
Open Up vs. Break Up - PretzelFisch
https://avc.com/2019/06/open-up-vs-break-up/
======
dluan
This is so uncreative. Besides conveniently forgetting how Twitter starved out
its third party apps with breaking API changes, and Amazon's similar strong
arming of smaller vendors and services, he doesn't seem to understand why that
is bad.

Breaking up a company is to address a singular problem - that there are too
many interests being held under one roof. By breaking up, you are addressing a
need for broader governance and ownership that "opening up" doesn't allow for.
Let Whole Foods sell groceries, and let Twitch stream games.

~~~
rwmj
I'm assuming that he means the companies would be ordered by the force of
court rulings and the law to supply the third parties equally and without
prejudice.

A similar thing has happened in the UK with telecoms. The monopoly supplier of
the phone network is gradually being split into a company which owns the wires
in the ground but cannot offer services, and competing companies that rent the
wires to provide services, the rental being at an open, non-discriminatory
price. At least to some degree it works well (although the regulator needs a
lot more teeth).

------
topkai22
1) Wait, does DuckDuckGo use Bing’s search index?

2) A good solution would do both- open up the underlying data while breaking
up the various ad sales businesses. A great example is YouTube- YouTube should
not be able to single handedly demonetize videos- creators should be able to
opt in to alternative ad networks so long as they aren’t violating the TOS,
keeping Tuba instructional videos in the black
([https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2018/04/youtube-
demonetized-m...](https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2018/04/youtube-demonetized-
my-tuba-videos-also-i-make-tuba-videos/))

~~~
beebmam
In my humble opinion, I think the "monetization" of youtube videos has
produced a marketplace of clickbait and extreme content.

I'd like to roll back the clock to when youtube itself took all (or at least
most) of its advertising income from its users' videos.

~~~
furst
I mean, it's not hard to avoid clickbait or poor quality content. I'd say that
without the prospect of earning money a lot of quality content wouldn't exist.
Of course wherever there's income there will be people trying to exploit it,
but I think that YouTube wouldn't be what it is today if content creators
didn't get paid.

------
idlewords
There are some natural fracture planes in the big tech companies where it's
clear consumers would be better served by antitrust action:

1) Cleave Instagram and WhatsApp off of Facebook, to reduce the consolidation
in Facebook's ad business model, and re-introduce competition both in the
messaging and influencer-pouting-at-camera space.

2) Break off Android and Chrome from Google (and each other). Both are
products that would do fine on their own, but where right now consumer
interests are diametrically opposed to Google's advertising business model.

It's pretty clear that AVC wants to keep the entrenched surveillance business
model, but create APIs on top of it for more startups they can fund. But there
are ways to apply antitrust that won't make the surveillance problem worse,
while reintroducing some competition, and better aligning company incentives
with what their consumers want (e.g., allowing Chrome to go all-in on ad
blocking).

~~~
ethbro
The biggest change would be separating Facebook and Google's ad businesses
into separate companies.

They should be able to sell ads to support their free products if they choose.
But having the advertising business under the same roof as the product
business creates an inherent conflict of interest, not least towards
centralization and lock-in.

If Google instead sold ad space and data to AdWords (the external company),
responsibilities would be more clear.

------
dageshi
I find it kind of fascinating the different mindsets you see around HN
regarding Google/Facebook vs say Netflix/Hulu.

With conversations about Netflix and other online content producers people
want all the content in the world, at their fingertips for about $15-20 per
month and if they can't get it they'll threaten to pirate instead. For them
cost but also convenience really trumps all, the idea of having too many
services, even if cheaply priced is too much, they just want one.

Compare that to this kind of thread where we have these easy to use single
platforms in the form of Google Search, Facebook, Twitter, Youtube, Amazon but
here everyone is doing their hardest to try and break them up, make them less
convenient and perhaps more expensive (how do you get cheaper than free with
more competition?).

Perhaps though, both sentiments are at extremes when it comes to public
opinion.

~~~
CodeMage
You're conflating way too many things and oversimplifying the whole situation
into a fictitious idea of conflicting mindsets.

First of all, you're treating two very different types of services as equal
and identical. Netflix and Hulu are subscription content providers. Google and
Facebook can be defined and described in many ways, but subscription content
providers is not among them [1]. It's quite natural and understandable that
people would have different expectations and complaints.

Second, the situation with content providers isn't binary. The solution to the
problem of not being to afford a whole bunch of subscription content providers
is not limited to having one become a monopoly.

Third, it's not just cost and convenience when it comes to access to content.
Take Spotify Premium, for example. It's a subscription service that gives you
access to all the music in its catalog as long as you pay your subscription.
Except that there is absolutely no legal way for you to ensure access to any
subset of the content. Have a favorite song, album or artist? Tomorrow it
might disappear from Spotify's catalog and you have no way of hanging on to
it.

Fourth, the concerns that lead people to suggest that Google, Facebook or
Amazon should be broken up are varied and nuanced, and they go way beyond cost
and convenience.

So no, I don't think you can sum up people's opinions into two seemingly
contradictory mindsets.

[1] Yes, I'm aware of YouTube and Spotify having a similar model. That
actually happens to be a pretty good argument to break up Google.

~~~
ethbro
I think part of the difference in HN opinion color is somewhat related to
transparency.

Subscription content business models are straightforward and marketed as such:
$ for access.

Ad supported business models are... murkier. And I'd say Google and Facebook
haven't done a sufficient job in _proactively informing_ the public about what
they collect, how they generate revenue from it, and what's currently stored
about a user.

Also, ad supported models have the unfortunate side effect of having revenue
directly tied to the greatest possible exploitation of existing data (and
collecting greater amounts going forward). Which... aren't great ethical
incentives.

~~~
CodeMage
_> I think part of the difference in HN opinion color is somewhat related to
transparency._

It's not that I disagree with you on the topic of transparency, it's that I
think we can't really compare opinions on two very different topics as if they
were the same topic. People complaining about too many subscription content
providers are not really arguing for or against a monopoly. It's not the same
discussion.

 _> And I'd say Google and Facebook haven't done a sufficient job in
proactively informing the public about what they collect, how they generate
revenue from it, and what's currently stored about a user._

Granted, but I'm pretty sure that even if they did so, it wouldn't make much
difference. I always refer people to Moxie Marlinspike's DEF CON keynote
called "Changing threats to privacy" [1]. I would definitely recommend
watching it in full, but the key takeaway from it -- for the purposes of this
discussion -- is that it all boils down to choice. He talks about the way
technology changes the fabric of the society, how it changes the way people
interact, communicate and coordinate, and declining to participate in this new
way of doing things exposes you to the "no network effect".

This is why it's not enough for Google and Facebook to merely inform people
about what they collect and how they use it. As long as they're practically
monopolies, they can disclose and inform and then go on just the same, because
there's no other viable alternative and they'll work hard to ensure it stays
that way.

The traditional way of dealing with an incumbent that is too powerful to
reasonably compete with is to break it up, in hopes of diminishing not its
power to compete, but rather its power to stifle competition.

[1]
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eG0KrT6pBPk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eG0KrT6pBPk)

------
tlb
Breaking up companies can be a mechanism to enforce openness. For instance,
the proposal to separate Microsoft's application business from their OS
business (in the late 90s) was in reaction to them giving their own apps
special treatment in their OS, so their apps ran better than third party apps.
By separating the two business units into separate companies, they would lose
the incentive to do stuff like that.

Separating Android and Chrome from Google Search would limit the obvious
temptation for abusing their browser business to help their advertising
business. Google has (so far) shown pretty good restraint in their tactics
compared to what would be technically possible, but the incentives are massive
and might be hard to resist when times get tough.

Enforcing openness in the face of massive incentives to the contrary requires
prompt and wise government oversight, which is hard to achieve. The range of
subtle tricks that platform companies can pull to slightly break their
competitors software is beyond the ability of regulators to control.

~~~
wrs
Instead of a breakup, something close to what OP is asking for was imposed on
Microsoft — a "technical committee" was empowered to ensure that all Windows
protocols were fully documented. [1]

[1] [https://arstechnica.com/information-
technology/2011/04/depar...](https://arstechnica.com/information-
technology/2011/04/department-of-justices-long-oversight-of-microsoft-to-end/)

------
ChrisCinelli
What does "pushing them to move from platforms to protocols" mean?

Opening up Facebook is what led to the Facebook APIs and data going in the
hands of thousands of 3rd parties (ex: Cambridge Analytica).

Assuming it is possible to "open up" those monopolies, it would require a
completely new paradigm.

------
aychedee
Isn't this ignoring the more obvious solution? Why not nationalise them? The
value of these networks is in the users. Not the companies themselves.

~~~
syshum
Nationalizing them is neither obvious nor a solution.

Nationalizing them would make any problems, real or perceived, 100x worse.

~~~
adamc
It would be more persuasive if you actually made the argument, rather than
just asserting the conclusion.

~~~
syshum
Responding in detail as to why nationalization is a bad idea is on the same
level has responding to comment about why the earth is not flat.

The evidence is clear, widely known, and most sane people do not suggest we
should nationalize things, nor that the earth is flat

~~~
smt88
You seem to think that every highly developed country is insane (other than
the US)...

[http://factmyth.com/factoids/the-us-is-the-only-very-
highly-...](http://factmyth.com/factoids/the-us-is-the-only-very-highly-
developed-country-without-universal-healthcare/)

~~~
syshum
>>You seem to think that every highly developed country is insane (other than
the US)...

You are correct I do. Time will prove me right as well given that most of
those nations have very real and every systemic issues with their healthcare
system that are pushed under the rug and never talked about because it goes
against the narrative that Government run healthcare is best thing ever

~~~
smt88
What are these issues? Their outcomes are better than ours, and they pay less
per person.

The UK has had nationalized health care for 70 years. Sweden, Iceland, Norway,
Denmark, and Finland are not far behind (50+ years for each of those).

If these problems you're describing were caused by nationalization, wouldn't
we have seen them already? 50-70 years is a remarkably long time for a
national social program to run without running into any fatal issues.

------
jbarberu
"In mobile, a good first step is to open up the app stores and allow the
browsers to have the same access to the operating system as native mobile
apps."

From a security perspective this sounds like an absolute nightmare.

------
adamc
Breaking up may be an early 20th-century solution, but it has the virtue of
being a solution that works.

------
ocdtrekkie
A fun story is that this is more or less the conversation we were in with AOL
Instant Messenger 19 years ago:
[https://www.computerworld.com/article/2596085/aol-foes-
accus...](https://www.computerworld.com/article/2596085/aol-foes-accuse-it-of-
trying-to-distract-ftc-on-messaging.html)

------
yonran
I think this is the right approach: to require third-party companies to have
access to a dominant company’s network after the network has reached a certain
threshold of size or age. I like to use the craigslist.org example: a company
that is still dominant basically because it is free and was launched in 1995.
We’re stuck using the ugly craigslist UI because their network is the oldest
and biggest. Several companies have attempted to innovate on the
craigslist.org experience but were forced to stop due to lawsuits (e.g.
padmapper, 3taps, RadPad). If we wish to allow competition and innovation in
the classified advertising space, then I don’t think there is a good dimension
to split up the craigslist company (by metro area? by apartments vs for
sale?). Instead, we should promote competition by allowing competitors to
access their APIs for free or for a reasonable price. The network that a web
company creates should not belong to one company forever.

------
IlegCowcat
I wonder how much annually these monopolies collectively spend on lobbying gov
against the populist temptation to break them up? Huge sums i assume. Huge.

I would first favour opening them up, see how it goes, and then consider
alternative approaches if the desired outcome is not seen. I think it's
critical to have a very clear idea of what the desired outcome would be before
taking action. That would require a 20/ 20 view of what the problems are, but
the monopolies are working hard to hide the problems from view. Google tries
to present itself as not being a search dominant corporation (the Alphabet
deception). Facebook is now a very big book and definitely needs 'editing'.

------
AlphaSite
This is the model the UK followed when dealing with BTs natural monopoly on
phone lines. Openreach owns and is obligated to maintain service to every home
in the country and all providers compete to build differentiated services atop
the physical hardware.

~~~
dpwm
> Openreach owns and is obligated to maintain service to every home in the
> country

Except Hull [0]

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KCOM_Group](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KCOM_Group)

------
UglycupRawky
A DOJ requirement to divest assets is one extreme, while a requirement to
spinoff assets and have them operate autonomously could unlock even greater
value for a parent company. What’s App, Instagram, You Tube, etc., trading as
separate stocks could spread market share and in theory create more
competition, while not diluting, and possibly increasing, overall corp value.
A not likely scenario, but perhaps a possible one.

------
her_tummy_hurts
“In mobile, a good first step is to open up the app stores and allow the
browsers to have the same access to the operating system as native mobile
apps.”

Yeah no, I don’t want just any website to have native control over my phone.
That’s just asking for trouble

