5 ms·

There is a difference between big companies and monopolies. Big companies will likely always be the ones offering the highest salaries and they'll always exist.

There is a difference between big companies and monopolies. Big companies will likely always be the ones offering the highest salaries and they'll always exist. Once they monopolize the labor market though: they'll no longer have a need to offer those wages as high (even if they're the highest within the market).

deevolution 7y ago
How do you break up alphabet?they will just move their corporation over seas, set up in africa and avoid any monopoly breakers. The government has no power over these companies. They would have to raid the offices and send the ceo to prison before alphabet agrees to break their monopoly.
- GhettoMaestro 7y ago
  Yeah that's not how laws work. Sure, they can move overseas, but for the business they conduct in the US they would need to comply with the post-breakup laws (assuming that happened, I don't think it will). And if they don't comply? Fairly simple. Indictments. Raids. Arrests. Asset seizures. Public shaming of employees and executives working for the company. Etc.
- toast0 7y ago
  Restructuring the company as Alphabet with a set of subsidiaries was a start to setting up lines to divide the company along. The way to divide up Google is into the ad network, the search engine, operating systems, and everything else. Allow them to contract each other on public FRAND terms to start with, but setup annual reviews to consider a bigger hammer. If they play games with moving house to avoid jurisdiction, ban payments to and from them.
  - option 7y ago
    you do understand that ad network pays for search engine, right? And operating systems isn’t exactly a profit generator either...
    - g00gler 7y ago
      You can also say the search engine and operating system drive the ad network. Google the search engine could charge an ad network a lot for the right to show sponsored results and provide analytics. Android/Chrome could charge a lot for user data, analytics, have their own mobile ad network and app store. Android could also start charging a licensing fee to vendors Etc etc
      - zepto 7y ago
        How does any of this help anyone? It seems like it just creates a lot of inefficiency.
        satya71 7y ago
        It will allow other ad networks to compete. And other search engines to get ad revenue.
        zepto 7y ago
        Other search engines already get ad revenue.
        g00gler 7y ago
        More companies, more jobs, more competition. For example, other ad networks can buy ad placement in google search.
        zepto 7y ago
        Since google will still be the monopoly search engine, all the profits will still be captured by Google. There may be some completion in ad networks, most likely racing to the bottom since margins on ad-tech will be razor thin. This will do nothing but make things worse.
        lonelappde 7y ago
- WWLink 7y ago
  The same way that most companies end up when they leave California. The engineers don't move away. They start up new companies that end up being competition to their old employer. Half the time, after some years, the big old company buys out the new competition and ends up with offices in the area again. This happens all the time in the space industry lol.
  - bryan_w 7y ago
    Except in this case it would be the government sending the message that if you become too successful, we'll find a way to break you up. That would drive startups away permanently
    - dickeytk 7y ago
      People are going to be reluctant to start companies because Google gets broken up?
- fmajid 7y ago
  Structural separation: you can't run a search engine and at the same time services that are the subject of it. For Amazon, you can't run the marketplace and at the same time sell own-brand (AmazonBasics) products. For Apple you can't run the app store and also sell apps. It's in Warren's program, although of course the devil is in the details. Lina Khan is the thought leader on these issues (I am sure there are others, but like Hal Varian and Carl Shapiro, they tend to get coopted by the monopolists).
  - zepto 7y ago
    This is a completely destructive plan that will enable international competitors who aren’t subject to it to simply take the tech industry away from the US.
    - option 7y ago
      A lot of people just don’t get it. The US is the most powerful country in the word because of its technology and economy. Losing that will pretty much mean that others (likely non-democracies) will rule the world
      - zepto 7y ago
        100% agreed - it’s completely bizarre that people don’t see this.
    - cannaceo 7y ago
      It's pure insanity. In many parts of the world there is no divide between government and business. That's what these companies are competing against.
    - lonelappde 7y ago
      There's no reason that foreign companies that don't follow US law must be allowed to operate in US.
      - zepto 7y ago
- lovich 7y ago
  Moving jurisdictions isn't a magic spell that grants protection. As long as a company is deriving value from something in a jurisdiction, then the government of that jurisdiction has power over that value because they can physically control it. Companies have outsized power these days imo, but they still aren't at the point to compete with the United States military and resist the actual violence that be visited on their assets if they do not comply

deevolution 7y ago

How do you break up alphabet?they will just move their corporation over seas, set up in africa and avoid any monopoly breakers. The government has no power over these companies. They would have to raid the offices and send the ceo to prison before alphabet agrees to break their monopoly.

GhettoMaestro 7y ago
Yeah that's not how laws work. Sure, they can move overseas, but for the business they conduct in the US they would need to comply with the post-breakup laws (assuming that happened, I don't think it will). And if they don't comply? Fairly simple. Indictments. Raids. Arrests. Asset seizures. Public shaming of employees and executives working for the company. Etc.
toast0 7y ago
Restructuring the company as Alphabet with a set of subsidiaries was a start to setting up lines to divide the company along. The way to divide up Google is into the ad network, the search engine, operating systems, and everything else. Allow them to contract each other on public FRAND terms to start with, but setup annual reviews to consider a bigger hammer. If they play games with moving house to avoid jurisdiction, ban payments to and from them.
- option 7y ago
  you do understand that ad network pays for search engine, right? And operating systems isn’t exactly a profit generator either...
  - g00gler 7y ago
    You can also say the search engine and operating system drive the ad network. Google the search engine could charge an ad network a lot for the right to show sponsored results and provide analytics. Android/Chrome could charge a lot for user data, analytics, have their own mobile ad network and app store. Android could also start charging a licensing fee to vendors Etc etc
    - zepto 7y ago
      How does any of this help anyone? It seems like it just creates a lot of inefficiency.
      - satya71 7y ago
        It will allow other ad networks to compete. And other search engines to get ad revenue.
        zepto 7y ago
        Other search engines already get ad revenue.
      - g00gler 7y ago
        More companies, more jobs, more competition. For example, other ad networks can buy ad placement in google search.
        zepto 7y ago
        Since google will still be the monopoly search engine, all the profits will still be captured by Google. There may be some completion in ad networks, most likely racing to the bottom since margins on ad-tech will be razor thin. This will do nothing but make things worse.
        lonelappde 7y ago
WWLink 7y ago
The same way that most companies end up when they leave California. The engineers don't move away. They start up new companies that end up being competition to their old employer. Half the time, after some years, the big old company buys out the new competition and ends up with offices in the area again. This happens all the time in the space industry lol.
- bryan_w 7y ago
  Except in this case it would be the government sending the message that if you become too successful, we'll find a way to break you up. That would drive startups away permanently
  - dickeytk 7y ago
    People are going to be reluctant to start companies because Google gets broken up?
fmajid 7y ago
Structural separation: you can't run a search engine and at the same time services that are the subject of it. For Amazon, you can't run the marketplace and at the same time sell own-brand (AmazonBasics) products. For Apple you can't run the app store and also sell apps. It's in Warren's program, although of course the devil is in the details. Lina Khan is the thought leader on these issues (I am sure there are others, but like Hal Varian and Carl Shapiro, they tend to get coopted by the monopolists).
- zepto 7y ago
  This is a completely destructive plan that will enable international competitors who aren’t subject to it to simply take the tech industry away from the US.
  - option 7y ago
    A lot of people just don’t get it. The US is the most powerful country in the word because of its technology and economy. Losing that will pretty much mean that others (likely non-democracies) will rule the world
    - zepto 7y ago
      100% agreed - it’s completely bizarre that people don’t see this.
  - cannaceo 7y ago
    It's pure insanity. In many parts of the world there is no divide between government and business. That's what these companies are competing against.
  - lonelappde 7y ago
    There's no reason that foreign companies that don't follow US law must be allowed to operate in US.
    - zepto 7y ago
lovich 7y ago
Moving jurisdictions isn't a magic spell that grants protection. As long as a company is deriving value from something in a jurisdiction, then the government of that jurisdiction has power over that value because they can physically control it. Companies have outsized power these days imo, but they still aren't at the point to compete with the United States military and resist the actual violence that be visited on their assets if they do not comply