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

It’s time for Alphabet to spin off YouTube?

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 348 posts

Re: It’s time for Alphabet to spin off YouTube?

#311

Post by pmontra »

nindalf wrote: post #115

I respect the Economist’s business columnist (Schumpeter) and tech columnist (Babbage) but this seems to be a case of Schumpeter writing about tech. Leaving aside HN loving the idea of Big Tech being weakened by becoming Relatively Small Tech, I don’t see how this is in Alphabet’s or YouTube’s interest. The article assumes that such a divorce would be simple and it would allow YouTube to focus on taking on TikTok. It…

> YouTube clearly shares a lot of infrastructure with the rest of Google

That's the least of the problems. If there is the will to spinoff YouTube they can agree to rent that infrastructure and the people running it for, let's say, five years and see what happens next. No software will move, nobody will change desk or laptop. Paychecks will come from the same company. Then they'll gradually figure out if they want their own infrastructure in case the goals of the two companies get in the way of each other and YouTube has little leverage against Google.

Re: It’s time for Alphabet to spin off YouTube?

#312

Post by rullelito »

gerash wrote: post #308

As if Google or other tech companies don't already have non-stop re-orgs, now Economist's armchair executives are proposing even more re-orgs so all the poor army of engineers spend their next year on migrations .

It's time for Microsoft to spin off the start menu.

Re: It’s time for Alphabet to spin off YouTube?

#313

Post by 8note »

jeffwask wrote: post #150
dageshi wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think more fundamentally, youtube is far less vulnerable to the chatgpt garbagisation of the web. SEO crap is already bad, it will likely get much worse. Youtube has actual good content from creators whose opinions I trust. Google would be moronic to give that up, they've spent long enough building it.

> the chatgpt garbagisation of the web Eh... it's already started on YouTube. There's a whole new genre of movie content that has chatgpt summarize the movie while they play 15 minutes of clips. It's higher effort garbagisation because someone needs to at least do some low effort video editing.

That sounds quite similar to Grian's videos being published as books

https://youtu.be/JypgASKSRZc

Re: It’s time for Alphabet to spin off YouTube?

#314

Post by 8note »

sircastor wrote: post #247
madrox wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm reminded by calls for Apple to buy Nintendo. It focuses on a very specific upside while ignoring or hand-waving away all the challenges that would likely kill what makes these companies work.

I see the same kind of thing for Apple to buy Disney. In the abstract, the money and some shared goals make sense, but the reality would be a very challenging struggle to combine two ideologically different companies.

I'd see Disney as buying Nintendo, rather than Apple doing something with either of them.

Both Disney and Nintendo operate on brands and content IP. Both keep releasing the same content but updated to dedicated fanbases

Re: It’s time for Alphabet to spin off YouTube?

#315

Post by int_19h »

saurik wrote: post #270
scarface_74 wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, in that case neither does the justice department for the last three decades since none of them have agreed with HN lawyers theories...

You seem to keep ignoring, though, that Microsoft lost :/. Like: Microsoft was charged, the case was heard, and Microsoft lost. The judge even ruled that Microsoft be broke into two companies! So, no: you are just wasting everyone's time here by insisting something that is 100% absolutely incorrect. https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/resources/management/m... FWIW, the reason you might be a bit confused--though I…

Microsoft was also forced to document many of its proprietary protocols (such as SMB) and file formats (such as Office).

Re: It’s time for Alphabet to spin off YouTube?

#316

Post by duxup »

noizejoy wrote: post #294
duxup wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This reminds me of what I see happen in sports sometimes. Fans decide it is time to trade Player X. Next move is to find someone to replace them ... they then describe someone just like Player X. A YouTube and Google split would setup a situation where they both seem to be a pretty good fit for each other.

In sports, you need to replace players, because they age out of their prime. It might be interesting to apply similar thinking to technology.

“Sure he is still playing well but Aron Judge is using an out of date version of React router.”

Re: It’s time for Alphabet to spin off YouTube?

#317

Post by zeven7 »

pmontra wrote: post #311
nindalf wrote: post #115

I respect the Economist’s business columnist (Schumpeter) and tech columnist (Babbage) but this seems to be a case of Schumpeter writing about tech. Leaving aside HN loving the idea of Big Tech being weakened by becoming Relatively Small Tech, I don’t see how this is in Alphabet’s or YouTube’s interest. The article assumes that such a divorce would be simple and it would allow YouTube to focus on taking on TikTok. It…

> YouTube clearly shares a lot of infrastructure with the rest of Google That's the least of the problems. If there is the will to spinoff YouTube they can agree to rent that infrastructure and the people running it for, let's say, five years and see what happens next. No software will move, nobody will change desk or laptop. Paychecks will come from the same company. Then they'll gradually figure out if they want th…

They use the same repo. And everything related (internal libs, code review system, issue tracking, code search, etc) comprises a lot of the shared infrastructure. Are you suggesting "renting a space in the repo"? I guess it's possible, but would be weird and could have crazy risks depending on how hard you try to push on the "independent" angle.

Re: It’s time for Alphabet to spin off YouTube?

#318

Post by ggm »

If it can generate a LOT of money and thus realise shareholder value, but if it simply moves cost around the table but leaves people no better off, why do it?

And consider the longer term signal: is alphabet so shot, it's divesting asset for cash, and if so.. why now?

Re: It’s time for Alphabet to spin off YouTube?

#319

Post by Retric »

scarface_74 wrote: post #286
Retric wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The degree of bundling was part of the decent degree, including IE with windows was not. Aka the use of private Windows API’s by IE was explicitly banned in the decent decree. The initial case which MS lost would have resulted in splitting the company, on appeal and by the time of the new trial (which they also lost) the government changed its mind into no longer seeking to break up the company. But that was on the g…

According to the Wikipedia summary > However, the DOJ did not require Microsoft to change any of its code nor did it prevent Microsoft from tying other software with Windows in the future

First they where required to change the OS in a few ways:

“H. Starting at the earlier of the release of Service Pack 1 for Windows XP or 12 months after the submission of this Final Judgment to the Court, Microsoft shall:

1. Allow end users (via a mechanism readily accessible from the desktop or Start menu such as an Add/Remove icon) and OEMs (via standard preinstallation kits) to enable or remove access to each Microsoft Middleware Product or Non-Microsoft Middleware Product by (a) displaying or removing icons, shortcuts, or menu entries on the desktop or Start menu, or anywhere else in a Windows Operating System Product where”

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2001/11/28/01-2949...

the only way to achieve the above is to change windows code.

The API issue wasn’t one of code it was one of documentation:

“The proposed settlement required Microsoft to share its application programming interfaces with third-party companies and appoint a panel of three people who would have full access to Microsoft's systems, records, and source code for five years in order to ensure compliance.[28]” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Cor....

It publishing API’s may seem like a strange remedy but it was a common tactic they used to limit competition. Netscape for example couldn’t release Netscape for Windows 95 at release because while the IE tea, had access to API’s they weren’t providing them publicly until release.

Re: It’s time for Alphabet to spin off YouTube?

#320

Post by Retric »

scarface_74 wrote: post #275
dragonwriter wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Nothing came out of the DOJ case with respect to MS bundling IE. In the sense that there was ultimately a comparative slap on the wrist remedy, in part because of a favorable-to-Microsoft change in administration between the findings of fact on antitrust violation (in which bundling IE was a factor, but far from the sole factor) and the imposition of a remedy for those violations, yes, nothing much came out of it.

The original poster was originally focused on bundling. If DOJ had said Bill Gates kicked a dog while dressing up as clippy it would have meant nothing since there was no proposed remedy or anything that came out of the consent decree that BG had to stop cosplaying as Clippy and kicking dogs.

No, I didn’t mention bundling you did.

Also, U.S. vs Microsoft wasn’t limited to Netscape vs IE several other companies were involved. The first Prohibited Conduct was in terms of OEMs:

“ A. Microsoft shall not retaliate against an OEM by altering Microsoft's commercial relations with that OEM, or by withholding newly introduced forms of non-monetary Consideration (including but not limited to new versions of existing forms of non-monetary Consideration) from that OEM, because it is known to Microsoft that the OEM is or is contemplating:” …

“B. Microsoft's provision of Windows Operating System Products to Covered OEMs shall be pursuant to uniform license agreements with uniform terms and conditions. Without limiting the foregoing, Microsoft shall charge each Covered OEM the applicable royalty for Windows Operating System Products as set forth on a schedule, to be established by Microsoft and published on a web site accessible to the Plaintiffs and all Covered OEMs, that provides for uniform royalties for Windows Operating System Products, except that:”

Etc

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2001/11/28/01-2949...

Post reply on HN