Hacker News Reader

Comment by resoluteteeth | Hacker News Reader

Despite offhandedly mentioning the hypothetical possibility of breaking up Google, this article doesn't actually discuss how this could be done or even whether it would be possible.

I think because of how few products Google has that actually make money this would actually be quite difficult in that it would be surprisingly hard to divide up Google into multiple companies that still have sources of revenue, much less were still profitable.

Even if rather than actually "breaking up" Google, you simply tried to force some type of debundling like with Microsoft, this would still be difficult. Take the case of Android being bundled with Google services for example. Android itself isn't what makes Google money, so preventing them from integrating it with sources of revenue would probably just kill Android.

View on HN

One approach would be to spin out the search index and algorithms out of Google, turning it into a B2B service provider that provides (for a fee) an API that everyone could use to provide a search engine. The "remaining" Google could keep working like before, just that they would no longer have their own search technology but would buy API access like anyone else could.

This would address the idea that Internet search has become a monopoly because Google is so dominant and building up your own index and algorithms has become so expensive that no one on the free market can challenge it. (This assumes that Bing is a huge loss maker for Microsoft, Yandex and Baidu can only exist because of government interference against Google in their home markets and all the others like DuckDuckGo are relying on API access provided by these three.)

I am not sure how true this second paragraph really is and I also think there would be quite big efficiency losses by such an approach (e.g. knowing how to search the web might also be helpful for searching your email etc. and such an API model would make it very difficult to use knowledge about the user to influence search results; which is something all the privacy conscious search engines such as DDG struggle with), but at least that's what I have heard people suggest when they want to see Google broken up.

(disc: googler)

But in many ways this is anti user. There's a huge value in getting search results based on context and knowledge about you. Its nice that when I google "go", the first result is golang, whereas DDG returns Google.com, Go.com, the disambiguation page for Go on wikipedia, and finally golang.

Further, when I type "frequent flyer number" into a google search bar, it returns my personal frequent flyer number (scraped from emails). Some people (rightfully!) find that creepy and invasive. I find it incredibly useful. Making a tool used by billions of people less useful isn't good.

Yeah. I find it disconcerting to use Bing and discover the results are as bad as Google in incognito mode.

That is: search is such a hard problem that the search engine literally needs to know more about me than I know about myself to give me good search results.

This is disconcerting for fairly obvious reasons, but it also seems to be true.

The example given is forcing them to sell DoubleClick. I think Android is a great example because that was an aquisition at one point. Google pays Apple for default search placement so a similar arrangement could be made.

The article is a bit vague and hand-wavey (and the title is a bit off) but I would definitely say that Apple is hugely monopolistic, for a company sitting at #1.

Apple has a stranglehold on iOS browsers by forcing App Store browsers to use Safari's renderer and web view.

And being vertically integrated, the hardware and software are both locked-down in ways that restrict a consumer.

Why can't I install macOS on non-Apple hardware? Why do I need macOS to develop for Mac/iPhone? Why can't I replace the battery or install memory easily on my Macbook? Each of these are shady, manipulative business practices, and lo and behold, Apple has the greatest market cap (and least competitive pricing.)

How can you be monopolistic without having a monopoly, however? Apple has far less than 50% market share in all the markets it operates in (except, maybe, for smartwatches...).

The majority of people does not seem to have a problem with being "locked-down" by Apple: they just buy an Android phone and Windows PC instead.

Google is very different - it has the by far largest mobile OS share and in some markets more than 90% search share. If you are a web (or -- thanks to Google Maps -- physical) business, Google can make or break you and there is nothing you can do about it. If Apple doesn't like your app, you can just develop it for Android. If Google doesn't like your webpage, no one will find it.

Monopoly power/market power don't necessarily refer only to domination of an industry, that's just the common case; network effects fall under this category even (and especially) if your company created the lock-in. Given that anti-monopoly law is being ignored these day it's unlikely you'll see enforcement extended so far, but it certainly could be. Back in the day local phone and power monopolies were very common (a close equivalent) and weren't allowed to escape regulation just 'cause their market power was local.

> Apple is hugely monopolistic

Being a large company doesn't make you a monopoly, nor does anti-consumer mean the same as anti-competitive. In both product segments you mention (smartphones and personal computers), Apple has a minority marketshare. "Monopoly" isn't a catch-all phrase for "mean business"; it has a very specific meaning, and Apple isn't even close.

Yes, but they have monopoly influence over iOS and Mac software as well as restricting development. It would take a Supreme Court of about a century ago to take them down, but it seems over-the-line to me, personally.

If that was your strategy as an off brand clone-OS it's not a concern, but at the $700B valuation range there should be increased scrutiny. Depends on the court system as well. See Microsoft and IE bundling? Virtually identical circumstances to mobile Safari.

> monopoly influence over iOS and Mac software as well as restricting development

This is generally not what is considered a monopoly. You're describing control over a product segment that is a small part of a larger industry.

> See Microsoft and IE bundling? Virtually identical circumstances to mobile Safari.

Except Microsoft was 95%+ of the desktop market, whereas iOS is less than 20% of the smartphone market. Bundling wasn't the problem; bundling that used one monopoly to extend another market segment is. iOS doesn't have that critical first piece.

Not clear in law, especially re questions of patent misuse - an area of the law which in the U.S. is now a mass of contradictions, admittedly.

> Apple is hugely monopolistic, for a company sitting at #1.

In the US, generally it's OK to be a monopoly, as long as you don't abuse your monopoly by doing anti-competitive things. It's also OK to do many anti-competitive things, as long as you aren't abusing a monopoly; unfair pricing (dumping) is prohibited, but courts have been pretty lenient in the absence of a monopoly on the theory that the dumper usually damages itself more than the competition and that in the mean time consumers benefit.

So, Apple doesn't really have the market share to be considered a monopoly, unless you creatively define the market. Certainly, they can do whatever they want on Macs, because their US market share is 13% [1], and nobody can credibly accuse them of selling below cost. For mobile, it's different, but still Apple only has about 30% of the market [2], so I don't know that's really high enough to consider their behavior an abuse of monopoly, unless you narrowly define the market to be apps on iOS devices, instead of apps on (smart)phones.

[1] http://www.gartner.com/newsroom/id/3568420 table 2 [2] https://www.recode.net/2017/1/11/14239038/iphone-apple-andro...

Your whole point about Apple seems to misunderstand the meaning of monopoly.

Which market or product category do they have monopolistic dominance of?

Vertically-integrated, closed product ecosystems are not the same as a market monopoly.

Vertical integration leveraging perhaps only a single patent can certainly be illegal. Market does not mean "entire product category" in law, (but enforcement has been so weak in recent decades that's been the case de facto.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_Picture_Patents_Co._v._....

The courts have already decided against you here, saying Apple both had market power and abused it re ebooks: http://macdailynews.com/2013/08/28/u-s-a-v-apple-judge-denis...

Closed ecosystem can literally be anticompetitive. Being largest in the market means they control that largest market.

I understand what you are saying and what you mean, but looking under the lens of scrutiny used around 100 years ago would lead to a different analysis. There hasn't been a trust busted in quite some time.

it would be surprisingly hard to divide up Google into multiple companies that still have sources of revenue, much less were still profitable.

What strikes me the most about Google's business activities is that it has, through its ad business, basically siphoned off a large portion of the value created by the Web. It has then taken those funds and done some fairly altruistic and benevolent things. There are plenty of projects within Google (not Alphabet more broadly, but Google specifically) which are done purely to advance their mission rather than for a profit. I think Google DNS is the most visible example.

It doesn't require Android's death, just the end of it being able to piggyback on the balance sheet of another, arguably independent, division.

In this case, that would mean forcing Android to become independently profitable, rather than a way for GoogleWebApps Inc. to "monopolize" internet endpoints on billions of devices.

It also suggests that it should be regulated like Bell. And Google does have its own version of Bell labs, Google X. Though I think the goals of them are different.

There is a big question though. Can they do what they do so well without the large size? We all know data is key here, and whoever has the most data can do the most. Can a small company get big data easily? Or do you need that amount of data?

> ... preventing them from integrating it with sources of revenue would probably just kill Android.

Android is not really all that great. it has a lot of issues. maybe the death of Android would be a net positive for the mobile ecosystem. competitors would have fewer barriers and might well introduce something better.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com