• jordanlund@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    Not sure how that would work…

    I’m old enough to remember the breakup of Ma Bell and the way that worked was the creation of a bunch of regional telecom services, that’s not going to work on the Internet.

    I guess they could mandate spinning off Android, but that’s not really the problem addressed in the antitrust case, is it?

    Maybe split the AdWords side from the Search Engine side?

    • Gsus4@mander.xyzOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      I’d guess it would be a vertical breakup rather than horizontal: separate android, cloud, youtube, search, chrome, ads…depending on how aggressive they want to be.

      • namingthingsiseasy@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        I think each of these needs to be handled in separate ways. For example, search could continue to be a conglomeration that includes maps, mail and possibly cloud. Android can just be split very easily into a separate company and same for Youtube, since that would basically be another Netflix or whatever.

        Ads, in my opinion, is the most important one though. That absolutely has to be shattered into thousands of tiny pieces, all of which need to be forced to compete with each other, for the benefit of all internet companies anywhere. It would be a massive boon to companies everywhere and would provide an opportunity for lots of innovation in the advertising space, ie. trying ads that are less intrusive or ones that are cheaper because they don’t rely on tracking information.

        And another thing I think people need to understand about search is that building the search engine is not the hard part - the hard part is figuring out how to pay for it. Search is really expensive - crawling websites, indexing, fighting spam abuse. That’s what really makes Google successful - the fact that they coupled it with advertising so that they could cover all the expenses that come with managing a search engine. That’s much more important than the quality of the results, in my opinion.

        And as for Chrome: well, personally I think that monopoly has been the most damaging to the internet as a whole. I would love to see it managed as part of a non-profit consortium. There should not be any profit motive whatsoever in building a web browser. If you want a profit motive, build a website - the browser should just be the tool to get to your profit model, not the profit model itself. And therefore it should be developed by multiple interest groups, not just one advertising company.

        Anyway, I know this is all an impossible fantasy. Nothing in the world is done because it’s right or wrong, it’s done because it serves whoever holds the most power. But if there were a just world, this is what I think it would look like.

  • tabular@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    Will the old method of breaking up a company work enough on modern tech companies? Will the 2nd best map software ever catch up in market share?

    • ScreaminOctopus@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      If they forced them to split Waze off and make it independent again it probably could, it’s probably the only non default app I see people use regularly

        • ScreaminOctopus@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          I think they might be using it as a beta testing ground for their back end features, the brand is also pretty valuable in and of itself. The traffic avoidance is much more aggressive than Google maps