←back to thread

Google is illegally monopolizing online advertising tech, judge rules

(www.nytimes.com)
863 points IdealeZahlen | 4 comments | 17 Apr 25 14:47 UTC | HN request time: 1.11s | source
Show context
xhkkffbf ◴[17 Apr 25 15:12 UTC] No.43718084[source]▶
Google really should start floating some plans for splitting itself up. Things worked out pretty well when Ma Bell was split up. Some people thought it would all fail, but the companies have done a good job competing and cooperating at the right times.

If Google comes up with the plans, it's better than some antagonist.

replies(3): >>43718240 #>>43718283 #>>43718375 #
adgjlsfhk1 ◴[17 Apr 25 15:24 UTC] No.43718240[source]▶
Google seems harder to split up than Bell to me. Bell was split regionally which makes sense since each region has it's own wires and can make money separately. Google has the problem that all their products other than adds lose money (or make money through integration with Google adds)
replies(4): >>43718327 #>>43718349 #>>43718699 #>>43718976 #
ajross ◴[17 Apr 25 16:19 UTC] No.43718976[source]▶
Yeah. The problem with splitting up Google is that Google products, taken in isolation, are themselves keys to preventing other monopolies.

Split off Android to swim on its own and we get an iPhone monopoly. Split off Workspace and we go back to the days of MSOffice's monopoly. Splitting out Chrome essentially kills the World Wide Web as an application platform as no one else wants to support it. Cloud would probably stand alone competitively, but if not it's going to be an Amazon monopoly.

Basically Google is strong in search and ads (also AI, though that isn't a revenue center yet and there's lots of competition) and second place in everything else. IMHO it's very hard[1] to make a pro-consumer argument behind killing off all those second place products.

[1] And yeah, they pay my salary, but I work on open source stuff and know nothing about corporate governance.

replies(2): >>43719472 #>>43727109 #
1. snozolli ◴[17 Apr 25 16:57 UTC] No.43719472[source]▶
Split off Android to swim on its own and we get an iPhone monopoly.

Why? Android appears to be profitable.

replies(1): >>43719606 #
2. ajross ◴[17 Apr 25 17:07 UTC] No.43719606[source]▶
Only Google-integrated Android devices are profitable. You really think Graphene/Lineage/etc... devices have a chance in the market vs. Apple Computer? Splitting off the integration means those devices have to pay for it or go without. Even Amazon failed in this space.

Which is to say, the parts of Android that are "profitable" are the parts tied to the broader corporate product suite.

replies(1): >>43721898 #
3. snozolli ◴[17 Apr 25 20:32 UTC] No.43721898[source]▶
Only Google-integrated Android devices are profitable.

I don't understand what you're trying to say. Pixel devices? Android devices being paid by Google to use Google's app store, browser, and default search engine? What does any of that have to do with whether or not Android is separated?

You really think Graphene/Lineage/etc... devices have a chance in the market vs. Apple Computer?

What does that have to do with whether or not the Android 'division' of Google would survive being spun off?

replies(1): >>43722274 #
4. ajross ◴[17 Apr 25 21:13 UTC] No.43722274{3}[source]▶
If the only way to sell a profitable product is to buy its core value-add (Google integration) from someone else, then your product isn't profitable by definition. Split off Android and Pixels become just another Fire Phone, and will compete just about as well (or worse, since the spun-off Android division wouldn't even have free Amazon integration).

Again, there are Google-free Android phones in the market today. They do very poorly.