5 ms·

Google broke itself up in 2015. What are you even asking for here? No, it didn't, it restructured itself into Alphabet, with many subsidiaries. But, all the c

Google broke itself up in 2015. What are you even asking for here? No, it didn't, it restructured itself into Alphabet, with many subsidiaries. But, all the core businesses are still under that umbrella organization, with most web-related businesses remaining inside the current Google entity. A forced divestment of the browser business might help. Same for the productivity products.

scarface_74 3y ago
What browser “business”? Chrome makes no money. Don’t you think they are going to fund themselves the same way that Firefox does - via Google ads? No one has paid for a browser in almost 3 decades and even then few did.
- jsjohnst 3y ago
  > No one has paid for a browser in almost 3 decades and even then few did. Considering NCSA Mosaic’s initial release was just 30 years ago this year and it’s considered the first browser, think you might be using a bit of hyperbole there? Twenty years would’ve been more accurate.
  - xp84 3y ago
    MSIE was free, 28 years ago in late 1995, and while Netscape did take 5 years to follow suit, by 1998 Netscape was not in a healthy position because of the free competition.
    - scarface_74 3y ago
      And to a first approximation. No one paid for Netscape then. I first downloaded it free in 1996 from their ftp server.
  - bradleyy 3y ago
    As someone who worked in this space at the time (Webmaster at Spry, Inc. in 1994), and we sold a web browser in the 1994-ish timeframe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBox, no, saying "almost 3 decades" isn't hyperbolic at all. 29 years is close enough.
- marcinzm 3y ago
  I don't think you understand what a business is. Google pays Firefox a lot of money to be the default search which means there is a lot of money in browsers. Google Search conceptually pays Google Chrome to be the default Search engine on Chrome. Except since they're both under the same company they will never take an outside offer which is why it's a monopoly. No different from any other vertically integrated company.
  - scarface_74 3y ago
    I understand that perfectly, how do you think the theoretical Chrome business would make money?
    - marcinzm 3y ago
      The same way the non-theoretical Firefox business makes money. edit: Safari as well.
      - scarface_74 3y ago
        By showing ads from the “AdSense Company” and sending your personal information to them? Meet the new boss…
        alistairSH 3y ago
        Sure, but on the positive side, the Chrome Company has its own incentives. Today, Google can provide Chrome as a loss-leader, making up for the "free" browser with ad revenue. The new Chrome Company can't operate that way. It needs to make money on its own. Perhaps MS Bing offers more money. Or they build their own ad system. Or pivot into some other business area. Anyway, I don't think anybody is arguing Google/Alphabet must be broken up, only that it's a tool that's available in the US, should we (society) decide other regulation is insufficient.
        scarface_74 3y ago
- rchaud 3y ago
  Chromebooks are literally a browser that you pay for, and they are heavily embedded in the US education system. Just because they don't sell floppies in a box like it's 1994 doesn't mean these aren't businesses.
  - scarface_74 3y ago
    Yes, you just pay for the browser and not the hardware. Are ChromeBooks also a “keyboard you pay for”?
Cthulhu_ 3y ago
But what does breaking up even mean? Separate companies, each publicly traded with their own C level staff, shareholders, etc? Because to me it just feels like it might be legally separated, but still owned and directed by the same handful of people. And it being separated makes it safer, in that they can't forward e.g. large fines to the parent company. Disclaimer: I don't know anything about large corporations. or economy. or governments.
- alistairSH 3y ago
  Yes, breaking up a company means divesting some business units. The new businesses would have their own BoD, leadership, shareholders, etc. The US did this with Standard Oil in 1911, Bell/AT&T in 1983. And the same laws were used against Microsoft in 2001, though the company was able to avoid a break-up. Breaking up Google might not be the best option. Perhaps more rigorous regulation by the government would be better, similar to Microsoft. But a break up should be an option.

scarface_74 3y ago

What browser “business”? Chrome makes no money. Don’t you think they are going to fund themselves the same way that Firefox does - via Google ads? No one has paid for a browser in almost 3 decades and even then few did.

jsjohnst 3y ago
> No one has paid for a browser in almost 3 decades and even then few did. Considering NCSA Mosaic’s initial release was just 30 years ago this year and it’s considered the first browser, think you might be using a bit of hyperbole there? Twenty years would’ve been more accurate.
- xp84 3y ago
  MSIE was free, 28 years ago in late 1995, and while Netscape did take 5 years to follow suit, by 1998 Netscape was not in a healthy position because of the free competition.
  - scarface_74 3y ago
    And to a first approximation. No one paid for Netscape then. I first downloaded it free in 1996 from their ftp server.
- bradleyy 3y ago
  As someone who worked in this space at the time (Webmaster at Spry, Inc. in 1994), and we sold a web browser in the 1994-ish timeframe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBox, no, saying "almost 3 decades" isn't hyperbolic at all. 29 years is close enough.
marcinzm 3y ago
I don't think you understand what a business is. Google pays Firefox a lot of money to be the default search which means there is a lot of money in browsers. Google Search conceptually pays Google Chrome to be the default Search engine on Chrome. Except since they're both under the same company they will never take an outside offer which is why it's a monopoly. No different from any other vertically integrated company.
- scarface_74 3y ago
  I understand that perfectly, how do you think the theoretical Chrome business would make money?
  - marcinzm 3y ago
    The same way the non-theoretical Firefox business makes money. edit: Safari as well.
    - scarface_74 3y ago
      By showing ads from the “AdSense Company” and sending your personal information to them? Meet the new boss…
      - alistairSH 3y ago
        Sure, but on the positive side, the Chrome Company has its own incentives. Today, Google can provide Chrome as a loss-leader, making up for the "free" browser with ad revenue. The new Chrome Company can't operate that way. It needs to make money on its own. Perhaps MS Bing offers more money. Or they build their own ad system. Or pivot into some other business area. Anyway, I don't think anybody is arguing Google/Alphabet must be broken up, only that it's a tool that's available in the US, should we (society) decide other regulation is insufficient.
        scarface_74 3y ago
rchaud 3y ago
Chromebooks are literally a browser that you pay for, and they are heavily embedded in the US education system. Just because they don't sell floppies in a box like it's 1994 doesn't mean these aren't businesses.
- scarface_74 3y ago
  Yes, you just pay for the browser and not the hardware. Are ChromeBooks also a “keyboard you pay for”?

Cthulhu_ 3y ago

But what does breaking up even mean? Separate companies, each publicly traded with their own C level staff, shareholders, etc? Because to me it just feels like it might be legally separated, but still owned and directed by the same handful of people. And it being separated makes it safer, in that they can't forward e.g. large fines to the parent company. Disclaimer: I don't know anything about large corporations. or economy. or governments.

alistairSH 3y ago
Yes, breaking up a company means divesting some business units. The new businesses would have their own BoD, leadership, shareholders, etc. The US did this with Standard Oil in 1911, Bell/AT&T in 1983. And the same laws were used against Microsoft in 2001, though the company was able to avoid a break-up. Breaking up Google might not be the best option. Perhaps more rigorous regulation by the government would be better, similar to Microsoft. But a break up should be an option.