5 ms·

> Steve Kroft: Were any of those acquisitions questioned by the antitrust division of the Justice Department? > Gary Reback: Some were investigated, but only s

by css 8y ago

> Steve Kroft: Were any of those acquisitions questioned by the antitrust division of the Justice Department? > Gary Reback: Some were investigated, but only superficially, the government just really isn't enforcing our antitrust laws. And that's what's happened. None of these acquisitions have been challenged Granted, most of Google's 200+ acquisitions would not trigger any scrutiny, but this line is mind boggling.

paulpauper 8y ago
I think only 2 acquisitions have had a impact. the one for adwords/adsense patent and one other. The rest have been to poach talent and other stuff or were duds.
- fipple 8y ago
  There's Android, YouTube, 510 Systems, and the constellation of acquisitions made to create Google Apps, at a minimum.
  - nouveaux 8y ago
    When YouTube and Android was first launched, Google was not nearly as big as it is today. There were even questions about Google's viability back then given that most of their revenue came from online advertising. It would be interesting to see how many of these acquisitions are still around. I think survivorship bias is strong here.
    - ghein 8y ago
      There's just no way Android's acquisition would or could have been stopped. Google bought it in July 05, one year after IPO. The smartest phones available were the Blackberry 7750, Motorola Q, and Palm Treo. Google had $3B in revenue in 04 and was on its way to $6B in revenue in 05 when it spent $50MM on Android. There was no way this acquisition would have been blocked without clairvoyance. Even then "stop this $3B company from buying a startup because it's going to destroy a $35B company in 9 years" is not exactly a compelling argument. The argument is even more nonsensical than that against Facebook's Instagram acquisition, which is saying something. People argue that DOJ or FTC should have stopped a company that hadn't yet IPOd from buying a company that had raised $7MM (and would raise $50MM a few days before the facebook acquisition). Sure they're obviously huge in retrospect but they really weren't at the time. Interesting and hot companies die all the time: YikYak and Secret looked like they were going to take over the world at one point.
  - Alupis 8y ago
    > There's Android, YouTube, 510 Systems, and the constellation of acquisitions made to create Google Apps, at a minimum. Buying Android hardly would have triggered anti-trust investigations given Apple's significant market share at the time, and the many other significant competitors (BlackBerry and Nokia just to name two). Same goes with YouTube - Google bought it before it was a smash success, and before people thought that sort of thing would be a major viewership center. 510 Systems and their self driving car really still isn't a money-making center for Google (nor is self-driving technology for anyone at the moment). Google Apps is a hard sale against Office 365, etc... I just don't see how any one of these acquisitions, on their own, would have caused government Anti-Trust inquiries... unless your point is Google operates in too many different markets?
    - refulgentis 8y ago
      nit: Android was purchased long before Apple entered the market. Doesn't change your argument, no one was expecting vendors to rush to a new OS because of the iPhone revolution.
      - yodacola 8y ago
        But Google was already aware of the iPhone the time they purchased Android. This has been their strategy for competition.
        refulgentis 8y ago
        No - they bought Android 2 years before the iPhone was announced, and 6-12 months before rumors about it appeared. You're thinking of the apocryphal story that Google completely pivoted Android when Eric Schmidt heard about the iPhone at the last Apple board meeting before the iPhone announcement
        skewart 8y ago
        As others have pointed out, Google bought Android long before Apple released the iPhone. Even after Apple did release the iPhone, the strategy behind Android was entirely focused on competing with Microsoft, not Apple. Google was terrified that Microsoft would get into the smartphone OS market and achieve a dominant position, and then muscle Google out of mobile search and advertising. That's why Android is open source (well, mostly). Google made the Android OS free for manufacturers to use with their phones as a way to get them to use Android instead of a Microsoft OS. The strategy worked brilliantly. Android has done exactly what Google wanted it to accomplish. Microsoft has never gained any meaningful market share in the smartphone market. And between Android and various deals with Apple, Google has a tremendous presence with smartphone users.
- ur-whale 8y ago
  If the other isn't YouTube, you may be missing something.
- davidwihl 8y ago
  adwords and adsense are patented by Google. DoubleClick was a more impactful acquisition than YouTube, hence $3.1B vs $1.5B https://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/14/technology/14DoubleClick.html https://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/14/technology/14DoubleClick....
- dredmorbius 8y ago
  The capacity to poach talent is another form of freeze-out. Talent (especially vetted talent) is both scarce and hard (expensive) to identify.
joshAg 8y ago
This has been the case since at least the 1980s. https://www.thenation.com/article/transcript-breakdown-are-antitrust-laws-thing-past/ https://www.thenation.com/article/transcript-breakdown-are-a...
- candiodari 8y ago
  There's the massive problem that none of Google's acquisitions were big when they were acquired. Google can at the very least be said to have very significantly contributed to the success of their acquisitions.

by css 8y ago

paulpauper 8y ago

I think only 2 acquisitions have had a impact. the one for adwords/adsense patent and one other. The rest have been to poach talent and other stuff or were duds.

fipple 8y ago
There's Android, YouTube, 510 Systems, and the constellation of acquisitions made to create Google Apps, at a minimum.
- nouveaux 8y ago
  When YouTube and Android was first launched, Google was not nearly as big as it is today. There were even questions about Google's viability back then given that most of their revenue came from online advertising. It would be interesting to see how many of these acquisitions are still around. I think survivorship bias is strong here.
  - ghein 8y ago
    There's just no way Android's acquisition would or could have been stopped. Google bought it in July 05, one year after IPO. The smartest phones available were the Blackberry 7750, Motorola Q, and Palm Treo. Google had $3B in revenue in 04 and was on its way to $6B in revenue in 05 when it spent $50MM on Android. There was no way this acquisition would have been blocked without clairvoyance. Even then "stop this $3B company from buying a startup because it's going to destroy a $35B company in 9 years" is not exactly a compelling argument. The argument is even more nonsensical than that against Facebook's Instagram acquisition, which is saying something. People argue that DOJ or FTC should have stopped a company that hadn't yet IPOd from buying a company that had raised $7MM (and would raise $50MM a few days before the facebook acquisition). Sure they're obviously huge in retrospect but they really weren't at the time. Interesting and hot companies die all the time: YikYak and Secret looked like they were going to take over the world at one point.
- Alupis 8y ago
  > There's Android, YouTube, 510 Systems, and the constellation of acquisitions made to create Google Apps, at a minimum. Buying Android hardly would have triggered anti-trust investigations given Apple's significant market share at the time, and the many other significant competitors (BlackBerry and Nokia just to name two). Same goes with YouTube - Google bought it before it was a smash success, and before people thought that sort of thing would be a major viewership center. 510 Systems and their self driving car really still isn't a money-making center for Google (nor is self-driving technology for anyone at the moment). Google Apps is a hard sale against Office 365, etc... I just don't see how any one of these acquisitions, on their own, would have caused government Anti-Trust inquiries... unless your point is Google operates in too many different markets?
  - refulgentis 8y ago
    nit: Android was purchased long before Apple entered the market. Doesn't change your argument, no one was expecting vendors to rush to a new OS because of the iPhone revolution.
    - yodacola 8y ago
      But Google was already aware of the iPhone the time they purchased Android. This has been their strategy for competition.
      - refulgentis 8y ago
        No - they bought Android 2 years before the iPhone was announced, and 6-12 months before rumors about it appeared. You're thinking of the apocryphal story that Google completely pivoted Android when Eric Schmidt heard about the iPhone at the last Apple board meeting before the iPhone announcement
      - skewart 8y ago
        As others have pointed out, Google bought Android long before Apple released the iPhone. Even after Apple did release the iPhone, the strategy behind Android was entirely focused on competing with Microsoft, not Apple. Google was terrified that Microsoft would get into the smartphone OS market and achieve a dominant position, and then muscle Google out of mobile search and advertising. That's why Android is open source (well, mostly). Google made the Android OS free for manufacturers to use with their phones as a way to get them to use Android instead of a Microsoft OS. The strategy worked brilliantly. Android has done exactly what Google wanted it to accomplish. Microsoft has never gained any meaningful market share in the smartphone market. And between Android and various deals with Apple, Google has a tremendous presence with smartphone users.
ur-whale 8y ago
If the other isn't YouTube, you may be missing something.
davidwihl 8y ago
adwords and adsense are patented by Google. DoubleClick was a more impactful acquisition than YouTube, hence $3.1B vs $1.5B https://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/14/technology/14DoubleClick.html https://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/14/technology/14DoubleClick....
dredmorbius 8y ago
The capacity to poach talent is another form of freeze-out. Talent (especially vetted talent) is both scarce and hard (expensive) to identify.

joshAg 8y ago

This has been the case since at least the 1980s. https://www.thenation.com/article/transcript-breakdown-are-antitrust-laws-thing-past/ https://www.thenation.com/article/transcript-breakdown-are-a...

candiodari 8y ago
There's the massive problem that none of Google's acquisitions were big when they were acquired. Google can at the very least be said to have very significantly contributed to the success of their acquisitions.