3 ms·

The separate companies would be: Google (Search), YouTube, Doubleclick (Ads), Android (Android, gmail, docs, google drive, Meet, google cloud, Stadia), maps

The separate companies would be: Google (Search), YouTube, Doubleclick (Ads), Android (Android, gmail, docs, google drive, Meet, google cloud, Stadia), maps and business listings (a Yelp competitor). I don't think Google Cloud should be its own thing. I see the business software, Android, Stadia and Google Cloud all part of the same company. It's basically a Microsoft clone. I could even see Microsoft buying that part of the business from Google.

wadkar 6y ago
Wouldn’t this severely hamper the use of shared single mega repo at Google and also very easy and effective sharing of all kinds of data across products and services?
- dodobirdlord 6y ago
  Also, who gets the datacenters? The existing traffic peering agreements? The subsea cables? Google’s core technical infrastructure can’t be “divvied up” without destroying it. It would have to look something like Google’s entire technical infrastructure going to Google Cloud and the all of the existing products becoming customers of that company.
  - zo1 6y ago
    Maybe the data centers are a separate off-shoot and all the other services "license" from it. Who knows what smart individuals could come up with in that regard. It's like untangling a giant code-base at the end of the day. Right now, the data centers (and other google properties/capabilities) are kinda like a bunch of global variables/state/functions. By splitting google up, you have to identify interfaces and contracts between large silos and make sure all interactions go across those boundaries instead of being "deeply" intertwined and reliant with each other. Who knows, this might even make Google more competitive at the end of the day. If anything, it could make the "ROI" and financial metrics of their individual products more explicit instead of nebulous "cross-subsidizing" centers.
Zandikar 6y ago
You can't separate Doubleclick/Ads business of Alphabet into its own company in a good faith anti-trust breakup of the conglomerate, most of the other facets would likely tank within 18 months without (specifically, the ones dependent on ad revenue to remain solvent). You'd have breakup the ads business and give a piece to various resulting companies, otherwise most offshoots wouldn't have a viable positive revenue model to save themselves from immediate financial collapse.
- inetknght 6y ago
  > You can't separate Doubleclick/Ads business of Alphabet into its own company in a good faith anti-trust breakup of the conglomerate Yes you can. > most of the other facets would likely tank within 18 months without (specifically, the ones dependent on ad revenue to remain solvent). Business models don't have a right to exist just because they "work" for the moment. > You'd have breakup the ads business and give a piece to various resulting companies, otherwise most offshoots wouldn't have a viable positive revenue model to save themselves from immediate financial collapse. I think there's an argument to be made that anything that "must" exist could be paid for by taxes (and likewise open sourced and publicly owned). However, I honestly don't see much of Google's business model that "must" exist. Not Gmail, not Meet, and certainly not Ads. Possibly Chrome.
  - dodobirdlord 6y ago
    Sure, you want the government to step in and outlaw Google. That’s doesn’t have much to do with the topic of an anti-trust breakup and is exactly what the parent meant when they said the proposal is not in good faith.
    - inetknght 6y ago
      > Sure, you want the government to step in and outlaw Google. No. I want the government to step in and break up Google into distinct business units. That doesn't mean outlawing Google at all.

wadkar 6y ago

Wouldn’t this severely hamper the use of shared single mega repo at Google and also very easy and effective sharing of all kinds of data across products and services?

dodobirdlord 6y ago
Also, who gets the datacenters? The existing traffic peering agreements? The subsea cables? Google’s core technical infrastructure can’t be “divvied up” without destroying it. It would have to look something like Google’s entire technical infrastructure going to Google Cloud and the all of the existing products becoming customers of that company.
- zo1 6y ago
  Maybe the data centers are a separate off-shoot and all the other services "license" from it. Who knows what smart individuals could come up with in that regard. It's like untangling a giant code-base at the end of the day. Right now, the data centers (and other google properties/capabilities) are kinda like a bunch of global variables/state/functions. By splitting google up, you have to identify interfaces and contracts between large silos and make sure all interactions go across those boundaries instead of being "deeply" intertwined and reliant with each other. Who knows, this might even make Google more competitive at the end of the day. If anything, it could make the "ROI" and financial metrics of their individual products more explicit instead of nebulous "cross-subsidizing" centers.

Zandikar 6y ago

You can't separate Doubleclick/Ads business of Alphabet into its own company in a good faith anti-trust breakup of the conglomerate, most of the other facets would likely tank within 18 months without (specifically, the ones dependent on ad revenue to remain solvent). You'd have breakup the ads business and give a piece to various resulting companies, otherwise most offshoots wouldn't have a viable positive revenue model to save themselves from immediate financial collapse.

inetknght 6y ago
> You can't separate Doubleclick/Ads business of Alphabet into its own company in a good faith anti-trust breakup of the conglomerate Yes you can. > most of the other facets would likely tank within 18 months without (specifically, the ones dependent on ad revenue to remain solvent). Business models don't have a right to exist just because they "work" for the moment. > You'd have breakup the ads business and give a piece to various resulting companies, otherwise most offshoots wouldn't have a viable positive revenue model to save themselves from immediate financial collapse. I think there's an argument to be made that anything that "must" exist could be paid for by taxes (and likewise open sourced and publicly owned). However, I honestly don't see much of Google's business model that "must" exist. Not Gmail, not Meet, and certainly not Ads. Possibly Chrome.
- dodobirdlord 6y ago
  Sure, you want the government to step in and outlaw Google. That’s doesn’t have much to do with the topic of an anti-trust breakup and is exactly what the parent meant when they said the proposal is not in good faith.
  - inetknght 6y ago
    > Sure, you want the government to step in and outlaw Google. No. I want the government to step in and break up Google into distinct business units. That doesn't mean outlawing Google at all.