6 ms·

Google really should start floating some plans for splitting itself up. Things worked out pretty well when Ma Bell was split up. Some people thought it would al

Google really should start floating some plans for splitting itself up. Things worked out pretty well when Ma Bell was split up. Some people thought it would all fail, but the companies have done a good job competing and cooperating at the right times. If Google comes up with the plans, it's better than some antagonist.

adgjlsfhk1 2y ago
Google seems harder to split up than Bell to me. Bell was split regionally which makes sense since each region has it's own wires and can make money separately. Google has the problem that all their products other than adds lose money (or make money through integration with Google adds)
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- alabastervlog 2y ago
  This is exactly why it's important to bust them up: all those other products are effectively "dumping" on whatever sector they compete in. This even discourages time-investment (to develop) and learning-to-use investment (for users) for free alternatives, not just commercial ones.
  - whoknowsidont 2y ago
    All of their products helped the sector they are in. They didn't "dump" into it. Google continually improved areas where other companies previously refused to, even if they were charging for their services. Mail. Internet browsers? Does it really need to be stated? Open source. Kubernetes. Open source. Tensor architecture. Freely released. I don't see the argument for breaking Google up other than people are holding some vendetta against Google for being successful AND a pretty good citizen in the overall landscape so to speak. If anyone needs to be broken up it's Microsoft. Microsoft actively harms every other competitor by bundling all their services together to the point where businesses won't even look at other software (teams? Azure is basically sold on nepotism).
    - bdcravens 2y ago
      Their business apps division is probably a billion dollar business. Their cloud generates a couple of billions in profit each year. Besides that, I don't think giving away anything for free justifies any activity. If we're trying to compare to Microsoft, remember that Internet Explorer was free, and modern day Microsoft literally owns Github.
      - whoknowsidont 2y ago
        Revenue is not really a consideration when talking about _illegal_ monopolies. That is an incorrect way to view this. It's about anti-competitive practices. That's what the laws are about (and the reason for their existence). Google is not anti-competitive. At no point am I forced or even "guided" into doing business with Google, at any stage, in any department. There are 8 billion other ad-networks out there, and there are plenty of mail providers to choose from, and plenty of search providers to choose from, and plenty of cloud providers to choose from. If you're on gmail (even business), or Google Cloud, or Adsense, there really isn't much stopping you from switching to something else. There's no real lock-in. You cannot say the same with Microsoft. A lot of businesses are so dependent on MS's offerings they might as well just be glorified subsidiaries. You don't really have an Excel drop in, or an AD drop in, or a messaging app drop in that comes with all the other services. Google doesn't hand out Cloud credits with the express purpose of roping more of your business infrastructure under one company. Internet Explorer was not free. You needed Windows. And if you had Windows you HAD IE, regardless of whether you wanted it or not, or even tried to remove it.
        CPLX 2y ago
        > Google is not anti-competitive. While you're welcome to this opinion you might want to address the fact that Google has recently lost THREE separate trials, each of which individually and separately produced a verdict that they are, in fact, in violation of laws against unfair competition.
        whoknowsidont 2y ago
- bdcravens 2y ago
  That's a business model problem then. Any other business burying money into various endeavors would have to cut losses at some point, which underscores the point of an unfair monopoly. Google isn't operating at a loss in all products. About 12% of revenue is cloud; about 12% is everything else. Their business apps is estimated to be a billion-dollar business on its own. Cloud is profitable, and earns probably 1.5-3 billion dollars a year in profit.
  - Jensson 2y ago
    > Any other business burying money into various endeavors would have to cut losses at some point Google has a massive graveyard full of killed projects, they are cutting their losses, few companies cut as much as they do: https://killedbygoogle.com/ https://killedbygoogle.com/
    - bdcravens 2y ago
      While at first glance this may disprove the idea that they don't cut losses, it actually furthers the argument that advertising revenue creates perverted incentives, since they blew massive amounts of money on projects with no financial value. Moreover, while those products are dead, the data gained likely made its way into the advertising information flow. If you were a competitor to one of those dead products, or an advertising company that has to carefully evaluate the cost effectiveness of an auxiliary product, Google has an "unfair" advantage over you.
- ajross 2y ago
  Yeah. The problem with splitting up Google is that Google products, taken in isolation, are themselves keys to preventing other monopolies. Split off Android to swim on its own and we get an iPhone monopoly. Split off Workspace and we go back to the days of MSOffice's monopoly. Splitting out Chrome essentially kills the World Wide Web as an application platform as no one else wants to support it. Cloud would probably stand alone competitively, but if not it's going to be an Amazon monopoly. Basically Google is strong in search and ads (also AI, though that isn't a revenue center yet and there's lots of competition) and second place in everything else. IMHO it's very hard[1] to make a pro-consumer argument behind killing off all those second place products. [1] And yeah, they pay my salary, but I work on open source stuff and know nothing about corporate governance.
  - snozolli 2y ago
    Split off Android to swim on its own and we get an iPhone monopoly. Why? Android appears to be profitable.
    - ajross 2y ago
      Only Google-integrated Android devices are profitable. You really think Graphene/Lineage/etc... devices have a chance in the market vs. Apple Computer? Splitting off the integration means those devices have to pay for it or go without. Even Amazon failed in this space. Which is to say, the parts of Android that are "profitable" are the parts tied to the broader corporate product suite.
      - snozolli 2y ago
        Only Google-integrated Android devices are profitable. I don't understand what you're trying to say. Pixel devices? Android devices being paid by Google to use Google's app store, browser, and default search engine? What does any of that have to do with whether or not Android is separated? You really think Graphene/Lineage/etc... devices have a chance in the market vs. Apple Computer? What does that have to do with whether or not the Android 'division' of Google would survive being spun off?
newsclues 2y ago
The baby bells just bought each other up, and nothing really changed
- bdcravens 2y ago
  Then there's no harm in splitting Google and letting them buy up those companies in 30 years.
- burningChrome 2y ago
  Even worse, when the local exchange carriers were renting their infrastructure and trying to compete on the thinnest of margins, it allowed the baby bells to see who could survive and who couldn't. Those who didn't survive went under. The successful smaller CLEC's, were then bought by the baby bells for their customers. They essentially created a test market for their competitors, then simply acquired the ones who presented any kind of competition or had decent enough management to properly manage the very thin margins they were working at. So yeah, even when the govt thought they had leveled the playing field and allowed competition, all it did was give those baby bell companies another competitive advantage.
Analemma_ 2y ago
> Things worked out pretty well when Ma Bell was split up In what way? They all just re-consolidated back into monopolies. I have one choice of telecom provider in my location: if I don’t like Xfinity, I get to eat shit. At least Ma Bell had to get the government’s permission to raise prices; frankly, I’d prefer having that back.
- ablerman 2y ago
  It's worse than that, they reconsolidated but BellLabs was shut down in the process. So, they got the same control they previously had except they weren't spending on research. IMO, they should have been prevented from reconsolidating.
- bryanlarsen 2y ago
  > In what way? It's fairly straightforward to argue that the internet as we know it wouldn't have been possible without the Bell labs split up. There were dozens of large telecommunications companies that were enabled by the split, and those companies built much of the equipment used in the early internet. Not to mention Unix.
- rtkwe 2y ago
  Xfinity is Comcast which I don't think has much connection to the Baby Bells or their reconsolidation. Unfortunately the the cost of running cable to the broad US suburbs is a pretty big natural barrier to competition. https://i.redd.it/7v0zi94tms181.jpg https://i.redd.it/7v0zi94tms181.jpg
  - darthwalsh 2y ago
    Too bad we can't treat laying cable as a public utility, then multiple companies could use the same infrastructure to compete. Instead we ended up paying for dark fiber with companies having no incentive to use it.
    - rtkwe 2y ago
      There are some towns trying to do that but it's being viciously fought by the cable companies who love their little seminatural monopolies.

adgjlsfhk1 2y ago

Google seems harder to split up than Bell to me. Bell was split regionally which makes sense since each region has it's own wires and can make money separately. Google has the problem that all their products other than adds lose money (or make money through integration with Google adds)

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
alabastervlog 2y ago
This is exactly why it's important to bust them up: all those other products are effectively "dumping" on whatever sector they compete in. This even discourages time-investment (to develop) and learning-to-use investment (for users) for free alternatives, not just commercial ones.
- whoknowsidont 2y ago
  All of their products helped the sector they are in. They didn't "dump" into it. Google continually improved areas where other companies previously refused to, even if they were charging for their services. Mail. Internet browsers? Does it really need to be stated? Open source. Kubernetes. Open source. Tensor architecture. Freely released. I don't see the argument for breaking Google up other than people are holding some vendetta against Google for being successful AND a pretty good citizen in the overall landscape so to speak. If anyone needs to be broken up it's Microsoft. Microsoft actively harms every other competitor by bundling all their services together to the point where businesses won't even look at other software (teams? Azure is basically sold on nepotism).
  - bdcravens 2y ago
    Their business apps division is probably a billion dollar business. Their cloud generates a couple of billions in profit each year. Besides that, I don't think giving away anything for free justifies any activity. If we're trying to compare to Microsoft, remember that Internet Explorer was free, and modern day Microsoft literally owns Github.
    - whoknowsidont 2y ago
      Revenue is not really a consideration when talking about _illegal_ monopolies. That is an incorrect way to view this. It's about anti-competitive practices. That's what the laws are about (and the reason for their existence). Google is not anti-competitive. At no point am I forced or even "guided" into doing business with Google, at any stage, in any department. There are 8 billion other ad-networks out there, and there are plenty of mail providers to choose from, and plenty of search providers to choose from, and plenty of cloud providers to choose from. If you're on gmail (even business), or Google Cloud, or Adsense, there really isn't much stopping you from switching to something else. There's no real lock-in. You cannot say the same with Microsoft. A lot of businesses are so dependent on MS's offerings they might as well just be glorified subsidiaries. You don't really have an Excel drop in, or an AD drop in, or a messaging app drop in that comes with all the other services. Google doesn't hand out Cloud credits with the express purpose of roping more of your business infrastructure under one company. Internet Explorer was not free. You needed Windows. And if you had Windows you HAD IE, regardless of whether you wanted it or not, or even tried to remove it.
      - CPLX 2y ago
        > Google is not anti-competitive. While you're welcome to this opinion you might want to address the fact that Google has recently lost THREE separate trials, each of which individually and separately produced a verdict that they are, in fact, in violation of laws against unfair competition.
        whoknowsidont 2y ago
bdcravens 2y ago
That's a business model problem then. Any other business burying money into various endeavors would have to cut losses at some point, which underscores the point of an unfair monopoly. Google isn't operating at a loss in all products. About 12% of revenue is cloud; about 12% is everything else. Their business apps is estimated to be a billion-dollar business on its own. Cloud is profitable, and earns probably 1.5-3 billion dollars a year in profit.
- Jensson 2y ago
  > Any other business burying money into various endeavors would have to cut losses at some point Google has a massive graveyard full of killed projects, they are cutting their losses, few companies cut as much as they do: https://killedbygoogle.com/ https://killedbygoogle.com/
  - bdcravens 2y ago
    While at first glance this may disprove the idea that they don't cut losses, it actually furthers the argument that advertising revenue creates perverted incentives, since they blew massive amounts of money on projects with no financial value. Moreover, while those products are dead, the data gained likely made its way into the advertising information flow. If you were a competitor to one of those dead products, or an advertising company that has to carefully evaluate the cost effectiveness of an auxiliary product, Google has an "unfair" advantage over you.
ajross 2y ago
Yeah. The problem with splitting up Google is that Google products, taken in isolation, are themselves keys to preventing other monopolies. Split off Android to swim on its own and we get an iPhone monopoly. Split off Workspace and we go back to the days of MSOffice's monopoly. Splitting out Chrome essentially kills the World Wide Web as an application platform as no one else wants to support it. Cloud would probably stand alone competitively, but if not it's going to be an Amazon monopoly. Basically Google is strong in search and ads (also AI, though that isn't a revenue center yet and there's lots of competition) and second place in everything else. IMHO it's very hard[1] to make a pro-consumer argument behind killing off all those second place products. [1] And yeah, they pay my salary, but I work on open source stuff and know nothing about corporate governance.
- snozolli 2y ago
  Split off Android to swim on its own and we get an iPhone monopoly. Why? Android appears to be profitable.
  - ajross 2y ago
    Only Google-integrated Android devices are profitable. You really think Graphene/Lineage/etc... devices have a chance in the market vs. Apple Computer? Splitting off the integration means those devices have to pay for it or go without. Even Amazon failed in this space. Which is to say, the parts of Android that are "profitable" are the parts tied to the broader corporate product suite.
    - snozolli 2y ago
      Only Google-integrated Android devices are profitable. I don't understand what you're trying to say. Pixel devices? Android devices being paid by Google to use Google's app store, browser, and default search engine? What does any of that have to do with whether or not Android is separated? You really think Graphene/Lineage/etc... devices have a chance in the market vs. Apple Computer? What does that have to do with whether or not the Android 'division' of Google would survive being spun off?

newsclues 2y ago

The baby bells just bought each other up, and nothing really changed

bdcravens 2y ago
Then there's no harm in splitting Google and letting them buy up those companies in 30 years.
burningChrome 2y ago
Even worse, when the local exchange carriers were renting their infrastructure and trying to compete on the thinnest of margins, it allowed the baby bells to see who could survive and who couldn't. Those who didn't survive went under. The successful smaller CLEC's, were then bought by the baby bells for their customers. They essentially created a test market for their competitors, then simply acquired the ones who presented any kind of competition or had decent enough management to properly manage the very thin margins they were working at. So yeah, even when the govt thought they had leveled the playing field and allowed competition, all it did was give those baby bell companies another competitive advantage.

Analemma_ 2y ago

> Things worked out pretty well when Ma Bell was split up In what way? They all just re-consolidated back into monopolies. I have one choice of telecom provider in my location: if I don’t like Xfinity, I get to eat shit. At least Ma Bell had to get the government’s permission to raise prices; frankly, I’d prefer having that back.

ablerman 2y ago
It's worse than that, they reconsolidated but BellLabs was shut down in the process. So, they got the same control they previously had except they weren't spending on research. IMO, they should have been prevented from reconsolidating.
bryanlarsen 2y ago
> In what way? It's fairly straightforward to argue that the internet as we know it wouldn't have been possible without the Bell labs split up. There were dozens of large telecommunications companies that were enabled by the split, and those companies built much of the equipment used in the early internet. Not to mention Unix.
rtkwe 2y ago
Xfinity is Comcast which I don't think has much connection to the Baby Bells or their reconsolidation. Unfortunately the the cost of running cable to the broad US suburbs is a pretty big natural barrier to competition. https://i.redd.it/7v0zi94tms181.jpg https://i.redd.it/7v0zi94tms181.jpg
- darthwalsh 2y ago
  Too bad we can't treat laying cable as a public utility, then multiple companies could use the same infrastructure to compete. Instead we ended up paying for dark fiber with companies having no incentive to use it.
  - rtkwe 2y ago
    There are some towns trying to do that but it's being viciously fought by the cable companies who love their little seminatural monopolies.