5 ms·

Break them up into what?

by pb7 6y ago

tombert 6y ago
Well conceivably you could separate out the Facebook ad network and the Facebook social media, and possibly also maybe the IM systems (FB Chat/Whatsapp). I know virtually nothing about antitrust law, and I'm not a lawyer, so I'm speaking largely out of my behind, but those seem like logical-enough divisions.
- pb7 6y ago
  How would Facebook social media exist on its own with the ad network paying for it?
  - jlbnjmn 6y ago
    The ad network is for ads on partner sites, not on Facebook itself. It's Facebook's version of Google's DoubleClick.
walterbell 6y ago
Some units are already separate companies below a holding company.
lucio 6y ago
Maybe just force all social apps to a standard data migration format, and an easy UI to move, so you can move you data freely
- blululu 6y ago
  Consider that Facebook has 3 different messaging apps, and Google has an unknown number of messaging apps. Both companies have strong internal incentives to consolidate their own messaging apps and yet these efforts have never succeeded. I'm not sure if having a single universal protocol is the best idea.
  - glenstein 6y ago
    I was with you until the last sentence which I didn't understand.
    - AnimalMuppet 6y ago
      I believe the idea is that, if those companies can't do it, even though they want to, then it may be hard to do (or at least to do well/cleanly). Requiring it to be done may therefore be a bad idea.
- mrep 6y ago
  FYI, there is a project for that [0] of which Apple, Facebook, Google, Microsoft and Twitter are a part of. It's not forced and is still in development but it's something. [0]: https://datatransferproject.dev/ https://datatransferproject.dev/
maxwell 6y ago
"Facebook could be forced to get rid of Instagram and WhatsApp, Amazon might divest Zappos and Whole Foods, Google may lose YouTube, and Apple could part with its App Store." https://www.cnet.com/news/momentum-grows-to-break-up-big-tech-as-amazon-facebook-google-and-apple-face-scrutiny/ https://www.cnet.com/news/momentum-grows-to-break-up-big-tec...
- JumpCrisscross 6y ago
  > Amazon might divest Zappos and Whole Foods Amazon Freight, AWS and marketplace, if one wishes to keep going.
adventured 6y ago
If you were going to bother, you'd split Amazon and AWS. Amazon becomes mostly a retail company again. Without the AWS subsidy margins, they'll be down to retail margins and the ad business (with ads, it's plenty). They can perhaps keep the gadgets, splitting every major aspect apart might be going too far. AWS is a $400 to $600 billion market cap company right now if it were trading on its own, based on its operating income and the insatiatable market demand for anything cloud. The ticker is even available conveniently. They'll get to $150+ billion in sales and $25+ billion in operating profit in the next six to seven years (average of 21% annual growth over seven years; very much within reach). It might approach being a trillion dollar company a decade from now (at MSFT type multiples). You'd split Facebook and Instagram as the most obvious separation line (and then do something with WhatsApp, it can be spun off or go with either or; FB already has messenger, so it probably shouldn't go with that entity). Instagram is a $100+ billion publicly traded company on its own plausibly. There is some question on erosion in both FB and Instagram once you detach them from eachother. They both lose a huge protective moat and cross promotion (Instagram has become a lot more mature at this point, it'll be more at risk to userbase erosion going forward, versus say five years ago; and FB is definitely at high risk for userbase erosion with fewer moats).
- Mountain_Skies 6y ago
  They could also spin off Amazon's patent portfolio into its own company that would license the patents back to Amazon and anyone else who wants to compete in the ecommerce market.
- laluser 6y ago
  I think the sum of the parts would end up being worth more than the single entity. Which would make Uncle Jeff worth even more. Not that I care.
  - missedthecue 6y ago
    Happened with Rockefeller so probably
hannibalhorn 6y ago
In Amazon's case, there's actually a lot of shareholders that would like to see AWS spun off into a separate business.
burkaman 6y ago
AWS, Amazon Studios, Amazon the online marketplace, Amazon the producer of goods sold on that marketplace, Whole Foods, Ring, Twitch, whatever else they own
- Infinitesimus 6y ago
  I don't think all of those will be viable businesses on their own without VC money will they?
  - burkaman 6y ago
    AWS is Amazon's most profitable division. Amazon Studios would be the same business model as any other independent TV/film production company. Amazon marketplace operates on very slim margins to stay competitive, but it's hard to believe it couldn't be profitable on its own. Maybe it would have to settle for slightly less universal domination. Many businesses make money by exclusively selling through Amazon, so there's no reason they couldn't spin off a profitable business that sells Amazon Basics and whatever other store brands they produce. Whole Foods is obviously a viable business. I doubt Ring was profitable but it was clearly capable of getting VC money on its own. If it can't be a viable business, why did they start it? And why did VCs invest in it? Twitch was profitable before acquisition.

Break them up into what?

by pb7 6y ago

Break them up into what?

Well conceivably you could separate out the Facebook ad network and the Facebook social media, and possibly also maybe the IM systems (FB Chat/Whatsapp). I know virtually nothing about antitrust law, and I'm not a lawyer, so I'm speaking largely out of my behind, but those seem like logical-enough divisions.

pb7 6y ago
How would Facebook social media exist on its own with the ad network paying for it?
- jlbnjmn 6y ago
  The ad network is for ads on partner sites, not on Facebook itself. It's Facebook's version of Google's DoubleClick.

walterbell 6y ago

Some units are already separate companies below a holding company.

lucio 6y ago

Maybe just force all social apps to a standard data migration format, and an easy UI to move, so you can move you data freely

blululu 6y ago
Consider that Facebook has 3 different messaging apps, and Google has an unknown number of messaging apps. Both companies have strong internal incentives to consolidate their own messaging apps and yet these efforts have never succeeded. I'm not sure if having a single universal protocol is the best idea.
- glenstein 6y ago
  I was with you until the last sentence which I didn't understand.
  - AnimalMuppet 6y ago
    I believe the idea is that, if those companies can't do it, even though they want to, then it may be hard to do (or at least to do well/cleanly). Requiring it to be done may therefore be a bad idea.
mrep 6y ago
FYI, there is a project for that [0] of which Apple, Facebook, Google, Microsoft and Twitter are a part of. It's not forced and is still in development but it's something. [0]: https://datatransferproject.dev/ https://datatransferproject.dev/

maxwell 6y ago

"Facebook could be forced to get rid of Instagram and WhatsApp, Amazon might divest Zappos and Whole Foods, Google may lose YouTube, and Apple could part with its App Store." https://www.cnet.com/news/momentum-grows-to-break-up-big-tech-as-amazon-facebook-google-and-apple-face-scrutiny/ https://www.cnet.com/news/momentum-grows-to-break-up-big-tec...

JumpCrisscross 6y ago
> Amazon might divest Zappos and Whole Foods Amazon Freight, AWS and marketplace, if one wishes to keep going.

adventured 6y ago

If you were going to bother, you'd split Amazon and AWS. Amazon becomes mostly a retail company again. Without the AWS subsidy margins, they'll be down to retail margins and the ad business (with ads, it's plenty). They can perhaps keep the gadgets, splitting every major aspect apart might be going too far. AWS is a $400 to $600 billion market cap company right now if it were trading on its own, based on its operating income and the insatiatable market demand for anything cloud. The ticker is even available conveniently. They'll get to $150+ billion in sales and $25+ billion in operating profit in the next six to seven years (average of 21% annual growth over seven years; very much within reach). It might approach being a trillion dollar company a decade from now (at MSFT type multiples). You'd split Facebook and Instagram as the most obvious separation line (and then do something with WhatsApp, it can be spun off or go with either or; FB already has messenger, so it probably shouldn't go with that entity). Instagram is a $100+ billion publicly traded company on its own plausibly. There is some question on erosion in both FB and Instagram once you detach them from eachother. They both lose a huge protective moat and cross promotion (Instagram has become a lot more mature at this point, it'll be more at risk to userbase erosion going forward, versus say five years ago; and FB is definitely at high risk for userbase erosion with fewer moats).

Mountain_Skies 6y ago
They could also spin off Amazon's patent portfolio into its own company that would license the patents back to Amazon and anyone else who wants to compete in the ecommerce market.
laluser 6y ago
I think the sum of the parts would end up being worth more than the single entity. Which would make Uncle Jeff worth even more. Not that I care.
- missedthecue 6y ago
  Happened with Rockefeller so probably

hannibalhorn 6y ago

In Amazon's case, there's actually a lot of shareholders that would like to see AWS spun off into a separate business.

burkaman 6y ago

AWS, Amazon Studios, Amazon the online marketplace, Amazon the producer of goods sold on that marketplace, Whole Foods, Ring, Twitch, whatever else they own

Infinitesimus 6y ago
I don't think all of those will be viable businesses on their own without VC money will they?
- burkaman 6y ago
  AWS is Amazon's most profitable division. Amazon Studios would be the same business model as any other independent TV/film production company. Amazon marketplace operates on very slim margins to stay competitive, but it's hard to believe it couldn't be profitable on its own. Maybe it would have to settle for slightly less universal domination. Many businesses make money by exclusively selling through Amazon, so there's no reason they couldn't spin off a profitable business that sells Amazon Basics and whatever other store brands they produce. Whole Foods is obviously a viable business. I doubt Ring was profitable but it was clearly capable of getting VC money on its own. If it can't be a viable business, why did they start it? And why did VCs invest in it? Twitch was profitable before acquisition.