4 ms·

Google needs to be broken up. If Microsoft could be broken up, Google deserves it 100x. They control way too much.

by kabsekabtak 8y ago

askvictor 8y ago
When did Microsoft get broken up?
- robin_reala 8y ago
  It was the result of a (later overturned) ruling in 2000: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Corp.#Judgment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Cor...
  - curt15 8y ago
    So basically nothing happened in the end?
    - black_puppydog 8y ago
      evidently. but it was seriously considered. and they "only" controlled desktop at the time. which was everything. but still! :D
    - stingraycharles 8y ago
      Apparently Microsoft invested into Apple around that time. Apple was doing poorly, and Microsoft “needed” a competitor to show that they are not completely dominating the market. Right after the case was settled, Microsoft sold their shares again. It’s said that this investment likely helped Apple survive through that period. Given Apple’s market position right now, it’s not a stretch to assume this to be a direct result of the antitrust case against Microsoft.
AnaniasAnanas 8y ago
Google does indeed need to be broken up, but much less than Microsoft. Google has actually done good for the whole world with their open source initiatives, opening of webm, etc - plus all(?) of their products are easily replaceable, unlike say windows which has exclusive programs written for it.
- jamisteven 8y ago
  If by open source you mean free if they can keep your data and then some, then sure.
  - thefreeman 8y ago
    I'm sorry what? Have a look at https://opensource.google.com/projects/explore/featured https://opensource.google.com/projects/explore/featured You don't need to forfeit any of your data to utilize those projects. Do you even know what open source means?
  - AnaniasAnanas 8y ago
    No, by open source I mean things like https://www.webmproject.org/ https://www.webmproject.org/, https://golang.org/ https://golang.org/, https://www.chromium.org/blink https://www.chromium.org/blink, their contributions to existing foss projects like gcc and the linux kernel, and initiatives like https://summerofcode.withgoogle.com/ https://summerofcode.withgoogle.com/.
- cm2187 8y ago
  I don't define surveillance capitalism as "good for the world".
  - pdkl95 8y ago
    I suggest that anybody downvoting this read this[1] article for a surprisingly comprehensive overview of how Google et al are ruining democracy and (mostly-)free society as they shift our economy from the traditional forms of capitalism that were built on mass-production, finance, etc into ^surveillance capitalism^ based on omnipresent surveillance and behavioral manipulation. The social, political, and economic damage Google is causing as one of the leading forces pushing the world into surveillance capitalism vastly outweighs the "good" derived from a few technical trivialities. [1] http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/02/shoshana-zuboff-q-and-a-the-age-of-surveillance-capital.html http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/02/shoshana-zuboff-q-and...
kowdermeister 8y ago
They've already seen that coming, that was probably a motivator to create Alphabet. Breaking them forcefully would do nothing. What do you think would happen? Decouple AdWords from search? Ok. Decouple Google cloud? Hmmm. Ok. The end result would be that project leaders would be CEO-s belonging to Alphabet, but everything would be still running on the same architecture, platform, services.
Veelox 8y ago
How do you propose that Google should be split?
- opinion-10006 8y ago
  People on HN ask this question every time that the subject comes up, and I'm a bit confused as to whether it's genuine curiosity, or whether it's meant to show that breaking up Google would be impractical. I don't know much about the internal structure of Google, but my naïve intuition is that it could be broken up into several profitable companies relatively easily a whole a bunch of different ways, given how many different products there are. It seems like the first thing would be to split off Youtube, which is apparently already independent enough that it has its own CEO. Actually, I'd be comfortable arguing that Youtube is big enough by itself that breaking it up somehow would benefit consumers, but at least in that case it does seem hard to imagine how it would be done. Then, I would guess the next step would be to split Google Search from everything else. As far as I can tell, it's mostly stand-alone, and most integration with other products seemes more harmful to consumers than beneficial. After that, it gets harder, but I feel like you could do something like this: 1. Adsense 2. Gmail, Calendar, Drive, Docs 3. Android, Pixel / whatever other hardware Google makes. 4. Everything else
  - Teknoman117 8y ago
    Wouldn't breaking up Google into companies with complete control over their respective markets not really achieve the desired goal? E.g. If Android becomes it's own company, it's still the only player in the mobile operating system space. If search was it's own company, it's still the dominant search engine. Admittedly, I wasn't around at the time, but what use was breaking up Ma-bell into the sub companies, from a choice perspective? I certainly understand that from a telephony devices perspective, consumer choice drastically increased, since third parties could now make telephones, but you still ended up with local monopolies for all of the fractured components. Also, how is search's integration into other products harmful in all circumstances? It's extremely convenient that typing the name of a restaurant into Google search gives me reviews, the menu, directions, etc.

Google needs to be broken up. If Microsoft could be broken up, Google deserves it 100x. They control way too much.

askvictor 8y ago

When did Microsoft get broken up?

robin_reala 8y ago
It was the result of a (later overturned) ruling in 2000: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Corp.#Judgment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Cor...
- curt15 8y ago
  So basically nothing happened in the end?
  - black_puppydog 8y ago
    evidently. but it was seriously considered. and they "only" controlled desktop at the time. which was everything. but still! :D
  - stingraycharles 8y ago
    Apparently Microsoft invested into Apple around that time. Apple was doing poorly, and Microsoft “needed” a competitor to show that they are not completely dominating the market. Right after the case was settled, Microsoft sold their shares again. It’s said that this investment likely helped Apple survive through that period. Given Apple’s market position right now, it’s not a stretch to assume this to be a direct result of the antitrust case against Microsoft.

AnaniasAnanas 8y ago

Google does indeed need to be broken up, but much less than Microsoft. Google has actually done good for the whole world with their open source initiatives, opening of webm, etc - plus all(?) of their products are easily replaceable, unlike say windows which has exclusive programs written for it.

jamisteven 8y ago
If by open source you mean free if they can keep your data and then some, then sure.
- thefreeman 8y ago
  I'm sorry what? Have a look at https://opensource.google.com/projects/explore/featured https://opensource.google.com/projects/explore/featured You don't need to forfeit any of your data to utilize those projects. Do you even know what open source means?
- AnaniasAnanas 8y ago
  No, by open source I mean things like https://www.webmproject.org/ https://www.webmproject.org/, https://golang.org/ https://golang.org/, https://www.chromium.org/blink https://www.chromium.org/blink, their contributions to existing foss projects like gcc and the linux kernel, and initiatives like https://summerofcode.withgoogle.com/ https://summerofcode.withgoogle.com/.
cm2187 8y ago
I don't define surveillance capitalism as "good for the world".
- pdkl95 8y ago
  I suggest that anybody downvoting this read this[1] article for a surprisingly comprehensive overview of how Google et al are ruining democracy and (mostly-)free society as they shift our economy from the traditional forms of capitalism that were built on mass-production, finance, etc into ^surveillance capitalism^ based on omnipresent surveillance and behavioral manipulation. The social, political, and economic damage Google is causing as one of the leading forces pushing the world into surveillance capitalism vastly outweighs the "good" derived from a few technical trivialities. [1] http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/02/shoshana-zuboff-q-and-a-the-age-of-surveillance-capital.html http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/02/shoshana-zuboff-q-and...

kowdermeister 8y ago

They've already seen that coming, that was probably a motivator to create Alphabet. Breaking them forcefully would do nothing. What do you think would happen? Decouple AdWords from search? Ok. Decouple Google cloud? Hmmm. Ok. The end result would be that project leaders would be CEO-s belonging to Alphabet, but everything would be still running on the same architecture, platform, services.

Veelox 8y ago

How do you propose that Google should be split?

opinion-10006 8y ago
People on HN ask this question every time that the subject comes up, and I'm a bit confused as to whether it's genuine curiosity, or whether it's meant to show that breaking up Google would be impractical. I don't know much about the internal structure of Google, but my naïve intuition is that it could be broken up into several profitable companies relatively easily a whole a bunch of different ways, given how many different products there are. It seems like the first thing would be to split off Youtube, which is apparently already independent enough that it has its own CEO. Actually, I'd be comfortable arguing that Youtube is big enough by itself that breaking it up somehow would benefit consumers, but at least in that case it does seem hard to imagine how it would be done. Then, I would guess the next step would be to split Google Search from everything else. As far as I can tell, it's mostly stand-alone, and most integration with other products seemes more harmful to consumers than beneficial. After that, it gets harder, but I feel like you could do something like this: 1. Adsense 2. Gmail, Calendar, Drive, Docs 3. Android, Pixel / whatever other hardware Google makes. 4. Everything else
- Teknoman117 8y ago
  Wouldn't breaking up Google into companies with complete control over their respective markets not really achieve the desired goal? E.g. If Android becomes it's own company, it's still the only player in the mobile operating system space. If search was it's own company, it's still the dominant search engine. Admittedly, I wasn't around at the time, but what use was breaking up Ma-bell into the sub companies, from a choice perspective? I certainly understand that from a telephony devices perspective, consumer choice drastically increased, since third parties could now make telephones, but you still ended up with local monopolies for all of the fractured components. Also, how is search's integration into other products harmful in all circumstances? It's extremely convenient that typing the name of a restaurant into Google search gives me reviews, the menu, directions, etc.