I disagree fundamentally. The fallacy here is that breaking up a company results in it making less money. Usually it's the opposite, because corporate inefficie

I disagree fundamentally. The fallacy here is that breaking up a company results in it making less money. Usually it's the opposite, because corporate inefficiency stops being as much of a problem. In my opinion, breaking up Google would only serve to make it even more profitable. Once companies grow to behemoths, they stop doing stuff. They slow down innovation to a crawl, and they essentially exist on life support and inertia until they're overthrown by a much, much smaller company. We see this pattern of life for a company again and again. We see it RCA, with GE, with GM. The only reason AT&T (Ma Bell) is still around and didn't decay like others before it is BECAUSE it was broken up. It was given new life as a set of new, smaller companies.