Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

So... I think there are two issues with this.

(1) This doesn't actually reduce market share, since each of these are basically different market categories.

(2) Almost all the revenue is from search. That company is the revenue generating arm for the other ones.




(2) is one of the most important points. We have to stop Google from cross-financing new products from other revenue streams so they can no longer undercut or buy all competitors. Google Maps is a good example. They ran it for super cheap a long time to drive out competitors and now rack up the prices.

In contrast to most people here, I think breaking up Amazon is far more important to Facebook, Microsoft, Apple and many other tech companies. Only Google is as bad.


But you have to acknowledge that without the cross-financing those "markets" wouldn't even exist.

Before Google Maps we had a few online map services and they were terrible. Google Maps redefined what it means to have free access to web based interactive global maps, it changed how people find things and it was all payed by the ad business. Later on some monetizing efforts were made for it and competitors started to appear, mostly trying to catch up and copy what Google Maps did, but without the huge cash infusion of the ad business none of this would have happened.

A decade later, people take these things for granted and just want to split services up. I guess it makes sense from their point of view but to me it's not that clear what should happen while still allowing for the type of creativity and speed of development that allowed things like Google Maps to appear because I'm afraid "the next big" thing that could redefine our lives (and improve them) would be slowed down or simply made non-feasible.


> "Before Google Maps we had a few online map services and they were terrible. Google Maps redefined what it means to have free access to web based interactive global maps"

This is not true. MapQuest revolutionized things almost 10 years earlier than Google Maps. Google search is what allowed Google Maps to overtake MapQuest. Also, Android providing real-time traffic data of all their users gave them the winning formula.


Free scrolling was pretty revolutionary.

As was, like, an app that could reroute live instead of relying on pre-printed paper instructions.

Gmaps had both before MapQuest.


You are right that traffic was revolutionary and that's why google maps became the defacto standard. However, in context with the original post, this is exactly why it's unfair. Google has an android that gives them user location data which they then use as a competitive advantage in another space to eliminate all competition. If Android were 1 business and GoogleMaps another, then people like MapQuest could also negotiate deals with Android to get user data and then it's a matter of who has the best platform that wins. That's what is best for the consumer as well. In the current structure, there is no way that a small business like MapQuest could build a smartphone to ascertain user data and nor should they have to. They should only have to build the best map application to succeed in the online mapping space. Having to also succeed in location data aggregation eliminates competition. It's designed so the giants can eat the small guys at will without them being able to fight back.


Worth mentioning a couple factors related to this. You couldn't turn location data on for any service external to Google without also having it turned on for Google & even when you had location services turned off for Google sometimes they still had it turned on anyhow.


I'm not talking about using traffic data. Simply rerouting if you, for example, miss a turn, which instructions on paper can't do.


If you stopped cross financing YouTube then it would stop existing. YT has never made a profit and hosting user generated content in the YT syle is impossible to do profitably.


Google takes 45% revshare on YouTube. Some videos that were demonetized still show ads, so on those Google is taking 100%.

I've seen mid-roll ads on songs on YouTube.

Hosting costs & delivery costs (per byte) drop every year. Every year their compression gets better. Every year their ad revenues goes up. YouTube ad revenues have been growing at something like 30% a year for many years.

I think one reason Google doesn't break out YouTube profitability is because as soon as they show they are profitable they end up getting some of their biggest partners (like music labels) using those profits to readjust revshares.

Also if Google claims YouTube is not profitable they can be painted as the victim for extremist content or hate content they host, whereas if they show they were making a couple billion year a year in profits these narratives would be significantly less effective.

Core search ad prices haven't really been falling yet Google blended click prices keep falling about 20% a year while ad click volume is growing about 60% a year. This is driven primarily by increasing watch time on YouTube and increasing ad load on YouTube. Google blends video ad views in with their "clicks" count.


Yes, my thought was that by breaking everything off from everything else, these silo'd services would suddenly have to compete with the rest of their market at fair terms, instead of being propped up massively by other division(s), and thus would lose marketshare to a multitude of fresh and established competitors.

You are right though, it doesn't deal with the dominance of the search directly. My hope is a complimentary effect to the above also happens: Google no longer gets gobs of personal data from its other services, allowing other search engines to approach its efficacy.

As is clear I'm not really a fan of direct intervention in a single market, I see it as more of a problem when these giants muscle their way and control more and more markets, creating a vicious feedback loop.


> Yes, my thought was that by breaking everything off from everything else, these silo'd services would suddenly have to compete with the rest of their market at fair terms

I think it's instructive to look at the rest of the market. How is Mozilla funded? Basically a single gigantic contract with Google. Even Apple accepts payment from google to become the default, and it's not cheap: https://fortune.com/2018/09/29/google-apple-safari-search-en... The same logic applies to pretty much anything Alphabet spins off -- there's little difference between ownership and those contract.

About the only competition this setup produces is the ability for Mozilla to walk away to a competitor bid, which they did for like a year before bailing out at the first opportunity. There's a huge incumbency bias in these contracts. The first parallel that comes to mind is employer provided health insurance. Everyone gets to bid, but the incumbent knows the claims history far better than the competition and we'd only expect them to lose bids to companies overly optimistic about that history. Google knows how valuable various traffic sources are, but their competitors have to guess, and only when their guess is higher than Google's does it pay off. Does anyone think Yahoo winning Firefox was a good deal? I haven't seen any analysis to support that.

> My hope is a complimentary effect to the above also happens: Google no longer gets gobs of personal data from its other services, allowing other search engines to approach its efficacy.

Wouldn't the most profitable thing for these broken up companies be to sell their slice of the personal data pie as many parties as possible? This seems like a net loss for privacy. How much extra would it be worth to set up an exclusive arrangement?


>You are right though, it doesn't deal with the dominance of the search directly. My hope is a complimentary effect to the above also happens: Google no longer gets gobs of personal data from its other services, allowing other search engines to approach its efficacy.

I'm still not sure how this would work on Apple though, since their main differentiator is their design sensibilities and integration rather than their platform monopolies.

I guess iMessage and the App Store do rely on monopoly rents, but I can't think of any way to sever those links without making the iOS platform less secure.




Applications are open for YC Winter 2020

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: