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

Google avoids a breakup of its ad tech business

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 383 posts

Re: Google avoids a breakup of its ad tech business

#191

Post by hightrix »

spl757 wrote: post #110

I have no proof, but this just figures. It's entirely plausible that google gave some heavy-duty major dark money campaign donations and have used the return on their investment to avoid being broken up. Maybe I'm just cynical and the corporations and ultra-wealthy wouldn't really do anything like that all the time. They are ultra-greedy, though.

> Sergey Brin ($154 billion), the co-founder of Alphabet and seventh-richest man in the world, joined Musk, Bezos and others in being seated behind Trump during the swearing-in.

You aren't cynical. Big tech absolutely bent the knee and are now wearing red kneepads.

Re: Google avoids a breakup of its ad tech business

#192

Post by isubkhankulov »

falcor84 wrote: post #138
siliconc0w wrote: post #135

We should just progressively tax monopolies. Companies will break themselves up to compete, no decade long DOJ case needed.

Yes, this, and we need to have this progressive tax be over the company's total assets, including subsidiaries.

Why assets and not existing antitrust metrics like market share? Assuming market share is reasonably defined

Re: Google avoids a breakup of its ad tech business

#193

Post by NeutralWanted »

teaearlgraycold wrote: post #188
ryandrake wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can bet that if the board of directors could show that unscrambling the omelet would result in greater shareholder value produced, it would suddenly be really easy to do...

On a technical level it would still be a nightmare. But yes it would actually get done.

My first tech job was at HP, in 2015, started there just in time work and live through that split. That was a smoother one from what I hear but it was not a fun job to have at the time

Re: Google avoids a breakup of its ad tech business

#194

Post by pstuart »

thrance wrote: post #171
FazJaxton wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are correct, but it's largely our first-past-the-post voting system that forces only TWO political parties on us. Voting reform is necessary to help make other parties/candidates electable.

You can change the details of the numbers game that is played every 4 years, but that won't solve the structural issues. I live in France, in any given election we have between 10 and 15 candidates from as many parties. Yet, we're still ruled by corporate interests. The media makes sure to qualify any candidate threatening the interests of capital as a "dangerous extremist", while "pro-business" candidates receive th…

I get your point. In the US at least there's less of a paradox of choice.

The key problem is that most people don't want to pay attention to any of it because it's either depressing or just not within there range of interests. Add to that the fact that most people vote based on their emotions and those are stupid simple to manipulate on the Right: anger at immigrants and "others" works all the time.

Democracy is the least worst option, but FFS, it would be nice if the electorate were actually properly informed when they vote.

Edit: I kind of contradicted myself on the "choice" thing, but this is effectively like herding cats.

Re: Google avoids a breakup of its ad tech business

#195

Post by NeutralWanted »

Arainach wrote: post #116
xahrepap wrote: post #113

Slightly tangential thought: My belief is: legislation needs to either make it just as hard to merge two companies as it is to unmerge them, or make it just as easy to unmerge two companies as it is to merge them. It's insane to me that for how often companies merge and cause competition issues, we effectively never see the opposite happen. I know there's a ceremonial approval for merging two companies (at least in t…

> or make it just as easy to unmerge two companies as it is to merge them. [Disclaimer: I work at Google, all words my own and not representative of anyone, etc.] There's no such thing. Let's stick to software since it's what HN knows best, but it's a universal truth. Merging two companies: you take the two sides and they keep running. You probably need some extra accounting work to make sure the mandatory reports fr…

I worked at HP in 2015 during it's split into Inc and HPE.

I then worked at FireEye during it's split.

Fun times.

Re: Google avoids a breakup of its ad tech business

#196

Post by qlte »

ryandrake wrote: post #185
vlovich123 wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're basically advocating for unscrambling the omelet to be easier. Should be obvious why it's harder to unmix than it is to mix.

You can bet that if the board of directors could show that unscrambling the omelet would result in greater shareholder value produced, it would suddenly be really easy to do...

Happened with Dow-Dupont! A three-way split, even (from a two-way merger). Took roughly two years and was the shareholders' plan from the start. By most accounts it went very smoothly.

[1] https://www.investors.dupont.com/news-and-media/press-releas...

[2] http://www.dow-dupont.com/

Re: Google avoids a breakup of its ad tech business

#197

Post by strongpigeon »

cmrdporcupine wrote: post #96
sensanaty wrote: post #92

> Google’s ad tech business brought in $30 billion last year, or about 8 percent of the revenue for its parent company, Alphabet. Its ad tech revenue has declined for 16 straight quarters, and analysts estimate it accounts for less than 1 percent of the company’s profit... “This is a business no one cares about" Uhhh, what? What kind of colorful accounting is this that they're pulling off?

This isn't for the whole of Google's ad business. Just its ad exchange and I think parts of DFP; basically just mechanisms for auctioning off excess display ad inventory.

You’re partly right. It’s indeed mostly about AdX but also because Google owns all three sides of the equation (publisher-side via AdSense (and to a lesser extent DFP), AdX, and buy-side via Google Ads)

Re: Google avoids a breakup of its ad tech business

#198

Post by zbentley »

gambiting wrote: post #102
ralfd wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Apple's App Store centralized despite trillions of dollars in ostensible market damage Please. The Androidfication of iOS with malware/scamware would cost quadrillions in market damage.

Citation needed. The idea that somehow my mum can't even find the space bar on her keyboard and yet is competent enough to go through several warning screens to install a custom .apk is just laughable.

I interpreted GP as referring to the higher quantity of questionable software in the Play Store, not custom .apk installation.

Re: Google avoids a breakup of its ad tech business

#199

Post by nradov »

Arainach wrote: post #153
rectoverso wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

PE companies do it all the time.

PE companies do it with very little regard for if any of the pieces are viable and survive after the fact, so their model isn't one I'd suggest following.

From a public policy perspective it doesn't matter if some pieces are unviable and fail to survive. Across the entire economy, this creative destruction allows for quickly reallocating resources to more productive uses. Most of the companies that take PE investments do so because they're badly managed and unable to obtain capital from other sources; they would likely fail anyway. At least the PE investment gives them a chance to survive and brings in more financially disciplined management.

Re: Google avoids a breakup of its ad tech business

#200

Post by manvillej »

vlovich123 wrote: post #120
xahrepap wrote: post #113

Slightly tangential thought: My belief is: legislation needs to either make it just as hard to merge two companies as it is to unmerge them, or make it just as easy to unmerge two companies as it is to merge them. It's insane to me that for how often companies merge and cause competition issues, we effectively never see the opposite happen. I know there's a ceremonial approval for merging two companies (at least in t…

You're basically advocating for unscrambling the omelet to be easier. Should be obvious why it's harder to unmix than it is to mix.

Eh, thats a bit of a False analogy. spinning off a division of a company is easier than fully integrating another.
Post reply on HN