Boston Globe editorial says Google should be broken up

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Rogifan, Jun 18, 2018.

  1. Rogifan macrumors Core

    Rogifan

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2011
    #1
    The options they present:
    • The particular lines of division are less important than the act itself, but one of the most promising splits would be to separate Google search from the rest of the company’s venturesand open up the market for the advertising that goes along with search to other vendors.
    • Another option would divide YouTube and Google’s advertising units into stand-alone companies and separate them from Alphabet’s other ventures.
    • If the advertising units, DoubleClick and AdMob, were spun off into stand-alone companies, meanwhile, it would introduce more competition into the digital advertising marketplace.
    • A more aggressive approach would also make stand-alone companies out of YouTube, Android, and Google’s cloud services (Gmail, cloud storage, maps, etc.), separating all of them from Google search.
    https://apps.bostonglobe.com/opinion/graphics/2018/06/break-google/

    I don’t see any of this ever happening but I think we’ll see more editorials like this (and with Amazon too).
     
  2. lowendlinux Contributor

    lowendlinux

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2014
    Location:
    North Country (way upstate NY)
    #2
    The article is paywalled but I agree that Google needs a lot of restructuring
     
  3. Rogifan thread starter macrumors Core

    Rogifan

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2011
    #3
    Hmm...I was able to access it.
     
  4. lowendlinux Contributor

    lowendlinux

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2014
    Location:
    North Country (way upstate NY)
    #4
    Since I can now too I'll conclude that I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer
     
  5. BeeGood macrumors 68000

    BeeGood

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2013
    Location:
    Lot 23E. Somewhere in Georgia.
    #5
    The whole premise of article is that Google is a monopoly. It’s not. There is nothing that is preventing other tech companies from coming in and offering a competing search engine, online documents service, email or anything else Google is up to.

    The market has simply deemed them to be the search engine of choice...for now. One day, they’ll be dethroned by that same market. Just like yahoo before them, and AOL before them, and Netscape before them. No need for a clumsy, hamhanded government intervention.
     
  6. rafark macrumors 65816

    rafark

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2017
    #6
    Do people think g-mail, g-maps, YouTube success is solely because of their quality? These services are where they are because they were an extension to Google, the most popular website on the planet.
     
  7. lowendlinux Contributor

    lowendlinux

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2014
    Location:
    North Country (way upstate NY)
    #7
    Google has needed broken up for years, google is the gatekeeper of information on the web for any non-techie this is exactly when the government needs to step in.
     
  8. LizKat macrumors 603

    LizKat

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Location:
    Catskill Mountains
    #8
    Neither is their site designer; I subscribe and sometimes the site balks at letting me in or puts up a sub offer when I'm already logged in.

    I agree. The reason YouTube became a go-to video site was that Google bought them after people had begun to think "search" means "Google." YouTube was always just one step away from "the right answer" if a search query had anything remotely to do with something YouTube could shed light on.

    Anything Google bought up in the way of content provision has meant a competitive leg up for them among search engines... and for Doubleclick of all things to end up in their claws was a double whammy to whatever we used to think of as privacy.
     
  9. NT1440 macrumors G5

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    #9
    The fact that every reputable website in the planet is designed with a file specifically for web crawlers should tell you how much power Google holds.
     
  10. BeeGood macrumors 68000

    BeeGood

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2013
    Location:
    Lot 23E. Somewhere in Georgia.
    #10
    Google is only considered to be the “gatekeeper of information on the web” (I wouldn’t call them that, but let’s go with it for argument’s sake) because their search engine is really good. If it sucked then it would be in the wastebin of tech history with the other engines I mentioned and we’d all be using Bing right now.

    Being good at something doesn’t mean that you’ve created an anti-competitive space. There are good reasons to break companies up, and then there are bad reasons, like this one.
     
  11. iapplelove macrumors 601

    iapplelove

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2011
    Location:
    East Coast USA
    #11
    Other than privacy concerns, I love google. Love their services and I’m a heavy youtube user.

    Don’t see a need to break anything up currently.

    Also disagree that thy are a monopoly.
     
  12. IWantItThatWay Suspended

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2009
    #12
    Gmail got popular because of all the space and ease of use.

    G-Maps got popular because it was kind of the first of its kind, and Apple Maps well.... yeah.

    YouTube was successful before Google bought it.

    Google is a fraud company though. All they did for Android was rip off Apple.
     
  13. BeeGood macrumors 68000

    BeeGood

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2013
    Location:
    Lot 23E. Somewhere in Georgia.
    #13
    So Google is using existing services to promote/package new services...every company on the planet does this.

    Why punish them just because they’re good at it?
     
  14. IWantItThatWay Suspended

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2009
    #14
    Microsoft got in trouble for it, but that was more because they wouldn't allow people to uninstall IE.

    It's weird that despite Android's market share, it doesn't feel nearly as dominant as Windows did back in the day. I guess it's because Apple still has majority market share in first world countries (US, UK, Canada, Japan, Australia, Hong Kong) I don't really see Android's dominance.
     
  15. LizKat macrumors 603

    LizKat

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Location:
    Catskill Mountains
    #15
    Things seem to go in waves if we live long enough, and there's really nothing new under the sun when it comes to how mergers, breakups, reorganizations and the repainting of logos on trucks go.

    ITT was a huge conglomerate at one point. Everything from telephonic services to Wonder Bread to Avis rental cars to manufacturers of niche market super briney hams. Then someone woke up one day and said ya know if we ditch some of this stuff we might get airborne again...

    Decades passed. Divestitures were all the rage. Acquisitions and mergers were a thing again. Startups were the way to avoid being criticized for awhile. Then it was acronyms to disguise vulnerability to being pegged as a member of any particular market segment. XTBC? DEFG? hardware maker? pig farm?

    Came the AOL Time Warner merger. It was instantly mocked as the worst corporate merger in the history of Wall Street, and retains that award today as far as I know. There followed more jokes about "synergy" than about anything else for awhile, not only on trading floors but on late night comedy.

    Slowly backing away from that one... the spinoffs from that thing are now serially described as having "great synergy" with their acquisitors. There is nothing new under the sun even in marketing lingo sometimes.

    Break up of Ma Bell... reconsolidation... ATT buys Time Warner... wait for it... lol

    When something doesn't work out you can always rename it. I'm not gonna name names but you probably get cable service from a divestiture or a spinoff or a ... special dividend... or your utility company buys your juice from a renamed disgrazia we've mercifully almost forgotten about.

    Alphabet Inc. even as umbrella is way too big for our own good if not theirs at the moment, and it was significant that they tried to downplay who's running what by not making "Google" the parent company's name when they reorganized. Some of the CEOs of the spinoffs think so too since they're subsequently ditched the "Google" parts of their own names: Google X became... X...

    I'm not panicked about the prospects for damage by most big mergers, simply because whereas the market may not always sort things out properly for consumers, the customers usually manage to sort stuff out for the boards of directors in the end. In the meantime it doesn't mean a lot of us won't be mistreated in the wilds of that marketplace. But in some cases (health care, for instance), the pressure to merge and merge and merge suggests that there's something fundamentally wrong with the market-based model to begin with. I fault both political parties for ignoring stuff like that for way too long. I am not sure that level of concern is relevant (yet) to the acquisitions of companies like Alphabet, Inc. It bears watching though, and I should think there are market analysts doing that every day. I hope they keep talking to the Fourth Estate about their findings.
     
  16. BeeGood macrumors 68000

    BeeGood

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2013
    Location:
    Lot 23E. Somewhere in Georgia.
    #16
    Yeah Microsoft has had a few anti-trust issues, but not near enough to warrant breaking them up and they were at least as dominant in the PC OS space as Google is in search.

    I agree that android doesn’t “feel” as dominant as the numbers suggest it should. My thinking is that the difference between android and windows comes down to viable alternatives. During the heyday of windows, you never had a desktop OS that demonstrated that it could be superior to windows. For a while, iOS was widely considered to be a superior mobile operating system to android and as a consequence, lots of people still prefer it, particularly in wealthier countries.
     
  17. IWantItThatWay Suspended

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2009
    #17
    I loathed Microsoft back in the 90s/early 00s. I hated how they bullied the little people and would try and destroy everything in their path. They'd even be as petty as to destroy a small gift card maker just to gain market share. It's why I will never trust Windows again.

    Google doesn't give me that feeling thankfully. Funny enough I prefer Bing, but Google's dominance in search was well earned compared to MS just bullying people and using their monopoly for unfair advantage.
     
  18. Zenithal macrumors G3

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2009
    #18
    Breakups are great in theory, but they don't work in reality. Eventually everything comes back together.

    Companies like Fox or ATT are a greater threat than Google.
     
  19. IWantItThatWay Suspended

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2009
    #19
    Why Fox?
     
  20. Zenithal macrumors G3

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2009
    #20
    My apologies. I've had a long day. I meant News Corp. Though, to an extent: Fox Sports Division, 21st Century Fox, Fox Entertainment, and Fox News Corp (News Corp.). Comcast is currently trying to outbid Disney to get a hold of Fox Entertainment and other IP.
     
  21. IWantItThatWay Suspended

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2009
    #21
    Why not name Disney or Comcast instead? Disney and Comcast are competing to buy 21st Century Fox for example. So because Fox News has a different opinion than you they deserve to be taken down?
     
  22. Zenithal macrumors G3

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2009
    #22
    You don't get it. Disney already has film and show IP. Buying 21st Century Fox is a no-brainer for anyone. Comcast is effectively Fox right now. Actually, they're more powerful than Fox or Google alone or combined.

    I don't agree with some Fox newscasters. I do like some, but mostly because they're stupid.
     

Share This Page

21 June 18, 2018