3 ms·

To play Devil's advocate, how many of those would exist if they had been separate. How much innovation is restricted by splitting entities. Android was motivat

by gibolt 6y ago

To play Devil's advocate, how many of those would exist if they had been separate. How much innovation is restricted by splitting entities. Android was motivated to compete with Apple. The Play Store and Chrome Web Store required platform ownership for integration and optimization. Intertwined services demand mutual optimization. Many other Google products would likely struggle as startups, requiring massive scale to become profitable, if even possible. Most only exist because ads pay for them and they may contribute to improving ads.

cool_dude85 6y ago
If these products genuinely can't survive as their own viable products, we all agree that something like each individual product is necessary, and the entire suite can be reliably used to crush any competition, I'd say you're looking at a good case for state ownership. That's not to say I agree that all these predicates are met in Google's case, but if you really do find yourself in a situation where a company can't be broken up because the constituent products are necessary to society but can't function without one another, then that company probably can't be effectively regulated by any government.
CivBase 6y ago
> To play Devil's advocate, how many of those would exist if they had been separate. Who knows? How many alternatives died or resolved themselves to relative obscurity because Google managed to get a strangle hold on the market before their competitors could establish themselves? Maybe Windows Phone would still exist. Maybe we'd be much further along with a truly open mobile Linux platform. Maybe Firefox wouldn't be slowly fading into obscurity. Maybe Opera would be one of the top browsers. Maybe Edge would still be developing its own browser tech instead of just reskinning Chromium. Maybe OSM would be the most popular map provider. Maybe Vimeo would be the go-to platform for video hosting. Maybe people would prefer store their files on Box. Maybe ads would have never have become such a popular monetization strategy and we might have seen some new and innovative strategies in its place. Who knows?
- nicebyte 6y ago
  what i hear you saying is "maybe we'd be stuck with half-assed shitty map software, half-assed shitty browsers, and half-assed shitty video sharing services".
  - coldtea 6y ago
    Funny, since both Google Maps and YouTube were acquired, not developed by the monopoly Google. If anything Google made Maps shittier over time (similarly to how they've managed to fuck over their own GMail offering). As for Chrome, that was originally developed by KDE devs first and Apple second into a modern browser engine. The innovation part was theirs. Google just adopted it wholesale in the beggining, and started monopolizing its steering...
    - colejohnson66 6y ago
      > As for Chrome, that was originally developed by KDE devs first and Apple second into a modern browser engine. The innovation part was theirs. Google just adopted it wholesale in the beggining, and started monopolizing its steering... That’s... not how that works. You’re talking about WebKit, but the innovation of Chrome was separate processes for everything so a crash anywhere wouldn’t take down the whole browser. Sure, they’ve gone a bit “mad with power,” but to claim Google did nothing in the beginning is ignoring reality.
      - CivBase 6y ago
        > the innovation of Chrome was separate processes for everything I'd argue that's more of an evolution than an innovation. It had only just become normal for home and office PCs to feature multi-core processors. High capacity RAM was becoming relatively cheap compared to other PC components. We were still in the early days of webapps and social media. The concept of "browser tabs" was still new. Google had the advantage of starting from ground zero, so they could consider these new trends as part of their design. Incumbents had to re-work their existing tech to take advantage of those trends.
AnthonyMouse 6y ago
> To play Devil's advocate, how many of those would exist if they had been separate. Suppose Chrome couldn't be a part of Google. They would have just contributed to Firefox, wouldn't you say? Or if they were worried about Apple, donated startup capital to a non-profit Android Foundation to get it off the ground, where it could subsequently operate under a business model similar to Mozilla. The difference is that the independent entities wouldn't have the same conflicts of interest as they do as part of the mothership. Firefox can care more about privacy than Chrome, so if it was the dominant browser, all the better. An Android Foundation operated by people in the spirit of Debian would probably care more about continuing to support older phone hardware, and care less about monopolizing app distribution to their operating system.
josefx 6y ago
> Android was motivated to compete with Apple. So was MeeGo, maybe we would be using that now if Google couldn't just throw its weight around. > The Play Store and Chrome Web Store Ah vendor locked in store fronts, nearly as innovative as the company store in mining towns. The promise by Google to completely pull the rug out under any Android manufacturer trying to get away from it only ads to its clear innovative superiority . > Many other Google products would likely struggle as startups, requiring massive scale to become profitable, if even possible. Yes, the last decade of venture capitalist funded loss companies like Uber has shown that no one could reach that size without Google to guide them.
coldtea 6y ago
>To play Devil's advocate, how many of those would exist if they had been separate. Hopefully much fewer. >How much innovation is restricted by splitting entities. None. It's actually increased. What you listed is products, not innovations.

by gibolt 6y ago

cool_dude85 6y ago

If these products genuinely can't survive as their own viable products, we all agree that something like each individual product is necessary, and the entire suite can be reliably used to crush any competition, I'd say you're looking at a good case for state ownership. That's not to say I agree that all these predicates are met in Google's case, but if you really do find yourself in a situation where a company can't be broken up because the constituent products are necessary to society but can't function without one another, then that company probably can't be effectively regulated by any government.

CivBase 6y ago

> To play Devil's advocate, how many of those would exist if they had been separate. Who knows? How many alternatives died or resolved themselves to relative obscurity because Google managed to get a strangle hold on the market before their competitors could establish themselves? Maybe Windows Phone would still exist. Maybe we'd be much further along with a truly open mobile Linux platform. Maybe Firefox wouldn't be slowly fading into obscurity. Maybe Opera would be one of the top browsers. Maybe Edge would still be developing its own browser tech instead of just reskinning Chromium. Maybe OSM would be the most popular map provider. Maybe Vimeo would be the go-to platform for video hosting. Maybe people would prefer store their files on Box. Maybe ads would have never have become such a popular monetization strategy and we might have seen some new and innovative strategies in its place. Who knows?

nicebyte 6y ago
what i hear you saying is "maybe we'd be stuck with half-assed shitty map software, half-assed shitty browsers, and half-assed shitty video sharing services".
- coldtea 6y ago
  Funny, since both Google Maps and YouTube were acquired, not developed by the monopoly Google. If anything Google made Maps shittier over time (similarly to how they've managed to fuck over their own GMail offering). As for Chrome, that was originally developed by KDE devs first and Apple second into a modern browser engine. The innovation part was theirs. Google just adopted it wholesale in the beggining, and started monopolizing its steering...
  - colejohnson66 6y ago
    > As for Chrome, that was originally developed by KDE devs first and Apple second into a modern browser engine. The innovation part was theirs. Google just adopted it wholesale in the beggining, and started monopolizing its steering... That’s... not how that works. You’re talking about WebKit, but the innovation of Chrome was separate processes for everything so a crash anywhere wouldn’t take down the whole browser. Sure, they’ve gone a bit “mad with power,” but to claim Google did nothing in the beginning is ignoring reality.
    - CivBase 6y ago
      > the innovation of Chrome was separate processes for everything I'd argue that's more of an evolution than an innovation. It had only just become normal for home and office PCs to feature multi-core processors. High capacity RAM was becoming relatively cheap compared to other PC components. We were still in the early days of webapps and social media. The concept of "browser tabs" was still new. Google had the advantage of starting from ground zero, so they could consider these new trends as part of their design. Incumbents had to re-work their existing tech to take advantage of those trends.

AnthonyMouse 6y ago

> To play Devil's advocate, how many of those would exist if they had been separate. Suppose Chrome couldn't be a part of Google. They would have just contributed to Firefox, wouldn't you say? Or if they were worried about Apple, donated startup capital to a non-profit Android Foundation to get it off the ground, where it could subsequently operate under a business model similar to Mozilla. The difference is that the independent entities wouldn't have the same conflicts of interest as they do as part of the mothership. Firefox can care more about privacy than Chrome, so if it was the dominant browser, all the better. An Android Foundation operated by people in the spirit of Debian would probably care more about continuing to support older phone hardware, and care less about monopolizing app distribution to their operating system.

josefx 6y ago

> Android was motivated to compete with Apple. So was MeeGo, maybe we would be using that now if Google couldn't just throw its weight around. > The Play Store and Chrome Web Store Ah vendor locked in store fronts, nearly as innovative as the company store in mining towns. The promise by Google to completely pull the rug out under any Android manufacturer trying to get away from it only ads to its clear innovative superiority . > Many other Google products would likely struggle as startups, requiring massive scale to become profitable, if even possible. Yes, the last decade of venture capitalist funded loss companies like Uber has shown that no one could reach that size without Google to guide them.

coldtea 6y ago

>To play Devil's advocate, how many of those would exist if they had been separate. Hopefully much fewer. >How much innovation is restricted by splitting entities. None. It's actually increased. What you listed is products, not innovations.