12 ms·

I don't understand how a google breakup would work. Would it just split off the ad business from ad-supported businesses like gmail and youtube? Some google pr

by kanox 6y ago

I don't understand how a google breakup would work. Would it just split off the ad business from ad-supported businesses like gmail and youtube? Some google products could stand on their own (Google Cloud) but most would have a lot of trouble. The worst case is open-source offerings like Android and Chrome which only make sense as part of a wider corporate strategy.

TACIXAT 6y ago
It would be really cool for people to be able to make money in those markets. It's really lame right now to face competing with free offerings. We're in a post chat client scarcity world.
- kanox 6y ago
  Nobody has made serious money by selling browser because nobody is willing to pay for browsers. Without Chrome the web would just stagnate. Nobody is willing to pay for mobile operating systems either. Maybe hardware manufacturers would pay to move Android forward as an open-source project but most likely outcome is a stagnant fragmented mess.
  - criddell 6y ago
    > Nobody is willing to pay for mobile operating systems either. Why not just bundle it in with the cost of the hardware like Apple does?
  - chx 6y ago
    > Without Chrome the web would just stagnate. Microsoft would take over. They are in position already, contributing to Chromium.
  - rvp-x 6y ago
    Microsoft used to have licensing deals with Android phone manufacturers for their use of FAT, it was just bundled in the cost of the phones sold. With the choice of Android effectively costing them $5-15 per device sold, manufacturers still chose it. https://www.howtogeek.com/183766/why-microsoft-makes-5-to-15-from-every-android-device-sold/ https://www.howtogeek.com/183766/why-microsoft-makes-5-to-15...
  - simion314 6y ago
    >Without Chrome the web would just stagnate. Some people would pay for a better browser. For example I pay for Intellij because for what I do is better then the free alternatives and honestly I am afraid if Microsoft would put them out of business with their free stuff we will get stagnation.
    - kanox 6y ago
      Opera tried that and never got beyond 5%.
      - simion314 6y ago
        But if it was profitable then it is enough, you don't have to kill the competition. The problem is when a corporation puts a lot of money and copies you then surpasses you and on top of the ton of developers Chrome had they used shitty tactics like promoting their browser on the google home page and bundling it with other programs. Opera is a good example. they did a lot of innovation a Google like tyrant is not needed.
        disgruntledphd2 6y ago
        I actually think that that Chrome ad on the Google homepage was the most anti-competitive thing Google have ever done. Like, no-one else in the world could possibly have gained access to that ad-space (possibly the most impactful ad-space in the world), and yet no-one even covers this in the anti-trust/competition investigations. I got really sick of ignoring the constant prompts to install Chrome over the years (and I still use Firefox). Mind you, at least the EU took them to task for Android service bundling, should be interesting to see what comes of that.
  - pirocks 6y ago
    I don't know about other people but I would have no problem with the web stagnating. We don't need yet more complex HTML features.
awakeasleep 6y ago
The answer to this question will be endlessly fascinating. To start somewhere, everything that was an acquisition 'should' stand on its own, because it began as a complete company. Of course things aren't that simple.
- ghaff 6y ago
  >To start somewhere, everything that was an acquisition 'should' stand on its own, because it began as a complete company. Of course things aren't that simple. In many/most cases, "complete" companies that are losing money hand over fist or--in the better cases--have a business model but not great long-term prospects.
empath75 6y ago
Seems like a reasonable split would be third party ads, while allowing google to run its own ads on its own sites.
marcosdumay 6y ago
> Would it just split off the ad business from ad-supported businesses like gmail and youtube? Yes. They can still sell ads, just not inhouse.
manfredo 6y ago
> Some google products could stand on their own (Google Cloud) but most would have a lot of trouble. Maybe I'm busting out my tinfoil hat, but I think that's the point. YouTube and other businesses wouldn't be able to survive without Google's ad money. In my experience traditional media companies are the ones most heavily pushing for Google's breakup. Is this due to genuine fear of monopoly, or due to the desire to eliminate a competitor encroaching on their revenue sources?
- missedthecue 6y ago
  It's the businessman siccing the government on his competition. It's nothing new. Uncle Sam needs to stay out of it.
- downrightmike 6y ago
  It would accelerate the path to the google graveyard is all.
- kart23 6y ago
  I'm still confused at what exactly they're trying to accomplish. So youtube and google drive basically die, some of the most useful free services available right now. I think this does more bad than good and I don't think any American citizen would support this given the effects.
  - manfredo 6y ago
    YouTube is taking a lot of ad money that would go to cable and newspapers. People's attention is finite. Less competition for eyeballs.
    - bagacrap 6y ago
      I don't really want to go back to watching ads for heartburn meds and Chevy pickups. At least Google shows me something I might be interested in.
  - yokto 6y ago
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
ocdtrekkie 6y ago
Both Android and Chrome could be wildly successful independent companies. Android could charge a license fee to OEMs in addition to the app store business and Chrome could sell search default rights like Firefox does.
- nojito 6y ago
  Almost no other service line other than Ads is profitable for Alphabet.
  - tengbretson 6y ago
    Maybe we shouldn't allow them to drive a bulldozer through other verticals then.
    - nojito 6y ago
      No. Google has always had a flawed business model. It’s been propped up by governments looking the other way for over 15 years.
- spideymans 6y ago
  Apple makes billions of dollars off of Safari search rights, so I think you're right about Chrome
summerlight 6y ago
Google Ads will run on Google's infrastructure and pay a lot enough to subsidize all the other products. Basically, there will be some financial impacts but I don't expect any kinds of significant impacts on their business, which proves this attack to be pointless.
jldugger 6y ago
Android would probably be spin-offable via the same strategy that technically makes Mozilla independent: pay for search engine placement. And then pay for all the services it connects to like Maps, Gmail, etc. It'd def be messy to untangle backends though. One imagines that the play store relies heavily on CDNs by Google, as one random small example from the haystack of papercuts.
- jackson1442 6y ago
  A large part of commercial Android is part of the mysterious "Google Play Services." I'm sure that would be a nightmare to uncouple from Google.
Aunche 6y ago
The biggest problem is that there isn't really a way to break up a data center. Unlike Amazon and Microsoft, Google doesn't use their own cloud.
- throw_m239339 6y ago
  That's Google's problem, not the legislator's.

by kanox 6y ago

TACIXAT 6y ago

It would be really cool for people to be able to make money in those markets. It's really lame right now to face competing with free offerings. We're in a post chat client scarcity world.

kanox 6y ago
Nobody has made serious money by selling browser because nobody is willing to pay for browsers. Without Chrome the web would just stagnate. Nobody is willing to pay for mobile operating systems either. Maybe hardware manufacturers would pay to move Android forward as an open-source project but most likely outcome is a stagnant fragmented mess.
- criddell 6y ago
  > Nobody is willing to pay for mobile operating systems either. Why not just bundle it in with the cost of the hardware like Apple does?
- chx 6y ago
  > Without Chrome the web would just stagnate. Microsoft would take over. They are in position already, contributing to Chromium.
- rvp-x 6y ago
  Microsoft used to have licensing deals with Android phone manufacturers for their use of FAT, it was just bundled in the cost of the phones sold. With the choice of Android effectively costing them $5-15 per device sold, manufacturers still chose it. https://www.howtogeek.com/183766/why-microsoft-makes-5-to-15-from-every-android-device-sold/ https://www.howtogeek.com/183766/why-microsoft-makes-5-to-15...
- simion314 6y ago
  >Without Chrome the web would just stagnate. Some people would pay for a better browser. For example I pay for Intellij because for what I do is better then the free alternatives and honestly I am afraid if Microsoft would put them out of business with their free stuff we will get stagnation.
  - kanox 6y ago
    Opera tried that and never got beyond 5%.
    - simion314 6y ago
      But if it was profitable then it is enough, you don't have to kill the competition. The problem is when a corporation puts a lot of money and copies you then surpasses you and on top of the ton of developers Chrome had they used shitty tactics like promoting their browser on the google home page and bundling it with other programs. Opera is a good example. they did a lot of innovation a Google like tyrant is not needed.
      - disgruntledphd2 6y ago
        I actually think that that Chrome ad on the Google homepage was the most anti-competitive thing Google have ever done. Like, no-one else in the world could possibly have gained access to that ad-space (possibly the most impactful ad-space in the world), and yet no-one even covers this in the anti-trust/competition investigations. I got really sick of ignoring the constant prompts to install Chrome over the years (and I still use Firefox). Mind you, at least the EU took them to task for Android service bundling, should be interesting to see what comes of that.
- pirocks 6y ago
  I don't know about other people but I would have no problem with the web stagnating. We don't need yet more complex HTML features.

awakeasleep 6y ago

The answer to this question will be endlessly fascinating. To start somewhere, everything that was an acquisition 'should' stand on its own, because it began as a complete company. Of course things aren't that simple.

ghaff 6y ago
>To start somewhere, everything that was an acquisition 'should' stand on its own, because it began as a complete company. Of course things aren't that simple. In many/most cases, "complete" companies that are losing money hand over fist or--in the better cases--have a business model but not great long-term prospects.

empath75 6y ago

Seems like a reasonable split would be third party ads, while allowing google to run its own ads on its own sites.

marcosdumay 6y ago

> Would it just split off the ad business from ad-supported businesses like gmail and youtube? Yes. They can still sell ads, just not inhouse.

manfredo 6y ago

> Some google products could stand on their own (Google Cloud) but most would have a lot of trouble. Maybe I'm busting out my tinfoil hat, but I think that's the point. YouTube and other businesses wouldn't be able to survive without Google's ad money. In my experience traditional media companies are the ones most heavily pushing for Google's breakup. Is this due to genuine fear of monopoly, or due to the desire to eliminate a competitor encroaching on their revenue sources?

missedthecue 6y ago
It's the businessman siccing the government on his competition. It's nothing new. Uncle Sam needs to stay out of it.
downrightmike 6y ago
It would accelerate the path to the google graveyard is all.
kart23 6y ago
I'm still confused at what exactly they're trying to accomplish. So youtube and google drive basically die, some of the most useful free services available right now. I think this does more bad than good and I don't think any American citizen would support this given the effects.
- manfredo 6y ago
  YouTube is taking a lot of ad money that would go to cable and newspapers. People's attention is finite. Less competition for eyeballs.
  - bagacrap 6y ago
    I don't really want to go back to watching ads for heartburn meds and Chevy pickups. At least Google shows me something I might be interested in.
- yokto 6y ago

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

ocdtrekkie 6y ago

Both Android and Chrome could be wildly successful independent companies. Android could charge a license fee to OEMs in addition to the app store business and Chrome could sell search default rights like Firefox does.

nojito 6y ago
Almost no other service line other than Ads is profitable for Alphabet.
- tengbretson 6y ago
  Maybe we shouldn't allow them to drive a bulldozer through other verticals then.
  - nojito 6y ago
    No. Google has always had a flawed business model. It’s been propped up by governments looking the other way for over 15 years.
spideymans 6y ago
Apple makes billions of dollars off of Safari search rights, so I think you're right about Chrome

summerlight 6y ago

Google Ads will run on Google's infrastructure and pay a lot enough to subsidize all the other products. Basically, there will be some financial impacts but I don't expect any kinds of significant impacts on their business, which proves this attack to be pointless.

jldugger 6y ago

Android would probably be spin-offable via the same strategy that technically makes Mozilla independent: pay for search engine placement. And then pay for all the services it connects to like Maps, Gmail, etc. It'd def be messy to untangle backends though. One imagines that the play store relies heavily on CDNs by Google, as one random small example from the haystack of papercuts.

jackson1442 6y ago
A large part of commercial Android is part of the mysterious "Google Play Services." I'm sure that would be a nightmare to uncouple from Google.

Aunche 6y ago

The biggest problem is that there isn't really a way to break up a data center. Unlike Amazon and Microsoft, Google doesn't use their own cloud.

throw_m239339 6y ago
That's Google's problem, not the legislator's.