←back to thread

863 points IdealeZahlen | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
xhkkffbf ◴[] 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 ◴[] 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 #
alabastervlog ◴[] No.43718349[source]
This is exactly why it's important to bust them up: all those other products are effectively "dumping" on whatever sector they compete in. This even discourages time-investment (to develop) and learning-to-use investment (for users) for free alternatives, not just commercial ones.
replies(1): >>43718624 #
whoknowsidont ◴[] No.43718624[source]
All of their products helped the sector they are in. They didn't "dump" into it. Google continually improved areas where other companies previously refused to, even if they were charging for their services.

Mail. Internet browsers? Does it really need to be stated? Open source. Kubernetes. Open source. Tensor architecture. Freely released.

I don't see the argument for breaking Google up other than people are holding some vendetta against Google for being successful AND a pretty good citizen in the overall landscape so to speak.

If anyone needs to be broken up it's Microsoft. Microsoft actively harms every other competitor by bundling all their services together to the point where businesses won't even look at other software (teams? Azure is basically sold on nepotism).

replies(2): >>43718748 #>>43722687 #
bdcravens ◴[] No.43718748[source]
Their business apps division is probably a billion dollar business.

Their cloud generates a couple of billions in profit each year.

Besides that, I don't think giving away anything for free justifies any activity. If we're trying to compare to Microsoft, remember that Internet Explorer was free, and modern day Microsoft literally owns Github.

replies(1): >>43719107 #
whoknowsidont ◴[] No.43719107[source]
Revenue is not really a consideration when talking about _illegal_ monopolies. That is an incorrect way to view this. It's about anti-competitive practices. That's what the laws are about (and the reason for their existence).

Google is not anti-competitive. At no point am I forced or even "guided" into doing business with Google, at any stage, in any department. There are 8 billion other ad-networks out there, and there are plenty of mail providers to choose from, and plenty of search providers to choose from, and plenty of cloud providers to choose from. If you're on gmail (even business), or Google Cloud, or Adsense, there really isn't much stopping you from switching to something else. There's no real lock-in.

You cannot say the same with Microsoft. A lot of businesses are so dependent on MS's offerings they might as well just be glorified subsidiaries. You don't really have an Excel drop in, or an AD drop in, or a messaging app drop in that comes with all the other services. Google doesn't hand out Cloud credits with the express purpose of roping more of your business infrastructure under one company.

Internet Explorer was not free. You needed Windows. And if you had Windows you HAD IE, regardless of whether you wanted it or not, or even tried to remove it.

replies(3): >>43719773 #>>43720490 #>>43728083 #
CPLX ◴[] No.43719773[source]
> Google is not anti-competitive.

While you're welcome to this opinion you might want to address the fact that Google has recently lost THREE separate trials, each of which individually and separately produced a verdict that they are, in fact, in violation of laws against unfair competition.

replies(1): >>43722324 #
whoknowsidont ◴[] No.43722324[source]
You mean the three trials which are definitely not politically motivated, right?
replies(2): >>43722696 #>>43724892 #
1. CPLX ◴[] No.43724892[source]
Considering the cases were prosecuted in collaboration across both the Biden and Trump administrations, and decided by longstanding federal judges, then, no, these are not accurately characterized as politically motivated except insofar as all government actions have a nexus to politics by definition.