6 ms·

I'm not convinced that it would be bad for shareholders to properly split the company, instead of having a holding like Alphabet. I don't think you can mix a d

by pnako 7y ago

I'm not convinced that it would be bad for shareholders to properly split the company, instead of having a holding like Alphabet. I don't think you can mix a defense contractor and an advertising company that has a lot of public scrutiny, for the same reason tobacco companies and breakfast cereal companies tend to be separate entities (despite doing essentially the same thing: selling agricultural commodities to consumers).

cactus2093 7y ago
What I genuinely don’t understand about all these split up tech companies arguments, is I don’t see how you’ll end up with a small company from this process (I also don’t see why smaller is necessarily better, but that’s a separate point). If you split google search and ads from everything else in alphabet, it’s still a multi hundred billion dollar business. If you split Facebook proper from Instagram from the rest, you’ll have a couple of multi hundred billion dollar companies. What makes a 500 billion dollar company less likely to do shitty things than a 900 billion dollar company, for any given definition of shitty?
- jariel 7y ago
  Chrome, Android, Search/Ads/Gmail/Apps, Google Cloud could feasibly be split.
- goatinaboat 7y ago
  What makes a 500 billion dollar company less likely to do shitty things than a 900 billion dollar company, for any given definition of shitty? Because it’s constrained to its niche. Let’s say split search/ads from the rest of Google. It’s still a money-printing machine but what can it spend that money on? It has to pay dividends to shareholders rather than propping up YouTube and GMail and Google Cloud and cross-pollinating data with them. Ditto if any of them become profitable. Shareholders win, regulators win, its good for everyone. Us split-advocates aren’t just knee-jerks, we have thought about this.
- Traster 7y ago
  The problem of these companies isn't size, it's their make up. Google only has an advertising business because they're dominant in search. The point of these businesses isn't to make the total size of the companies smaller, it's to increase competition. The advertising side of Google might be as big as it was before the split, but once it actually has to compete with other companies for ad space on Google's search engine there's suddenly a competitive market for advertising on search that previously there wasn't. Without the monopoly on search result ads Google's ad business suddenly won't be able to leverage that into being dominant selling adverts through their Adsense. It's about the fact that there is an entire market that has been closed because Google has a monopolistic power to bundle.
tuesdayrain 7y ago
>despite doing essentially the same thing: selling agricultural commodities to consumers Seems like you could say every company is doing essentially the same thing, since they're providing goods and services to consumers.
goatinaboat 7y ago
At the minimum search, GMail, YouTube, GCP, Android need to be split and legally forbidden from any information sharing whatsoever between them. Employees can be free to chose which one they want to be in before split day.
- v7p1Qbt1im 7y ago
  Yeah. That split makes no sense because those parts couldn‘t survive on their own. maybe GCP could. But until a much bigger part of Google‘s revenue is made up by cloud it‘s difficult. Besides, Google is an AI-first company now. Stuff like Assistant, which is arguably their most promising user-facing service relies most on all these services being seamlessly connected. This split would cripple such a profuct.
  - goatinaboat 7y ago
    This split would cripple such a profuct. No country’s constitution enshrines a right to profit from an unviable business.

by pnako 7y ago

cactus2093 7y ago

What I genuinely don’t understand about all these split up tech companies arguments, is I don’t see how you’ll end up with a small company from this process (I also don’t see why smaller is necessarily better, but that’s a separate point). If you split google search and ads from everything else in alphabet, it’s still a multi hundred billion dollar business. If you split Facebook proper from Instagram from the rest, you’ll have a couple of multi hundred billion dollar companies. What makes a 500 billion dollar company less likely to do shitty things than a 900 billion dollar company, for any given definition of shitty?

jariel 7y ago
Chrome, Android, Search/Ads/Gmail/Apps, Google Cloud could feasibly be split.
goatinaboat 7y ago
What makes a 500 billion dollar company less likely to do shitty things than a 900 billion dollar company, for any given definition of shitty? Because it’s constrained to its niche. Let’s say split search/ads from the rest of Google. It’s still a money-printing machine but what can it spend that money on? It has to pay dividends to shareholders rather than propping up YouTube and GMail and Google Cloud and cross-pollinating data with them. Ditto if any of them become profitable. Shareholders win, regulators win, its good for everyone. Us split-advocates aren’t just knee-jerks, we have thought about this.
Traster 7y ago
The problem of these companies isn't size, it's their make up. Google only has an advertising business because they're dominant in search. The point of these businesses isn't to make the total size of the companies smaller, it's to increase competition. The advertising side of Google might be as big as it was before the split, but once it actually has to compete with other companies for ad space on Google's search engine there's suddenly a competitive market for advertising on search that previously there wasn't. Without the monopoly on search result ads Google's ad business suddenly won't be able to leverage that into being dominant selling adverts through their Adsense. It's about the fact that there is an entire market that has been closed because Google has a monopolistic power to bundle.

tuesdayrain 7y ago

>despite doing essentially the same thing: selling agricultural commodities to consumers Seems like you could say every company is doing essentially the same thing, since they're providing goods and services to consumers.

goatinaboat 7y ago

At the minimum search, GMail, YouTube, GCP, Android need to be split and legally forbidden from any information sharing whatsoever between them. Employees can be free to chose which one they want to be in before split day.

v7p1Qbt1im 7y ago
Yeah. That split makes no sense because those parts couldn‘t survive on their own. maybe GCP could. But until a much bigger part of Google‘s revenue is made up by cloud it‘s difficult. Besides, Google is an AI-first company now. Stuff like Assistant, which is arguably their most promising user-facing service relies most on all these services being seamlessly connected. This split would cripple such a profuct.
- goatinaboat 7y ago
  This split would cripple such a profuct. No country’s constitution enshrines a right to profit from an unviable business.