5 ms·

> I think the breakups obviously rectify consolidated power. 100%. But I don’t see more mobile phone operating systems coming from a breakup of Apple, for examp

> I think the breakups obviously rectify consolidated power. 100%. But I don’t see more mobile phone operating systems coming from a breakup of Apple, for example. Gmail isn’t going to be replaced by a new email provider. Nor would we see a new YouTube, or other dominant businesses. Disrupting these massive aggregators won’t come from direct competition, but rather new product and service experiences. Perhaps you're right. Perhaps breaking these products up would not create more competition. But it would mean that these products must determine how to make money on their own merits. That might mean a better product overall. Or it might mean that the product really doesn't deserve to exist as a consumer product.

vineyardmike 2y ago
> Or it might mean that the product really doesn't deserve to exist as a consumer product. Why? If a product or experience is used by people, and enjoyed, and could not be monetized directly, why should it not exist? I think of Alexa/Google Assistant/Siri as representative examples. Some set of execs decided to fund these voice assistants - now used by millions - and they obviously don’t make money. Would customers be better off if they were jettisoned to drown on their own? I just don’t see why it’s wrong that businesses have these silly side projects. We seem to have competition even amongst the subsidized vanity projects. Again, I think a breakup wouldn’t be bad overall, but I don’t think this is the thing missing in the industry.
- worik 2y ago
  > ....Alexa/Google Assistant/Siri... and they obviously don’t make money. If you take a very narrow view of "make money" They are immensely valuable to the owners and an important part of the systematic maintenance of people as "consumers" rather than "citizens". We would be better off, over all, without the whole thing.
  - vineyardmike 2y ago
    > If you take a very narrow view of "make money" > They are immensely valuable to the owners This is, of course, the entire point of this entire thread. Its not a particularly "narrow" view, FWIW, because most businesses have a P&L sheet that will list expenses and revenues, and entire business units have big "costs" and not so big "revenue". Which is what "don't make money" means.
- ksec 2y ago
  Agree. It is the exact same question again and again with bundling [1] and unbundling. I guess I will have to submit it again. [1] https://www.ben-evans.com/benedictevans/2020/12/21/google-bundling-and-kill-zones https://www.ben-evans.com/benedictevans/2020/12/21/google-bu...
scarface_74 2y ago
Apple would never have invested in Mx chips that are only 14% of Apple’s revenue - Macs + iPads. If it weren’t for the R&D from iPhone Ax chips and the volume. So exactly who want Chrome? How would they monetize it and you can already get Chromium for free. Could Android not come with a browser? Chromebooks? Who would fund Chromium development?
boppo1 2y ago
Yeah! Google maps should be independent and infested with obtrusive pop-up ads unless you subscribe!

vineyardmike 2y ago

> Or it might mean that the product really doesn't deserve to exist as a consumer product. Why? If a product or experience is used by people, and enjoyed, and could not be monetized directly, why should it not exist? I think of Alexa/Google Assistant/Siri as representative examples. Some set of execs decided to fund these voice assistants - now used by millions - and they obviously don’t make money. Would customers be better off if they were jettisoned to drown on their own? I just don’t see why it’s wrong that businesses have these silly side projects. We seem to have competition even amongst the subsidized vanity projects. Again, I think a breakup wouldn’t be bad overall, but I don’t think this is the thing missing in the industry.

worik 2y ago
> ....Alexa/Google Assistant/Siri... and they obviously don’t make money. If you take a very narrow view of "make money" They are immensely valuable to the owners and an important part of the systematic maintenance of people as "consumers" rather than "citizens". We would be better off, over all, without the whole thing.
- vineyardmike 2y ago
  > If you take a very narrow view of "make money" > They are immensely valuable to the owners This is, of course, the entire point of this entire thread. Its not a particularly "narrow" view, FWIW, because most businesses have a P&L sheet that will list expenses and revenues, and entire business units have big "costs" and not so big "revenue". Which is what "don't make money" means.
ksec 2y ago
Agree. It is the exact same question again and again with bundling [1] and unbundling. I guess I will have to submit it again. [1] https://www.ben-evans.com/benedictevans/2020/12/21/google-bundling-and-kill-zones https://www.ben-evans.com/benedictevans/2020/12/21/google-bu...

scarface_74 2y ago

Apple would never have invested in Mx chips that are only 14% of Apple’s revenue - Macs + iPads. If it weren’t for the R&D from iPhone Ax chips and the volume. So exactly who want Chrome? How would they monetize it and you can already get Chromium for free. Could Android not come with a browser? Chromebooks? Who would fund Chromium development?

boppo1 2y ago

Yeah! Google maps should be independent and infested with obtrusive pop-up ads unless you subscribe!