6 ms·

Google should be broken up into 5 parts: Search/Adwords/Mail/Drive, Android, Chrome, Maps & GCP.

lettergram 5y ago
No ads should be separate from everything imo. Drive and mail can each make money on their own. Search and AdWords are too tied however.
- weird-eye-issue 5y ago
  You mean Google Ads - and no they don't have to be too tied together. What is so special about Google Search that Google Ads has to be owned by the same entity? I have websites with ads on them and I don't own the ad network either like 99.99999% of every other publisher out there
  - easrng 5y ago
    Because they sell specially-formatted ad spots that are supposed to look like results, not generic display ads.
    - weird-eye-issue 5y ago
      They can continue to do that and it doesn't need to be part of the broader Google Ads entity that places ads on other websites and operates an even broader ad exchange Think about Pinterest, Quora, or FB, for example, they have "native ads" but they don't operate Internet-wide ad exchanges
      - easrng 5y ago
        Wasn't that what lettergram was saying? They specifically were talking about AdWords (regardless of whether that's the current name), which is Google's search ads system, not all of Google Ads.
        weird-eye-issue 5y ago
        Google Ads is a single entity that does both and AdWords is now known as Google Ads. So what he was actually referring to is ambiguous...
DeathArrow 5y ago
That would mean 5 monopolies. I would split them in 5 parts, each owning 20% of all current businesses.
- axiosgunnar 5y ago
  How would this help?
- accountofme 5y ago
  So you are saying that no one entity could own more than 20% of alphabet? And it would retain all of its monopoly power?
- seanhunter 5y ago
  There's a very clear conflict of interest between ads and everything else google does, and the documents alledge some abuses of the monopoly position around that conflict. So any kind of antitrust breakup is very likely to start there. Personally, I think it would be quite interesting to split ads from everything else and then split ads itself into a few competing entities. I'm not sure you get a benefit to the consumer from having multiple entities who can all still do search and manipulate ads, keyword sales and search rankings for example.
  - willis936 5y ago
    But the ads are how google exists. They keep the lights on and the campus hedges trimmed. If you spin off a google without ads then would it even succeed or would the google with ads just take its old monopolistic position as soon as society allowed (forgot) it?
- gonzo41 5y ago
  You'd need to control the flow of people between those companies for this to work well. It'd be a challenge with us Labor law
- makeitdouble 5y ago
  A monopoly is fine if it doesn’t hamper competition and doesn’t use its position to impact unrelated markets. Shimano has a near monopoly on bike parts, and it’s mostly fine. DJI dominates the pro drone market, and it’s fine. All monopolies aren’t evil.
vgel 5y ago
Ads would need to be split up further, as well. It's ridiculous that Google controls the marketplace, buying of ads on that marketplace, and selling ad placements.
- solidangle 5y ago
  Agreed! GCP should be broken up as well. It is incredibly unfair to third party services that Google is both supplying the platform and the competing services. This is probably a bigger problem on AWS though.
throwaway4good 5y ago
Problem is only one of those things make money.
- djrockstar1 5y ago
  I'd say 3 of those make money. The first one, Android with the Play Store, and GCP with Firebase gaining popularity, should all be bringing in enough money to be self-sustaining.
- mathnmusic 5y ago
  Android's Play stores makes a lot of money. So much so that it's quite comfortable reducing its fees from 30% to 15% for some developers. Maps already charges fees for all location-based apps (cabs, deliveries, fleet tracking etc) like Uber. It may have to tweak its pricing, that's all. GCP has a revenue model as strong as AWS. There's a reason why Google is pumping money into it. Chrome is the only one that could be called a loss leader but given its dominance, it can figure out a model. If Adobe photoshop can survive as a paid software, so can Chrome and its Developer Tools.
- stonogo 5y ago
  Google has a TON of retired properties that were profit-makers, but not unicorns. Smaller Baby Googles would likely find solid revenue bringing some of them back.
- otabdeveloper4 5y ago
  That's not a problem, that's an opportunity. Don't we all love "disrupting" things?
onion2k 5y ago
Only the ads part needs to be broken up. It funds all the other parts, so they'd break up or shut down on their own.
libertine 5y ago
Youtube man! Youtube must be split from Google ASAP!
oscargrouch 5y ago
Sovereign states are anemic by now and i'm skeptical that they would want to fight where the money and (real) power is, and if they grow some balls, or stop being so corrupt, even than, i'm skeptical that they will manage to win this fight. We are entering into a new era where big techs are so massive they can fight sovereign states and win, heading us into a new era of neo-feudalism were "civil rights" are only granted if they are not in the middle of our new digital lords lust for profit and power. So people might think this is unlikely and conspiratory, but its just natural human nature, social dynamics and following the political vectors by the aggregation of the past events. If they are willing, they know the secrets of everyone, and its just a matter of pressing the right people to bow to their will and that's it, we become the fools of Weimar republic that were not aware of the dangers ahead of us, because there were no historical precedent to make us vigilant and aware, and all the signs were well aligned to a hostile takeover.

No ads should be separate from everything imo. Drive and mail can each make money on their own. Search and AdWords are too tied however.

weird-eye-issue 5y ago
You mean Google Ads - and no they don't have to be too tied together. What is so special about Google Search that Google Ads has to be owned by the same entity? I have websites with ads on them and I don't own the ad network either like 99.99999% of every other publisher out there
- easrng 5y ago
  Because they sell specially-formatted ad spots that are supposed to look like results, not generic display ads.
  - weird-eye-issue 5y ago
    They can continue to do that and it doesn't need to be part of the broader Google Ads entity that places ads on other websites and operates an even broader ad exchange Think about Pinterest, Quora, or FB, for example, they have "native ads" but they don't operate Internet-wide ad exchanges
    - easrng 5y ago
      Wasn't that what lettergram was saying? They specifically were talking about AdWords (regardless of whether that's the current name), which is Google's search ads system, not all of Google Ads.
      - weird-eye-issue 5y ago
        Google Ads is a single entity that does both and AdWords is now known as Google Ads. So what he was actually referring to is ambiguous...

DeathArrow 5y ago

That would mean 5 monopolies. I would split them in 5 parts, each owning 20% of all current businesses.

axiosgunnar 5y ago
How would this help?
accountofme 5y ago
So you are saying that no one entity could own more than 20% of alphabet? And it would retain all of its monopoly power?
seanhunter 5y ago
There's a very clear conflict of interest between ads and everything else google does, and the documents alledge some abuses of the monopoly position around that conflict. So any kind of antitrust breakup is very likely to start there. Personally, I think it would be quite interesting to split ads from everything else and then split ads itself into a few competing entities. I'm not sure you get a benefit to the consumer from having multiple entities who can all still do search and manipulate ads, keyword sales and search rankings for example.
- willis936 5y ago
  But the ads are how google exists. They keep the lights on and the campus hedges trimmed. If you spin off a google without ads then would it even succeed or would the google with ads just take its old monopolistic position as soon as society allowed (forgot) it?
gonzo41 5y ago
You'd need to control the flow of people between those companies for this to work well. It'd be a challenge with us Labor law
makeitdouble 5y ago
A monopoly is fine if it doesn’t hamper competition and doesn’t use its position to impact unrelated markets. Shimano has a near monopoly on bike parts, and it’s mostly fine. DJI dominates the pro drone market, and it’s fine. All monopolies aren’t evil.

vgel 5y ago

Ads would need to be split up further, as well. It's ridiculous that Google controls the marketplace, buying of ads on that marketplace, and selling ad placements.

solidangle 5y ago
Agreed! GCP should be broken up as well. It is incredibly unfair to third party services that Google is both supplying the platform and the competing services. This is probably a bigger problem on AWS though.

throwaway4good 5y ago

Problem is only one of those things make money.

djrockstar1 5y ago
I'd say 3 of those make money. The first one, Android with the Play Store, and GCP with Firebase gaining popularity, should all be bringing in enough money to be self-sustaining.
mathnmusic 5y ago
Android's Play stores makes a lot of money. So much so that it's quite comfortable reducing its fees from 30% to 15% for some developers. Maps already charges fees for all location-based apps (cabs, deliveries, fleet tracking etc) like Uber. It may have to tweak its pricing, that's all. GCP has a revenue model as strong as AWS. There's a reason why Google is pumping money into it. Chrome is the only one that could be called a loss leader but given its dominance, it can figure out a model. If Adobe photoshop can survive as a paid software, so can Chrome and its Developer Tools.
stonogo 5y ago
Google has a TON of retired properties that were profit-makers, but not unicorns. Smaller Baby Googles would likely find solid revenue bringing some of them back.
otabdeveloper4 5y ago
That's not a problem, that's an opportunity. Don't we all love "disrupting" things?

onion2k 5y ago

Only the ads part needs to be broken up. It funds all the other parts, so they'd break up or shut down on their own.

libertine 5y ago

Youtube man! Youtube must be split from Google ASAP!

oscargrouch 5y ago

Sovereign states are anemic by now and i'm skeptical that they would want to fight where the money and (real) power is, and if they grow some balls, or stop being so corrupt, even than, i'm skeptical that they will manage to win this fight. We are entering into a new era where big techs are so massive they can fight sovereign states and win, heading us into a new era of neo-feudalism were "civil rights" are only granted if they are not in the middle of our new digital lords lust for profit and power. So people might think this is unlikely and conspiratory, but its just natural human nature, social dynamics and following the political vectors by the aggregation of the past events. If they are willing, they know the secrets of everyone, and its just a matter of pressing the right people to bow to their will and that's it, we become the fools of Weimar republic that were not aware of the dangers ahead of us, because there were no historical precedent to make us vigilant and aware, and all the signs were well aligned to a hostile takeover.