3 ms·

It's also particularly hard to break up attack company because of the value of their digital real estate. You can break Google up into as many companies as you

It's also particularly hard to break up attack company because of the value of their digital real estate. You can break Google up into as many companies as you want, but whichever one owns google.com has been basically unaffected. It's unclear how you'd break them up in such a way as to meaningfully increase competition in a search market where consumers reflexively turn to Google.

hn_throwaway_99 8y ago
I don't agree with this at all. If you break up youtube from google, I think people will treat those very separately - they serve very different purposes. Same with facebook and instagram.
- ucaetano 8y ago
  People already treat them very separately, I'd be surprised if most of the public (not HN) even knows that Google owns YT.
  - EpicEng 8y ago
    I assume the GP meant "the people in charge of..."
- mattmaroon 8y ago
  YouTube is probably like 8% of Google's revenue, not to mention that even if it became a separate company it'd probably just serve Google's ads. And it's the only domain other than the main one that matters enough to separate.
jerf 8y ago
Carving up a company is never easy. I'd say, clone out the search engine entirely, and as to the question of who owns google.com, the answer may well be "none of the above"; it could just turn into a page that offers you a randomly-sorted list of the baby Googles. Business being what it is, even if you simply fork Google, both new halfs are immediately going to seek out some way to differentiate themselves, so I think it's less silly than it sounds.
- mattmaroon 8y ago
  What you are proposing is silly. The government is going to destroy a trillion dollar brand with no compensation to shareholders. Steal what's likely the most valuable piece of real estate in the world and turn it into a link farm. And somehow split a search engine with thousands of employees, who knows how many physical assets, etc. into separate companies that somehow continue operating? This just doesn't make sense. No American politician would even purpose that for (rightful) fear of their career.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

hn_throwaway_99 8y ago

I don't agree with this at all. If you break up youtube from google, I think people will treat those very separately - they serve very different purposes. Same with facebook and instagram.

ucaetano 8y ago
People already treat them very separately, I'd be surprised if most of the public (not HN) even knows that Google owns YT.
- EpicEng 8y ago
  I assume the GP meant "the people in charge of..."
mattmaroon 8y ago
YouTube is probably like 8% of Google's revenue, not to mention that even if it became a separate company it'd probably just serve Google's ads. And it's the only domain other than the main one that matters enough to separate.

jerf 8y ago

Carving up a company is never easy. I'd say, clone out the search engine entirely, and as to the question of who owns google.com, the answer may well be "none of the above"; it could just turn into a page that offers you a randomly-sorted list of the baby Googles. Business being what it is, even if you simply fork Google, both new halfs are immediately going to seek out some way to differentiate themselves, so I think it's less silly than it sounds.

mattmaroon 8y ago
What you are proposing is silly. The government is going to destroy a trillion dollar brand with no compensation to shareholders. Steal what's likely the most valuable piece of real estate in the world and turn it into a link farm. And somehow split a search engine with thousands of employees, who knows how many physical assets, etc. into separate companies that somehow continue operating? This just doesn't make sense. No American politician would even purpose that for (rightful) fear of their career.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]