
EU competition chief holds threat of breaking up Google - jonbaer
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2018/03/25/eu-competition-chief-keeps-threat-breaking-google-table/
======
csomar
I can understand the hatred many people here have toward Google, Facebook or
other big gigantic life-controlling entities.

The step to remove Google dominance is to find, create and nurture
alternatives. For example, I started using Fastmail. I'm using some of Apple
products like the Calendar and Notes. I'm using Skype for communication.

So I'm diversifying a bit though they can engage in data sharing. This reduces
the monopoly power of one single entity.

Blocking Google, Facebook or another big provider will not work and if it did,
it can have severe consequences. Most people (and politicians) are ignoring
the massive productivity benefits that Google search is bringing. It can be
used for evil, but the productivity it brings is paramount.

You can't fight Google by blocking it or destroying it. There is a reason that
Google is huge: It is magical and there is no usable alternative.

To remove Google monopoly you did what Google did for Yahoo or Bing: You build
an alternative. It is possible to have multiple alternatives for search like
for email or smartphones (though we have only two).

The reason we don't? Google won. Android/iOS won. Linux/Windows won. Everybody
gave up and just accepted it. Now everyone is screaming of "regulating" these
guys. Trust me. This how you get closer to your demise (politicians and
current day governments) than to their demise.

~~~
zapita
"I can understand the hatred many people here have toward Standard Oil or
other big gigantic life-controlling entities.

The step to remove Standard Oil dominance is to find, create and nurture
alternatives. For example, I started buying petroleum from a small independent
refiner. I'm using some of Royal Dutch Oil Company products like their
lubricants and ointments. I'm using whale oil for indoor lighting.

So I'm diversifying a bit though they can engage in price fixing. This reduces
the monopoly power of one single entity.

Blocking Standard Oil, Royal Dutch or another big provider will not work and
if it did, it can have severe consequences. Most people (and politicians) are
ignoring the massive productivity benefits that Standard Oil is bringing. It
can be used for evil, but the productivity it brings is paramount.

You can't fight Standard Oil by blocking it or destroying it. There is a
reason that Standard Oil is huge: It is magical and there is no usable
alternative.

To remove Standard Oil monopoly you did what Standard Oil did for the
Cleveland or Pittsburg cartels: You build an alternative. It is possible to
have multiple alternatives for oil like for steel or railroads (though we have
only two).

The reason we don't? Standard Oil won. Carnegie Steel won. North Pacific won.
Everybody gave up and just accepted it. Now everyone is screaming of
"regulating" these guys. Trust me. This how you get closer to your demise
(politicians and current day governments) than to their demise."

~~~
jadedhacker
Those Rockafellers are doing just fine even today after Standard Oil was
broken up.

In telecommunications, the Baby Bells are doing just fine after the Bell
Telephone Co. was broken up. They're just as monopolistic, price fixing, and
destructive to privacy as ever.

~~~
zapita
> _Those Rockafellers are doing just fine even today after Standard Oil was
> broken up._

Yes, it took a long time to break up Standard Oil, leaving plenty of time for
the Rockefellers to amass wealth. What's your point?

------
tbirrell
Does the EU even have the authority to break up Google/Alphabet?

~~~
citilife
I don't think they really can. Effectively, they'd have to block Google in the
EU. Otherwise, Google can technically just stay in the U.S. and sell services.
Ad's don't have to be location based, pretty sure a lot of advertising is
elicit materials (such as porn) anyway - which already may not be allowed.

Unless you stop people from just heading to the top search engine in the
world, they'll keep using it.

~~~
kokx
There are several things the EU can do. First of all, they can freeze and/or
seize Google's assets in Europe. Like bank accounts and real estate. Or even
more important to Google, all of their European datacenters.

The EU can also disallow sales of Google's products, like any android phone.
Or products like the chromecast, and don't forget Nest and Google Home.

And selling ads in Europe from a foreign country isn't too easy either. It is
a lot harder to do business with a company which is on the other side of the
ocean, and officially doesn't have a precense in the same economic area.

If Google leaves all of that behind in Europe, and is not really allowed to do
business in Europe anymore, soon enough there will be a competitor that stands
up and can do things better. Especially if they can actually open offices in
Europe and do business without major hurdles.

~~~
csomar
> There are several things the EU can do. First of all, they can freeze and/or
> seize Google's assets in Europe. Like bank accounts and real estate. Or even
> more important to Google, all of their European datacenters.

> The EU can also disallow sales of Google's products, like any android phone.
> Or products like the chromecast, and don't forget Nest and Google Home.

Without giving them plenty of time to pullout? This will probably trigger
panic across of the multinationals.

~~~
scholia
_> Without giving them plenty of time to pullout?_

These things take a long time. Google was abusing its search monopoly before
the EU started a seven-year investigation that resuled in a $2.7 billion fine
... which it is now appealing.

Google settled with the US in 2013. It agreed to change some of its search
practices and got away without a fine.

I'd be surprised if Google didn't know it was abusing its search monopoly. I'd
assume it calculated that it was more profitable to keep doing it until
compelled to stop.

Either way, a seven-year investigation provides plenty of time to prepare for
exit strategies, if required, and it would grossly incompetent not to have
prepared for them.

------
Nokinside
EMEA region brings roughly 30% of the revenue for Alphabet. EU alone probably
25% of that. US is 47%.

For a company that benefits from network externalizes a much as Alphabet does,
revenue alone is not good measure of market importance. Losing one market
means that market share in all markets is threatened and company growth is in
peril.

In practice EU probably will not explicitly demand company break up. They wold
create conditions that effectively break up the company inside EU. It's up to
the owners to decide how they arrange it in the practice.

First Alphabet might have to choose what its main business is (= search) then
all other businesses and services are separated from the search into different
entities when they operate inside EU or serve customers inside EU. This would
include Google Play, Youtube, Android, user accounts, ad placements, and ad
sales generated from the EU.

This would break the platform synergy. Negotiators might leave carrots that
make it easier for Alphabet preserve it's stock valuation if it rolls over and
yields to most demands.

------
yuhong
[https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/30/us/politics/eric-
schmidt-...](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/30/us/politics/eric-schmidt-
google-new-america.html)

I wonder if this contributed to Eric Schmidt leaving.

------
joejerryronnie
Vestager is using the bully pulpit of an EU commissioner to further her
political ambitions and it is already starting to grate on her allies in the
EU. She is beginning to significantly overstep her bounds and is risking a
powerful backlash. Right now, everyone is blaming big tech for all the world's
ills, and she is jumping on the bandwagon. But the public is very fickle. If
the American and European populists realize the potential to paint Vestager as
the poster child for elite globalism and really start to nitpick at her
inconsistencies and political ambitions, she will not only have given Trump
some very real ammunition for further US/EU conflict but may sow the seeds for
additional internal EU strife.

------
dcgudeman
Honestly comes across as EU sour grapes. The "competition chief" should focus
on the regulations that have resulted in low investment and slow innovation
instead of trying to "regulate" American tech companies.

~~~
jacquesm
You mean like VW being called out in the United States for the diesel scandal
was US sour grapes?

Really, I'm all for symmetry with stuff like this if that is what it takes to
get these giants to at least attempt to comply with the law.

~~~
adventured
Symmetry was fining Google. The EU fined Google $2.7 billion.

What would symmetry look like from the US side if the EU starts demanding
Google be broken up? Unfortunately the EU has no massive, powerful technology
businesses to demand be broken up.

~~~
jacquesm
> Unfortunately the EU has no massive, powerful technology businesses to
> demand be broken up.

So?

If it had then most likely there would be a similarly strong push to break up
such a company if it misbehaved. At least, I would hope so.

Microsoft got very lucky with the change of party in charge, they were about
to be broken up in the US into 'apps' and 'os'.

And that's a good punishment for companies that use the fact that they have
their fingers in completely different pies to stifle the competition.

Breaking up VW would not accomplish much in that sense.

~~~
milesward
SAP?

~~~
jacquesm
SAP is definitely large but I'm unaware of them being serious corporate
criminals. Is there anything that I've missed?

