and in the same time be clueless about actual technology your company is developing.
DeepMind is not selling stupid apps, advertising stuff or collecting and selling user data so that a shady guy like Mustafa Suleyman could be successful as CPO.