Google avoids a breakup of its ad tech business • Hacker News Board

Re: Google avoids a breakup of its ad tech business

#311

Post by ethbr1 » Thu, Sep 03, 2026, 12:08 PM UTC

schmidtleonard wrote: post #222

qlte wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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/

Progressive corporate taxation could make it happen for reasons other than dodging the ghosts of chemical sins past!

It is a key point... if splits are encouraged and made easier (and I agree it'd be healthier for the market if the largest companies did), then liability needs to be handled carefully.

One doesn't want to create a 'snake sheds its skin' scenario where Meta (for example), stuffs all its liability in a spin-off, yet keeps the profits those actions accrued in the other entity.

Re: Google avoids a breakup of its ad tech business

#312

Post by RetroTechie » Thu, Sep 03, 2026, 12:09 PM UTC

nradov wrote: post #199

Arainach wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

There's many examples of companies who were conducting a low growth, long-term viable business. And where then PE stepped in, ripped out the most profitable part(s), and discarded the less-profitable parts as a dead husk.

In the process, the public lost the benefit that less-profitable part provided. Besides ripping up a company that was doing fine as-is.

You call that "reallocating resources to more productive uses". Yes that may be what's happening in some cases. But not always.

Less-profitable != non-beneficial to the public. At this point I regard PE entities as value-extraction machines. Which sometimes, but rarely, work with the public's benefit in mind.

And let's not get started on cases where PE secured loans, sold off a company's assets, only to lease them right back. Leaving company deprived of their assets & debt-laden, going under shortly after, while PE firm runs off with the goodies. Most people would think of that as theft & destruction. But in high-finance world it's named differently & somehow legal.

Re: Google avoids a breakup of its ad tech business

#313

Post by bigfatkitten » Thu, Sep 03, 2026, 12:13 PM UTC

tucnak wrote: post #308

jojobas wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IBM is more than 100 years old, has defined a huge part of how we think about computers, made plenty of its employees and workers of the wider field rich, has sold many businesses it considered distracting, and is still worth $200B+. Anyone saying "IBM" in the sense of "stagnant failure" is delusional.

Not to mention they are still at the forefront of materials science and industrial design, and just so happen to manufacture bespoke CPU & server platforms that run circles around all the hyperscalers...

Though of late, IBM has apparently decided it should be just another Indian outsourcer.

Re: Google avoids a breakup of its ad tech business

#314

Post by cindyllm » Thu, Sep 03, 2026, 12:27 PM UTC

bigfatkitten wrote: post #313

tucnak wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not to mention they are still at the forefront of materials science and industrial design, and just so happen to manufacture bespoke CPU & server platforms that run circles around all the hyperscalers...

Though of late, IBM has apparently decided it should be just another Indian outsourcer.

[dead]

Re: Google avoids a breakup of its ad tech business

#315

Post by duqbxido33333 » Thu, Sep 03, 2026, 12:38 PM UTC

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…

Slightly tangential thought: My belief is

So is it a thought or a belief?

Also it's an immature either way - as a belief and or as a thought.

You didn't even rationalize your "belief" so there is nothing for me to relate to, except you are wrong

Re: Google avoids a breakup of its ad tech business

#316

Post by ungreased0675 » Thu, Sep 03, 2026, 12:40 PM UTC

Panzer04 wrote: post #288

londons_explore wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The real benefit of a merged company is that where the two original companies were competing in the same market, it would be illegal for them to collude to set the same prices as eachother. However, when merged, they can do exactly that - which allows them to extract more profits. Rather than denying mergers, I suggest merged companies have an extra sales tax for ever on all goods they sell where they used to be comp…

Merged companies are more able to compete. Combining duplicate corporate structures let them save on costs, etc. It's not a strictly bad thing - iirc spirit? Airlines? Wanted to merge with someone, got denied, and went bankrupt anyway, depriving people of any competition at all.

Not exactly. Competitors like Breeze and Allegiant filled in some prior Spirit routes. Those are better budget airlines.

Poorly run companies are supposed to go bankrupt, that’s the feedback loop keeping management in check.

Re: Google avoids a breakup of its ad tech business

#317

Post by GJim » Thu, Sep 03, 2026, 12:44 PM UTC

pstuart wrote: post #194

thrance wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> it would be nice if the electorate were actually properly informed when they vote

Which is why a balanced free press is vital for democracy.

Yet the USA abandoned its 'fairness doctrine' in broadcast media some decades ago.

Re: Google avoids a breakup of its ad tech business

#318

Post by ungreased0675 » Thu, Sep 03, 2026, 1:13 PM UTC

lotsofpulp wrote: post #255

condiment wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This point of view has more to do with your information diet than it does with reality. Companies un-merge and spin out all the time, for many reasons. Mergers and acquisitions are more interesting because they are often associated with a growth story. We like success. Aswath Damodaran, who teaches corporate finance at NYU Stern, has a bunch of great talks and content about this where he discusses how companies shoul…

>What we are seeing with some of these big tech companies is that they are transitioning from an exciting growth story into an extractive dividend story in a way that's becoming harmful to consumers. Alphabet is rolling out autonomous driving vehicles in many cities around the USA, potentially getting rid of the need to drive a car in 90% of today's use cases. How is this not still an exciting growth story? My kids m…

I am not excited about my transportation becoming a subscription service, likely through regulatory capture. It will almost certainly mean less freedom of choice for me.

Re: Google avoids a breakup of its ad tech business

#319

Post by lotsofpulp » Thu, Sep 03, 2026, 1:20 PM UTC

franga2000 wrote: post #265

lotsofpulp wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A product/service that can drastically reduce the top cause of injury and death, as well as give safe mobility to so many who do not currently have it is not a "cute tech project". >I would rather pay substantially less on anything I buy, and have the free market sort out self-driving cars. Alphabet's entire revenue divided by the total amount of goods and services sold is miniscule, so I don't see how it could be ma…

Self-driving cars are an absurdly inefficient way to reduce traffic deaths that exists only because it makes substantially more money for shareholders than the alternatives. You are being witheld a good and cheap solution now for the promise of a worse and expensive solution some time in the future. All the while people keep dying. Oh, and what's this "those who don't have it" bullshit? If anything, turning driving i…

I prefer to live in reality, where American suburbs are nowhere near dense enough for public transport to pencil out, plus there is no political will from the voters for it. No one is tearing up existing roads and replatting all the detached single family homes to more dense housing.

Waymo is a real solution to reducing injuries from distracted and drunk drivers, as well as reducing insurance costs. Obviously, if Waymo is the only game in town, then prices will be high but hopefully there will be competition. Owning a car 24/7 along with space to store it and insure it is not necessarily always cheaper than renting it per trip.

A robotic car can be utilized for far more hours per day amortizing its costs over far more trips making each trip cost less. Which, if there is competition, should result in lower prices.

Re: Google avoids a breakup of its ad tech business

#320

Post by eldaisfish » Thu, Sep 03, 2026, 1:23 PM UTC

lotsofpulp wrote: post #255

condiment wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This point of view has more to do with your information diet than it does with reality. Companies un-merge and spin out all the time, for many reasons. Mergers and acquisitions are more interesting because they are often associated with a growth story. We like success. Aswath Damodaran, who teaches corporate finance at NYU Stern, has a bunch of great talks and content about this where he discusses how companies shoul…

>What we are seeing with some of these big tech companies is that they are transitioning from an exciting growth story into an extractive dividend story in a way that's becoming harmful to consumers. Alphabet is rolling out autonomous driving vehicles in many cities around the USA, potentially getting rid of the need to drive a car in 90% of today's use cases. How is this not still an exciting growth story? My kids m…

what i personally find most insightful about this website is how the techbro culture will do anything except consider the needs of the many. why bother with good transit when we can automate cars? why bother with copyright when we can just steal content at a scale that few can comprehend.