5 ms·

I don’t see any mention in this article of what seems like the most obvious way to split up Google, separating their search and ad businesses. (Edit to add: alt

I don’t see any mention in this article of what seems like the most obvious way to split up Google, separating their search and ad businesses. (Edit to add: although maybe the effect would end up being similar, if API users serve their own ads but without access to Google’s ad infrastructure.) That obviously wouldn’t be a simple job, of course, and maybe there are some interesting reasons why it wouldn’t work well.

wolco 7y ago
Same results different entities. Outlaw ad tracking in some way.
- mc32 7y ago
  But it minimizes conflict of interest.
mtgx 7y ago
Why not both?
JumpCrisscross 7y ago
> what seems like the most obvious way to split up Google, separating their search and ad businesses Given the complexity of (a) Google's search and ad integrations and (b) the adtech landscape as a whole, this would be difficult to do legislatively. That leaves settlement with the DoJ, a costly and time-consuming path. The author's suggestion is not exclusive against a break-up of Google. Its moderation and basis in precedent, however, make it something multiple agencies--not just the DoJ--could implement. Including Congress.
- mbrumlow 7y ago
  Microsoft said the same thing about internet exploror and it's operating system..
  - JumpCrisscross 7y ago
    > Microsoft said the same thing about internet exploror and it's operating system And breaking Microsoft's attempted browser monopoly required the DoJ. To be clear, I believe we will eventually have to break apart--at the very least--Google and Facebook. But there are advantages to the author's proposed tactic of making the index public. It's a cleaner, cheaper, and quicker solution and doesn't harm the odds of a future break-up.
  - scarface74 7y ago
    And when it all came down to it, it didn’t matter. Chrome didn’t become dominant on the desktop because of government intervention and Safari didn’t become important because of DOJ either. Apple and Google competed. Government intervention is rarely the right answer. A bunch of people who are both beholden to lobbyists and ignorant to technology won’t produce the outcome people think it will. Besides, the last thing anyone should want is more government power. Given the choice between trusting the government - that has the power to take away my liberty and my money - with more power or trusting private corporations, I have much more to fear about government.
    - traderjane 7y ago
      That which the market does not naturally provide... does one just morally expect?
      - scarface74 7y ago
        Two points. The slap on the wrist from the DOJ didn’t lead to decreasing dominance on Microsoft. Google/Facebook/Apple competing did. A search engine is not life or death. Google doesn’t stop anyone from creating a website and reaching consumers other ways.
        Loughla 7y ago
        >A search engine is not life or death. Google doesn’t stop anyone from creating a website and reaching consumers other ways. As someone outside of the tech bubble, this statement always confuses me. I see it once a week or so on this site. Someone will say 'well, company x is doing y, what's to stop you from just disrupting them and working around?" Because people get their information in consistent, and predictable ways. And one of those main ways is to search for it using a popular website, so popular it's literally called 'googling' something. If you are an unknown, a search engine is literally life and death for your company, from what I can tell. Again, I'm outside the tech sphere, so maybe I'm just ignorant. But I don't think so.
- rpiguy 7y ago
  It is actually very easy to do legislatively (laws tell the companies what to do, not necessarily how to do it). The technical challenges fall on Google.
  - JumpCrisscross 7y ago
    > It is actually very easy to do legislatively It would be easy to write a law, not to pass one. Generally speaking, when a law is unpredictably disruptive it becomes (a) difficult to pass and (b) time-consuming and costly to defend in court.
    - rpiguy 7y ago
      The difference in this case is that the usual defenders of private property rights and libertarianism feel as though Google is suppressing them, potentially removing the usual roadblock to this kind reform. This is a rare instance where anti-corporate leftists and dejected right wingers could actually do something substantive together. In most cases I would agree with you the defenders of private industry are pretty fierce in the US, but all that ideology sort of dissipates when you feel like you are being oppressed (whether or not, or to what degree it is true).
      - JumpCrisscross 7y ago
        > the usual defenders of private property rights and libertarianism feel as though Google is suppressing them, potentially removing the usual roadblock to this kind reform Potentially. It's still more difficult than the author's index proposal. No reason they can't be pursued in parallel. Regarding a search-ad break-up, I'd guess there would be lots of wrangling over (and lobbying around) defining search and advertising. For example, is Amazon's product search tied to an advertising business, given it sells third parties' products?
ailideex 7y ago
> I don’t see any mention in this article of what seems like the most obvious way to split up Google, separating their search and ad businesses. What would be the revenue model for their search then?
- JumpCrisscross 7y ago
  > What would be the revenue model for their search then? I read OP's proposal as separating Google search business (search + search ads) from its third-party ad business (e.g. AdSense).
- samscully 7y ago
  The ad business would pay the search business for ad placement. The search business would also be free to auction ad space to other providers.
  - epicide 7y ago
    > The search business would also be free to auction ad space to other providers. Doesn't that make them an ad business?
    - ailideex 7y ago
      I agree, to me it seems like that really does not change anything except it mandates one more middle man.
      - GordonS 7y ago
        Yep, it just makes what likely already operates as an "internal" customer an "external" one. Not really sure how it helps with competition?
        iainmerrick 7y ago
        That’s exactly the point, to make that internal customer external, and make any special access or APIs they have available to competitors on an equal footing.

wolco 7y ago

Same results different entities. Outlaw ad tracking in some way.

mc32 7y ago
But it minimizes conflict of interest.

mtgx 7y ago

Why not both?

JumpCrisscross 7y ago

> what seems like the most obvious way to split up Google, separating their search and ad businesses Given the complexity of (a) Google's search and ad integrations and (b) the adtech landscape as a whole, this would be difficult to do legislatively. That leaves settlement with the DoJ, a costly and time-consuming path. The author's suggestion is not exclusive against a break-up of Google. Its moderation and basis in precedent, however, make it something multiple agencies--not just the DoJ--could implement. Including Congress.

mbrumlow 7y ago
Microsoft said the same thing about internet exploror and it's operating system..
- JumpCrisscross 7y ago
  > Microsoft said the same thing about internet exploror and it's operating system And breaking Microsoft's attempted browser monopoly required the DoJ. To be clear, I believe we will eventually have to break apart--at the very least--Google and Facebook. But there are advantages to the author's proposed tactic of making the index public. It's a cleaner, cheaper, and quicker solution and doesn't harm the odds of a future break-up.
- scarface74 7y ago
  And when it all came down to it, it didn’t matter. Chrome didn’t become dominant on the desktop because of government intervention and Safari didn’t become important because of DOJ either. Apple and Google competed. Government intervention is rarely the right answer. A bunch of people who are both beholden to lobbyists and ignorant to technology won’t produce the outcome people think it will. Besides, the last thing anyone should want is more government power. Given the choice between trusting the government - that has the power to take away my liberty and my money - with more power or trusting private corporations, I have much more to fear about government.
  - traderjane 7y ago
    That which the market does not naturally provide... does one just morally expect?
    - scarface74 7y ago
      Two points. The slap on the wrist from the DOJ didn’t lead to decreasing dominance on Microsoft. Google/Facebook/Apple competing did. A search engine is not life or death. Google doesn’t stop anyone from creating a website and reaching consumers other ways.
      - Loughla 7y ago
        >A search engine is not life or death. Google doesn’t stop anyone from creating a website and reaching consumers other ways. As someone outside of the tech bubble, this statement always confuses me. I see it once a week or so on this site. Someone will say 'well, company x is doing y, what's to stop you from just disrupting them and working around?" Because people get their information in consistent, and predictable ways. And one of those main ways is to search for it using a popular website, so popular it's literally called 'googling' something. If you are an unknown, a search engine is literally life and death for your company, from what I can tell. Again, I'm outside the tech sphere, so maybe I'm just ignorant. But I don't think so.
rpiguy 7y ago
It is actually very easy to do legislatively (laws tell the companies what to do, not necessarily how to do it). The technical challenges fall on Google.
- JumpCrisscross 7y ago
  > It is actually very easy to do legislatively It would be easy to write a law, not to pass one. Generally speaking, when a law is unpredictably disruptive it becomes (a) difficult to pass and (b) time-consuming and costly to defend in court.
  - rpiguy 7y ago
    The difference in this case is that the usual defenders of private property rights and libertarianism feel as though Google is suppressing them, potentially removing the usual roadblock to this kind reform. This is a rare instance where anti-corporate leftists and dejected right wingers could actually do something substantive together. In most cases I would agree with you the defenders of private industry are pretty fierce in the US, but all that ideology sort of dissipates when you feel like you are being oppressed (whether or not, or to what degree it is true).
    - JumpCrisscross 7y ago
      > the usual defenders of private property rights and libertarianism feel as though Google is suppressing them, potentially removing the usual roadblock to this kind reform Potentially. It's still more difficult than the author's index proposal. No reason they can't be pursued in parallel. Regarding a search-ad break-up, I'd guess there would be lots of wrangling over (and lobbying around) defining search and advertising. For example, is Amazon's product search tied to an advertising business, given it sells third parties' products?

ailideex 7y ago

> I don’t see any mention in this article of what seems like the most obvious way to split up Google, separating their search and ad businesses. What would be the revenue model for their search then?

JumpCrisscross 7y ago
> What would be the revenue model for their search then? I read OP's proposal as separating Google search business (search + search ads) from its third-party ad business (e.g. AdSense).
samscully 7y ago
The ad business would pay the search business for ad placement. The search business would also be free to auction ad space to other providers.
- epicide 7y ago
  > The search business would also be free to auction ad space to other providers. Doesn't that make them an ad business?
  - ailideex 7y ago
    I agree, to me it seems like that really does not change anything except it mandates one more middle man.
    - GordonS 7y ago
      Yep, it just makes what likely already operates as an "internal" customer an "external" one. Not really sure how it helps with competition?
      - iainmerrick 7y ago
        That’s exactly the point, to make that internal customer external, and make any special access or APIs they have available to competitors on an equal footing.