4 ms·

Not a bad idea honestly. Would be interesting to see how it affects tech companies since they rely on hypergrowth. My one worry is that instead of divesting the

by thmsths 4mo ago

Not a bad idea honestly. Would be interesting to see how it affects tech companies since they rely on hypergrowth. My one worry is that instead of divesting they would just play shell games with complex ownership structures.

toast0 4mo ago
Most big tech could relatively easily split into meaningful separate entities. These are all going to be contentious, but ... Looking at the companies on the top image for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Tech https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Tech ... it's outdated, but close enough. Apple: Computers, Phones, maybe even break out Operating Systems Microsoft: Hardware, Gaming, Operating Systems, Office/other software, Cloud Services, Consulting Alphabet: Google Search, Ads, Android, Chrome, Cloud Services, Other consumer services, Waymo Amazon: Retail, Warehouse, Shipping, Cloud Services Tesla: Cars, Batteries, Charging Network, Solar, Scammy bullshit Berkshire Hathaway: it's a holding company, spin out the big holdings Nvidia (this one is tougher): Ethernet, Video Cards, AI cards; maybe chipsets vs cards? Meta: Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp. Or ... split out the internal Cloud Services from the frontends. TSMC: I dunno what to do here, but it's also not a US corp, so yeah. You could spin off fabs by node maybe. United Health: not a tech company, but Insurance (possibly spin out regionally), Regional Healthcare Providers, Pharmacy Stuff There's potential to break up some of the other companies along regional lines, like the Baby Bells ... but IMHO, that doesn't make that much sense for most of these. Have some sort of phase-in, but if ownership between formerly related companies remains similar, contracts between them need to be a) public, b) terms must be available to others (FRAND). For cases where the spun-off companies are still market dominant (a lot of what I've suggested), constrain the company from entering other markets; this doesn't end the monopoly, but it prevents using one dominant position to establish another.

by thmsths 4mo ago

toast0 4mo ago

Most big tech could relatively easily split into meaningful separate entities. These are all going to be contentious, but ... Looking at the companies on the top image for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Tech https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Tech ... it's outdated, but close enough. Apple: Computers, Phones, maybe even break out Operating Systems Microsoft: Hardware, Gaming, Operating Systems, Office/other software, Cloud Services, Consulting Alphabet: Google Search, Ads, Android, Chrome, Cloud Services, Other consumer services, Waymo Amazon: Retail, Warehouse, Shipping, Cloud Services Tesla: Cars, Batteries, Charging Network, Solar, Scammy bullshit Berkshire Hathaway: it's a holding company, spin out the big holdings Nvidia (this one is tougher): Ethernet, Video Cards, AI cards; maybe chipsets vs cards? Meta: Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp. Or ... split out the internal Cloud Services from the frontends. TSMC: I dunno what to do here, but it's also not a US corp, so yeah. You could spin off fabs by node maybe. United Health: not a tech company, but Insurance (possibly spin out regionally), Regional Healthcare Providers, Pharmacy Stuff There's potential to break up some of the other companies along regional lines, like the Baby Bells ... but IMHO, that doesn't make that much sense for most of these. Have some sort of phase-in, but if ownership between formerly related companies remains similar, contracts between them need to be a) public, b) terms must be available to others (FRAND). For cases where the spun-off companies are still market dominant (a lot of what I've suggested), constrain the company from entering other markets; this doesn't end the monopoly, but it prevents using one dominant position to establish another.