4 ms·

That's a real reach. People are talking about breaking up Google also, and Google already calls all its stuff Google, and that's no defense. "People know we ar

• robbrown451 7y ago
  It's not a defense, but the fact that many incorrectly think of them as separate entities can be an aggravating factor. Just because Google doesn't have that specific aggravating factor and there is still a question of whether they have monopoly power, doesn't mean that said aggravating factor doesn't count for something.
  • rhizome 7y ago
    But antitrust remedies are all about single companies, aren't they?
    • robbrown451 7y ago
      I'm not sure how that is relevant to what I said. Can you explain?
      • rhizome 7y ago
        Maybe I'm not understanding what you're defining as the "aggravating factor," but I'm interpreting it to mean that FB, IG, WA are seen as separate entities while Google properties like Docs, Keep, Calendar, etc. are seen as products under a Google umbrella. If so, I don't think it's a distinction with a difference, as antitrust attention is going to focus on the umbrella, regardless of its name. I'd say your FB example has already been dealt with in the horizontal instance of Internet Explorer, while the Google collective is more vertical. Different flavors of umbrella, but that's what gets dismantled. IANAEconomist, but hopefully my point comes through.
        • robbrown451 7y ago
          Yeah I was accepting the previous poster's contention that presenting the company to the public as multiple independent entities was considered a bad thing. If not, ok. But if it is, my main contention was that it was one factor of many, and the fact that Google wasn't doing it (if they aren't....I mean YouTube is treated as its own thing by many people), doesn't mean anything. Anyway thanks for explaining.
    • dbuder 7y ago
      They will deem it a single entity.