Live data from Hacker News

Break Up Google

tbray.org

161–170 of 196 posts

Re: Break Up Google

#161
post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe people should just pay for it? Oh no. How could they make us pay for the software services. Imo, this mentality needs to go. People spend $$$ in cafe, buy expensive branded clothes, transportation, hanging out with their friends, outside food, and so on. All of those are not necessary but they pay for it. They should pay for the digital services they spend most of their time on now a days. What's different?

Except, they don't. People aren't willing to pay much for non-physical goods anymore.

/me looks at my Patreon bill

Yeah, no. The problem is Sturgeon's Law: 90% of everything is garbage, and people don't like to pay for something that is mostly garbage.

Re: Break Up Google

#162
post #9

Here's the rub: I strongly suspect that YouTube is not profitable, or is just barely profitable, such that it would be difficult to run as a separate company from the rest of Google. This is even more true for Maps. Breaking apart Google would substantially risk those businesses. On the other hand, maybe that's a good thing.

> I strongly suspect that YouTube is not profitable

I strongly suspect that YouTube is profitable, with all these ads.

Re: Break Up Google

#164
post #79
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…

Ok, if you don't want to break them up, then can we at-least consider anti-trust charges? US anti-trust litigation has degraded to the point of non-existence. Microsoft faced anti-trust charges in 1998 that will puzzle most youngsters in HN today - because both Google and Apple do far-far worse. Destroying all competition via control of the market has become normalised US corporate behaviour. Why has this been allowe…

You’re forgetting the monopoly situation Microsoft had for desktop computing in the late nineties. For better or worse, neither Google nor Apple has a monopoly in mobile, and Apple aren’t really attempting to leverage their natural monopoly in tablet computing (leaving aside the somewhat dubious WebKit requirement on iOS).

Re: Break Up Google

#165

It is more dangerous to leave Amazon and Facebook in their current state as Google but yeah all of them could be split into smaller companies. Also Apple also.

Amazon I can see. Facebook and Apple? Neither of them have a monopoly to leverage that requires breaking up.

Re: Break Up Google

#166
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…

This is his 3rd article in a “series” on breaking up monopolies. In his first article, he summarizes a book and covers your examples:

https://www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/202x/2020/06/08/Anti-mono...

His second article is about breaking AWS out of Amazon, into a fictional company called A-Cloud. And he’s using Amazon’s own project planning process to do so, though I can’t tell if it’s out of habit or for the mordant irony.

https://www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/202x/2020/06/21/A-Cloud-P...

Re: Break Up Google

#167

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 bre…

> Is the average third world user willing to pay the same to have an email address?

As a potential third world user, I would happily pay $50/year for services such as email. I may not be representative of the "average", but really the notion that you need to have the "average" third world user to be able to use the platform is a distraction in these arguments.

WordPress business plan charges only about $7/mo in my country vs $25/mo in other countries. I know this can lead to some fraud etc. but it is a good way to cater to the "average third world user" if you are not trying to turn said user into the product.

There is a company called Zoho which is headquartered in India, which makes world class software, charges very reasonable prices, and is able to pay its employees quite well. And as best as I know, they are not dramatically unique in any way, but just produce solid software combined with a solid roadmap.

Also, it is not as if "first world" tech company policies are just neutral and harmless to third world users. The perfect example of this has to be the way news about Hydroxychloroquine has been distorted beyond all recognition. There are three things which are perfectly obvious to anyone who lives outside the US and is following the news on this:

1 HCQ doesn't actively harm anyone, any more than a random drug would. There is now plenty of evidence to support this. I am not claiming that HCQ is some kind of wonder drug either, but surely many more proper clinical trials would have happened on this topic if Donald Trump wasn't the president today.

https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/coronavirus-hydroxych...

2 First world news media has set the entire research on COVID-19 back by at least a few months (with all the associated death count) because they seem more intent on opposing Trump than in solving the actual problem. And as best as I can see, big tech platforms and big tech employees amplify all the anti-Trump news with almost no regard to the actual science on this topic.

3 While this setback is going to affect all countries, it impoverishes third world countries and does a lot more permanent harm to them vis-a-vis the developed world.

Are you a business trying to maximize your profit? Then just charge what you think your service is worth. Use WordPress and Zoho as your inspiration. The "average third world" user doesn't care either way, and frankly people in the first world are probably not smart enough to know all the unintended consequences of trying to do what is right by the third world users. Just do your job, produce a great product, charge a fair amount, and please don't use the third world user as a reason to adopt all kinds of user hostile policies.

Re: Break Up Google

#168

> Page and Brin each own 25.9% and 25.1% of Alphabet's voting power, respectively, accounting for over half of the company's controlling shares. That's because of Alphabet's super-voting structure, which gives 10 votes per share of its Class B stock. also: > Mark Zuckerberg owns the majority of the voting rights to Facebook due to a dual class structure that weights certain shares over others. I would like to see emi…

Yes to "Am I being foolish?", I mean if you have to ask...

Re: Break Up Google

#169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> He first states he doesn't know where the revenue comes from and then makes a lot of details decisions based on revenues (android apparently needs only a few buildings and engineers). He proposes 5 spin off companies. Advertising is fine. It’s not clear that YouTube is profitable. And it does have a big synergy in the immense infrastructure. Android he admits isn’t a business beyond trying to bill every user for us…

To me it felt really dishonest because at least some of these services would die and others would become the sort of shitty cash hungry monopoly we see elsewhere in the economy if it weren't for Googles (far from perfect) stewardship. I even empathise with the monopoly/privacy/advertising concerns. I just think he's either writing a protest article he knows can never be implimented (or taken seriously) OR he's trying…

Shitty cash hungry monopoly like OpenStreetMap? I’m ready to bet Google Maps dying could lead to a huge interest in improving OSM instead of the opposite today.

Also email is an interoperable standard so I don’t see a monopoly coming soon, it’s not AOL era anymore.

Before monopolies there is competition, and if monopolies come then break them. It’s not like it never happened before and “these times it’s different”.

Edit: I have nothing against Google but it’s not a charity, if some of their services are now essential and are not adequately provided by private entities then it simple it’s a public service. What would you say if Google was starting a service to give free food? I’m not it’s the big Corp displacing government dystopia future I want.

Re: Break Up Google

#170
post #9

Here's the rub: I strongly suspect that YouTube is not profitable, or is just barely profitable, such that it would be difficult to run as a separate company from the rest of Google. This is even more true for Maps. Breaking apart Google would substantially risk those businesses. On the other hand, maybe that's a good thing.

> I strongly suspect that YouTube is not profitable I strongly suspect that YouTube is profitable, with all these ads.

I wonder how profitable the ads are, given how aggressively they try to push me to signing up for their subscription (also, they seem to increase the number and length of the unskippable ads when they promote their subscription).

I ended up installing Newpipe instead, which is a much better experience.

Post reply on HN