Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Break Up Google

tbray.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 196 posts

Re: Break Up Google

#131

Post by kevingadd »

MattGaiser wrote: post #108
nardi wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Let’s force Google to be like every other company in needing to constantly extract money from every project quarter by quarter. I think you're actually making the argument for breaking up Google. Their search monopoly is so powerful and so profitable, that they can afford to just throw money away on hundreds of terrible side projects.

Having lots of profit just means it is a good business. It doesn’t demonstrate that it is a monopoly nor that it is a harmful monopoly. There are plenty of other highly profitable areas of business. They just usually take their earnings instead of investing them in new things.

"Having lots of profit just means it is a good business."

Are you going to seriously argue that's the case? The companies that created the opioid crisis made a truckload of money off it. Health insurers make tons of money. For that matters, dealing illegal drugs is very very profitable and that's why crime syndicates are involved in it. So is selling weapons to the military, or generally involving yourself in foreign wars.

Thankfully Google, Facebook etc have not had the kind of negative impact the opioid crisis has, but there's a proven record of negative impacts like the whatsapp lynchings.

Re: Break Up Google

#132

Post by balanced009 »

kevingadd wrote: post #117
balanced009 wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They did not do anything illegal. How is this connected to "break up Google" argument? If this was illegal, I'm sure the SEC would be on it not just for Google but for the million other companies doing the same.

Laws are what the government decides they are, and the details of that are very complicated. Depending on who you ask antitrust is about the impact on consumers (competition, fair pricing, etc), not about whether some particular footnote to a law was violated due to someone misplacing a decimal point. FTR the US government has historically in fact made multiple efforts to prosecute companies like Google for violation…

Not really.

We, the people, choose the lawmakers (congress) via election.

I still don't see your argument. How is voting power tied to Tim's post?

Re: Break Up Google

#133

Post by peteretep »

sudhirj wrote: post #126
balanced009 wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They did not do anything illegal. How is this connected to "break up Google" argument? If this was illegal, I'm sure the SEC would be on it not just for Google but for the million other companies doing the same.

The expression ‘break up a company’ carries some moral judgement in it, as if it’s a punishment for doing bad things. Not sure exactly what it is, but it’s more a societal move that smells a bit of socialism. Google is a capitalist company in a capitalist system, but the breaking up companies / anti trust is a non-capitalist power above it that is willing to sacrifice money to create societal wealth.

Breaking up monopolies gives us more free markets, and is a move towards capitalism, not away from it.

Re: Break Up Google

#134

Post by LatteLazy »

This is another article where the author goes on a flight of fantasy about how these services work. He conflates public good with public provision. He first states he doesn't know where the revenue comes from and then makes a lot of detailed decisions based on revenues (android apparently needs only a few buildings and engineers).

I think this is a perfect example of the sort of wooly and confused thinking behind break up X articles. To some extent that's inevitable as no one knows what parts of big businesses make money (the author thinks this is intentional opaqueness but its actually very difficult in a big business to determine who "makes" a profit). But if he really wants to convince people to enact massive change like this, he needs to do better.

People need to be clear what they are doing by first being clear what they want to achieve and what the side effects will be. If you want privacy, ask for privacy, and admit that that has costs. Trying to get privacy by smashing Google by dividing it up in ways you know don't work isn't privacy, it's just wrecking a service lots of people need.

Similarly, the author isn't upfront about the costs. Are you willing to switch to a Gmail equivalent that costs 50usd a year? Is the average third world user willing to pay the same to have an email address? Do you want to go back to US government issue maps full of errors with no guide to what's in any of the buildings?

I'm not willing to do that. I'm actually very pro privacy and anti-advertising but we need a practical working solution. These pieces are the equivalent of luddites saying we should close the Mills and go back to making everything by hand.

Re: Break Up Google

#135

Post by aliante »

opk wrote: post #127

When breaking up a tech company, an option that never seems to be considered is to give the products to both child companies. That way they start to compete with each other. Admittedly, only one can have, e.g. the youtube domain or associated employees but many things are just a case of making a copy.

> youtube domain or associated employees but many things are just a case of making a copy.

Who has the domain is not a small problem...

Re: Break Up Google

#136

Post by kevingadd »

balanced009 wrote: post #132
kevingadd wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Laws are what the government decides they are, and the details of that are very complicated. Depending on who you ask antitrust is about the impact on consumers (competition, fair pricing, etc), not about whether some particular footnote to a law was violated due to someone misplacing a decimal point. FTR the US government has historically in fact made multiple efforts to prosecute companies like Google for violation…

Not really. We, the people, choose the lawmakers (congress) via election. I still don't see your argument. How is voting power tied to Tim's post?

I never mentioned voting power. You vote to elect lawmakers, and lawmakers draft laws with the assistance of lobbyists + vote to appoint unelected officials responsible for enforcement. Election has no direct relevance here.

"If this was illegal, I'm sure the SEC would be on it" is based on the assumption that laws are infallible text with obvious interpretation, when the history of law enforcement - especially in finance and antitrust - is very fuzzy and about interpretation, with interpretation often down to unelected officials.

Re: Break Up Google

#137

Post by kevingadd »

peteretep wrote: post #133
sudhirj wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The expression ‘break up a company’ carries some moral judgement in it, as if it’s a punishment for doing bad things. Not sure exactly what it is, but it’s more a societal move that smells a bit of socialism. Google is a capitalist company in a capitalist system, but the breaking up companies / anti trust is a non-capitalist power above it that is willing to sacrifice money to create societal wealth.

Breaking up monopolies gives us more free markets, and is a move towards capitalism, not away from it.

It's fair to say it's a non-capitalist power, I think. It's the government interfering in the operation of companies instead of allowing it to be entirely controlled by the market players - for good reason, of course.

A capitalist alternative would probably look more like levying fees or capping prices to try and balance the market... which is something that also happens from time to time.

Re: Break Up Google

#138

Post by aliante »

wise_young_man wrote: post #111
MattGaiser wrote: post #15

Yes, let’s destroy one of the few large companies which has found a viable method of long term innovation instead of endless cost cutting and outsourcing. Let’s force Google to be like every other company in needing to constantly extract money from every project quarter by quarter. Not to mention that it is not clear that any except advertising are viable businesses by themselves. YouTube wasn’t profitable for a whil…

Honestly I’m wondering what innovations they’ve had in the last 5 years. I’ve been around long enough to see their decay in that area. YouTube you mentioned was an acquisition. Android was created in 2008. Maps in 2005. What’s really new with Google besides a ton of failed ideas like Reader, G+, and messenger apps?

Project Loon is quite interesting.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loon_LLC

Fiber would have been great had they succeeded.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Fiber

Re: Break Up Google

#139

Post by kevingadd »

aliante wrote: post #135
opk wrote: post #127

When breaking up a tech company, an option that never seems to be considered is to give the products to both child companies. That way they start to compete with each other. Admittedly, only one can have, e.g. the youtube domain or associated employees but many things are just a case of making a copy.

> youtube domain or associated employees but many things are just a case of making a copy. Who has the domain is not a small problem...

You could confiscate the domain so that both products have to compete from scratch, or go with a domain-splitting solution sort of like how the european regulators' "Browser choice" resulted in a randomized list of browser options at first Windows boot.

Not sure I'd argue either of those would work, but there are options.

Re: Break Up Google

#140

Post by kevingadd »

nabaraz wrote: post #34

Is anyone else tired of seeing the same hate Facebook, Zoom and Google narratives every single day. So, we want to break up Google because it has gotten too big. What about Luxottica? It has over 80% market share on eyewear brands. What about Pearson? It has over 60% market share on testing market? What about Paypal? It has over 80% market share on online payments. What about Aetna (merged with Humana) on health care…

I think you underestimate how many fans of strong anti-trust enforcement would actually be in favor of breaking up almost every one of those mega-companies that's been vacuuming up competitors through acquisitions for decades.

All the examples you mentioned probably have a negative impact on the market (and the public), the ones I'm familiar with definitely do.

Post reply on HN