9 ms·

I fully agree with a breakup but arguably other than Search, DoubleClick, and Youtube, none of the others are solvent without ad money. On thing I feel we are

I fully agree with a breakup but arguably other than Search, DoubleClick, and Youtube, none of the others are solvent without ad money. On thing I feel we are still missing is for FSF, Wiki, Archive.org, etc. to effectively gather enough cash to start lobbying in politics and in industry much in the same way Meta and Alphabet do. Politicians/legislators are ridiculously cheap to lobby in the grand scheme of things.

pyrale 3y ago
> none of the others are solvent without ad money. This is a consequence of Google's structuring. If the pricing is unrealistic after a split, it's also currently an example of price dumping preventing competitors from emerging.
- kortilla 3y ago
  That’s not “price dumping”. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dumping_(pricing_policy) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dumping_(pricing_policy) If you don’t charge a normal price for something anywhere, then it’s just a loss leader (costco hot dogs).
  - pyrale 3y ago
    Just because the marketing dept calls it a "loss leader" doesn't mean it's not predatory pricing. Whether a company crosses the line is defined by the impact it has on the market: if a company with enough market power uses that power to damage competitors, then this is deemed predatory. And, when it comes to Google, their history of leveraging their dominant lines of business to force an advantage in new markets, including via pricing, makes a good case for this. If some spin-offs of a Google antitrust can't swim, let them drown.
    - flagrant_taco 3y ago
      > if a company with enough market power uses that power to damage competitors, then this is deemed predatory I think the trick there is that you legally have to show intent. One could argue that anything a market leader does to grow or even just retain it's market share hurts the smaller competitors.
mrweasel 3y ago
Chrome is probably the best example. I don't really know how people would expect that to be a company or even a division under Alphabet. It's rather unfortunate, because I don't think Google can be trusted to build a browser anymore. Android is also a weird case. All funding is coming from Google, but the revenue isn't coming from licensing of the OS. Separating out Android and require manufacturers to pay a license wouldn't kill it at this point, but it could fragment the Android market. Like with Chrome, Google isn't the best steward, because their interests are primarily data mining and advertising, but building the best mobile operating system. DoubleClick, analytics, Youtube and search are the divisions I'd go for if I where a regulator, but there where would Chrome and Android go?
- qwytw 3y ago
  > require manufacturers to pay a license wouldn't kill it at this point They'd only have to pay for Google services like the Play Store. However half of them would now belong to a different company and I don't know if the Play Store would be self sustainable on it's own? Samsung already has their own store, smaller ones will probably still stock to the Play Store for the time but increased fragmentation would be unavoidable.. That might not be a bad thing on its own, however I don't see how/why anyone would continue funding the development of the open-source bits of Android to a degree Google is capable now.
- detourdog 3y ago
  They forked the browser to grab data for the advertising engine. If all they wanted was high quality browser imagine what Apple and Google could have done if google hadn't forked webkit.

pyrale 3y ago

> none of the others are solvent without ad money. This is a consequence of Google's structuring. If the pricing is unrealistic after a split, it's also currently an example of price dumping preventing competitors from emerging.

kortilla 3y ago
That’s not “price dumping”. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dumping_(pricing_policy) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dumping_(pricing_policy) If you don’t charge a normal price for something anywhere, then it’s just a loss leader (costco hot dogs).
- pyrale 3y ago
  Just because the marketing dept calls it a "loss leader" doesn't mean it's not predatory pricing. Whether a company crosses the line is defined by the impact it has on the market: if a company with enough market power uses that power to damage competitors, then this is deemed predatory. And, when it comes to Google, their history of leveraging their dominant lines of business to force an advantage in new markets, including via pricing, makes a good case for this. If some spin-offs of a Google antitrust can't swim, let them drown.
  - flagrant_taco 3y ago
    > if a company with enough market power uses that power to damage competitors, then this is deemed predatory I think the trick there is that you legally have to show intent. One could argue that anything a market leader does to grow or even just retain it's market share hurts the smaller competitors.

mrweasel 3y ago

Chrome is probably the best example. I don't really know how people would expect that to be a company or even a division under Alphabet. It's rather unfortunate, because I don't think Google can be trusted to build a browser anymore. Android is also a weird case. All funding is coming from Google, but the revenue isn't coming from licensing of the OS. Separating out Android and require manufacturers to pay a license wouldn't kill it at this point, but it could fragment the Android market. Like with Chrome, Google isn't the best steward, because their interests are primarily data mining and advertising, but building the best mobile operating system. DoubleClick, analytics, Youtube and search are the divisions I'd go for if I where a regulator, but there where would Chrome and Android go?

qwytw 3y ago
> require manufacturers to pay a license wouldn't kill it at this point They'd only have to pay for Google services like the Play Store. However half of them would now belong to a different company and I don't know if the Play Store would be self sustainable on it's own? Samsung already has their own store, smaller ones will probably still stock to the Play Store for the time but increased fragmentation would be unavoidable.. That might not be a bad thing on its own, however I don't see how/why anyone would continue funding the development of the open-source bits of Android to a degree Google is capable now.
detourdog 3y ago
They forked the browser to grab data for the advertising engine. If all they wanted was high quality browser imagine what Apple and Google could have done if google hadn't forked webkit.