However, they are different companies with different staff, mission statements, and overall goals now. Conflating them to suggest that an ad company is trying to eliminate mosquitos is misleading, at best.
Alphabet is a company that still makes the bulk of its revenue from advertising, and invests that money in its other ventures. It's not misleading at all to suggest that this project is being funded by advertising revenue.
Sure, Alphabet makes a good chunk of revenue from advertising, and re-invests it. Verily is not an advertising company, even if they get some money from advertising.
Furthermore, Verily has its own profit streams, and isn't doing anything with mosquitos that increasing advertising streams to Google. The projects are unrelated. If I work on software and work and later clean my toilet at home, you wouldn't say the gloves I wear are my IDE and that I'm programming. However, I bought the gloves using money from my software development job.
Google makes the bulk of its revenue from advertising. Google generates substantial profits. The non-Google parts of Alphabet are, as a group, running at a loss. Google's advertising profits are used to subsidize Alphabet's "other bets."
Yes - you're right. I already understood that, but thanks for the patronizing comment that actually side-steps any point about how Google is not the company fighting mosquitos in California.
Google is busy trying to maximize advertising profits.
Verily is focused in Life Sciences.
Different companies, with different goals. Verily isn't trying to maximize advertising profits for Alphabet.
And you're side-stepping the point that many people are making here, which is that being an Alphabet subsidiary means that they're subsidized by Google's ad business. It's concerning that massive public health projects -- of the sort that used to be undertaken largely by governments and non-profit NGOs -- are now undertaken by a company that got rich off advertising and the owners have decided to reinvest in such ventures. Ostensibly, if the US government goes out and decides to eliminate malaria, they are accountable to people for how they do this. As long as Verily is under the Alphabet umbrella, it's not even a private firm, it's a wholly owned subsidiary of Alphabet. They can write all the mission statements they want, so long as Google continues to provide advertising revenue in sufficient quantity to cover the losses of Alphabet's "other bets," the only accountability for what Verily does is to advertisers and the shareholders of an adtech firm.
> you're side-stepping the point that many people are making here, which is that being an Alphabet subsidiary means that they're subsidized by Google's ad business.
I'm not side-stepping that point. I literally conceded it multiple times.
> It's concerning that massive public health projects ... are undertaken by a company ...
You're concerned that a public health project is being undertaken by private industry...but what concern is there? What are you worried about? I'm happy to discuss that. I probably share concerns regarding the same thing.
However, if a private company invests in public health, I tend to see that as a good thing. I also agree that such private companies should be accountable. This necessitates government regulation on private companies. I am for that, to the extent that the company can still do things in the interest of the public.
However, if your point is actually that there is limited accountability for private companies working in the public interest (or their own interest), then why conflate Google and Verily? It doesn't make your point more or less valid and contributes to a fundamental misunderstanding of the context around a given issue.
If that's really your issue from the start, then just say you think these types of things should be done by entities which are held accountable to the public.
Nobody's _conflating_ Google and Verily. Verily is owned by a holding company that was formed for the express purpose of allowing Google's profits to subsidize projects that Google's founders want to pursue.
It's the ownership that matters. Ownership matters because that is where the decision making and control is. Verily is a 100% owned subsidiary. If Alphabet decided to amalgamate Google with Verily, could they? Can Alphabet pull money out of Verily? Can Alphabet decide to shut down Verily? Yes, in all cases. Who does Verily CEO report to? Your claim that it a separate, stand-alone company is false.
Both companies can informally be referred to as "Google." One because it runs the search engine. The other because it was known as Google until a few years ago, owns the search engine, trades as "GOOG," and a variety of reasons. It would be more misleading to refer to them as Alphabet, as everybody knows them as Google.
However, they are different companies with different staff, mission statements, and overall goals now. Conflating them to suggest that an ad company is trying to eliminate mosquitos is misleading, at best.