5 ms·

Valid. But am I correct in saying that if instead of Google it was instead Android, Chrome and Google Search acting as three separate companies they wouldn't ha

Valid. But am I correct in saying that if instead of Google it was instead Android, Chrome and Google Search acting as three separate companies they wouldn't have this problem?

amadeuspagel 3y ago
Chrome wouldn't be viable as a separate company. Android might be at this point with the Play Store, but that's itself a target of the anti-trust suit.
- realusername 3y ago
  I'm not sure why it would not, just the revenue from the default search engine would be massive.
  - solardev 3y ago
    Post split-up, Google Search could pay Chrome billions to be the default search. Chrome could pay billions to Android to be the default browser. Android could pay billions to the regulators to look the other way. Everyone wins!
    - realusername 3y ago
      That looks like the same thing as now but it isn't, there's a lot of motives outside of just the money flowing. Chrome doesn't have an incentive to follow every move benefiting Google anymore, projects such has the recent web integrity disaster would not even exist. Android would have different incentives to diversify its revenue stream and would be more accepting to outsiders.
      - solardev 3y ago
        OK, going to try to be serious for a sec :) I hear what you're saying, that allowing these newly-formed companies to control their own destinies would allow them to pursue other sources of revenue that's not so user-hostile. I can believe that in the short term. However, I don't think that can really last over the long term. It seems like every big company eventually trends towards integrated monopoly, and when they get there and get broken up, another one will rise and take its place. Google today was Microsoft not so long ago, and probably Apple in the not-so-distant future. I don't know who the next upstart monopoly is after them, but it seems like this sort of cohesive, all-encompassing business model has synergies and efficiencies of scale that smaller independent companies just can't match. Chrome, Android, and the rest of the Google ecosystem all feed into each other, each creating value and lock-in for their peers. It's the same approach used by every major ecosystem vendor, whether that's Google or Apple or MS or Samsung or AWS. And in so doing, they crushed every independent browser vendor, every independent phone vendor, every independent cloud vendor, every independent search engine, every independent smart home vendor, etc. From the business side, all that money helps subsidize upstart business units, all that data and staff helps each unit perform better than their smaller peers, and that name recognition gives them a built-in customer base. Even from the user side, there is a lot of simplicity gained from "one login to do everything I need online". I don't think that fundamental dynamic is going to change, and regulators will never be able to keep up with new monopolies. They can form in half a decade or so, whereas anti-trust enforcement takes decades (and multiple administrations, typically having to wait for a blue cycle). I'm not much of a capitalist, and it saddens me that this is the reality. The public is always playing catch-up, first enabling these huge mega-corps, then slowly finding they've grown too big, and only then trying to do something about it... but by then, another challenger is already in the works and the cycle begins anew. I wish there were a "good enough" public alternative for these pieces of fundamental digital infrastructure: a publicly-owned-and-operated messaging network, free email services, social network, online storage, calendar, etc., kinda like how we build roads and bridges. When we depend on huge companies and small volunteer efforts to provide our digital essentials, the huge companies are always going to win. Sigh. Just thinking out loud...
        realusername 3y ago
        Oh yeah, I'm not saying that it would solve the problem forever but antitrust breakups aren't there to solve issues forever, they are there to temporarily recreate a market by force until the next big issue comes up.

Valid. But am I correct in saying that if instead of Google it was instead Android, Chrome and Google Search acting as three separate companies they wouldn't have this problem?

amadeuspagel 3y ago

Chrome wouldn't be viable as a separate company. Android might be at this point with the Play Store, but that's itself a target of the anti-trust suit.

realusername 3y ago
I'm not sure why it would not, just the revenue from the default search engine would be massive.
- solardev 3y ago
  Post split-up, Google Search could pay Chrome billions to be the default search. Chrome could pay billions to Android to be the default browser. Android could pay billions to the regulators to look the other way. Everyone wins!
  - realusername 3y ago
    That looks like the same thing as now but it isn't, there's a lot of motives outside of just the money flowing. Chrome doesn't have an incentive to follow every move benefiting Google anymore, projects such has the recent web integrity disaster would not even exist. Android would have different incentives to diversify its revenue stream and would be more accepting to outsiders.
    - solardev 3y ago
      OK, going to try to be serious for a sec :) I hear what you're saying, that allowing these newly-formed companies to control their own destinies would allow them to pursue other sources of revenue that's not so user-hostile. I can believe that in the short term. However, I don't think that can really last over the long term. It seems like every big company eventually trends towards integrated monopoly, and when they get there and get broken up, another one will rise and take its place. Google today was Microsoft not so long ago, and probably Apple in the not-so-distant future. I don't know who the next upstart monopoly is after them, but it seems like this sort of cohesive, all-encompassing business model has synergies and efficiencies of scale that smaller independent companies just can't match. Chrome, Android, and the rest of the Google ecosystem all feed into each other, each creating value and lock-in for their peers. It's the same approach used by every major ecosystem vendor, whether that's Google or Apple or MS or Samsung or AWS. And in so doing, they crushed every independent browser vendor, every independent phone vendor, every independent cloud vendor, every independent search engine, every independent smart home vendor, etc. From the business side, all that money helps subsidize upstart business units, all that data and staff helps each unit perform better than their smaller peers, and that name recognition gives them a built-in customer base. Even from the user side, there is a lot of simplicity gained from "one login to do everything I need online". I don't think that fundamental dynamic is going to change, and regulators will never be able to keep up with new monopolies. They can form in half a decade or so, whereas anti-trust enforcement takes decades (and multiple administrations, typically having to wait for a blue cycle). I'm not much of a capitalist, and it saddens me that this is the reality. The public is always playing catch-up, first enabling these huge mega-corps, then slowly finding they've grown too big, and only then trying to do something about it... but by then, another challenger is already in the works and the cycle begins anew. I wish there were a "good enough" public alternative for these pieces of fundamental digital infrastructure: a publicly-owned-and-operated messaging network, free email services, social network, online storage, calendar, etc., kinda like how we build roads and bridges. When we depend on huge companies and small volunteer efforts to provide our digital essentials, the huge companies are always going to win. Sigh. Just thinking out loud...
      - realusername 3y ago
        Oh yeah, I'm not saying that it would solve the problem forever but antitrust breakups aren't there to solve issues forever, they are there to temporarily recreate a market by force until the next big issue comes up.