I think this is a perfect example of the sort of wooly and confused thinking behind break up X articles. To some extent that's inevitable as no one knows what parts of big businesses make money (the author thinks this is intentional opaqueness but its actually very difficult in a big business to determine who "makes" a profit). But if he really wants to convince people to enact massive change like this, he needs to do better.
People need to be clear what they are doing by first being clear what they want to achieve and what the side effects will be. If you want privacy, ask for privacy, and admit that that has costs. Trying to get privacy by smashing Google by dividing it up in ways you know don't work isn't privacy, it's just wrecking a service lots of people need.
Similarly, the author isn't upfront about the costs. Are you willing to switch to a Gmail equivalent that costs 50usd a year? Is the average third world user willing to pay the same to have an email address? Do you want to go back to US government issue maps full of errors with no guide to what's in any of the buildings?
I'm not willing to do that. I'm actually very pro privacy and anti-advertising but we need a practical working solution. These pieces are the equivalent of luddites saying we should close the Mills and go back to making everything by hand.
He proposes 5 spin off companies.
Advertising is fine.
It’s not clear that YouTube is profitable. And it does have a big synergy in the immense infrastructure.
Android he admits isn’t a business beyond trying to bill every user for using it.
I doubt Maps has much value except in combination with the ad business unless they stopped doing consumer stuff and mostly focused on GPS and corporate guidance systems. It would be fundamentally different.
With Cloud, he assumes that it is the vendor of every other service. Why would they bother with consumer stuff if they now have to pivot to infrastructure for the successor companies? It would turn into the equivalent of a REIT and would just pay a dividend. That is where investors take companies that have reliable cash cow businesses with limited growth potential.
I even empathise with the monopoly/privacy/advertising concerns. I just think he's either writing a protest article he knows can never be implimented (or taken seriously) OR he's trying to achieve his goal by tricking people into something most don't actually want.
Also email is an interoperable standard so I don’t see a monopoly coming soon, it’s not AOL era anymore.
Before monopolies there is competition, and if monopolies come then break them. It’s not like it never happened before and “these times it’s different”.
Edit: I have nothing against Google but it’s not a charity, if some of their services are now essential and are not adequately provided by private entities then it simple it’s a public service. What would you say if Google was starting a service to give free food? I’m not it’s the big Corp displacing government dystopia future I want.
We're meant to be improving things, not just reverting to the 1940s approach but with a website to look at the paperwork on...
I especially like that, as a cyclist, it always picks the greener path for me to get through Copenhagen. Huge feature over Google Maps for me.
I'd really like to see better transit directions. OsmAnd does have them but not stop-by-stop.
If emails from no-name servers/domains are increasingly dropped/refused (considered spam), is email still interoperable?
As a potential third world user, I would happily pay $50/year for services such as email. I may not be representative of the "average", but really the notion that you need to have the "average" third world user to be able to use the platform is a distraction in these arguments.
WordPress business plan charges only about $7/mo in my country vs $25/mo in other countries. I know this can lead to some fraud etc. but it is a good way to cater to the "average third world user" if you are not trying to turn said user into the product.
There is a company called Zoho which is headquartered in India, which makes world class software, charges very reasonable prices, and is able to pay its employees quite well. And as best as I know, they are not dramatically unique in any way, but just produce solid software combined with a solid roadmap.
Also, it is not as if "first world" tech company policies are just neutral and harmless to third world users. The perfect example of this has to be the way news about Hydroxychloroquine has been distorted beyond all recognition. There are three things which are perfectly obvious to anyone who lives outside the US and is following the news on this:
1 HCQ doesn't actively harm anyone, any more than a random drug would. There is now plenty of evidence to support this. I am not claiming that HCQ is some kind of wonder drug either, but surely many more proper clinical trials would have happened on this topic if Donald Trump wasn't the president today.
2 First world news media has set the entire research on COVID-19 back by at least a few months (with all the associated death count) because they seem more intent on opposing Trump than in solving the actual problem. And as best as I can see, big tech platforms and big tech employees amplify all the anti-Trump news with almost no regard to the actual science on this topic.
3 While this setback is going to affect all countries, it impoverishes third world countries and does a lot more permanent harm to them vis-a-vis the developed world.
Are you a business trying to maximize your profit? Then just charge what you think your service is worth. Use WordPress and Zoho as your inspiration. The "average third world" user doesn't care either way, and frankly people in the first world are probably not smart enough to know all the unintended consequences of trying to do what is right by the third world users. Just do your job, produce a great product, charge a fair amount, and please don't use the third world user as a reason to adopt all kinds of user hostile policies.
There are plenty of large companies on this planet.
Why do you focus on Google?
and why do we see these posts frequently making it to top ten of hacker news?
Additionally, I don‘t think anyone working in the tech industry should want a future where a few large companies control everything. In the long run, this is not in our interest.
Because there's no thing one hate as much as the one that one loved and that then betrayed you I guess.
(Note: I neither loved Google nor hate it now but I'll go as far as admit to being a big fan earlier on and really disappointed now.)
> and why do we see these posts frequently making it to top ten of hacker news?
Because so many of us agree with them. (FTR, I'm an oldtimer with a fresh account.)
I'm guessing either Facebook or Apple is next, but we'll see.
I'm guessing posts like these are popular because many of us agree that it's well past time for an antitrust department to take action against companies like Amazon, Google, Apple, Facebook, and others.
At the same time, why can't someone's blog focus on one? Why can't a given company be held under the spotlight for something? Being asked to criticise all of them, or none of them seems like an unfair criticism. This post being about google doesn't preclude another one being written about all companies, or Facebook, or amazon, etc etc. Getting the ball rolling on even one of these companies would be a good start, so I don't see the harm in people writing posts focusing on one.
Presumably because a lot of people agree with the proposition?
And the idea that you can't name and shame a trillion dollar corporation because there are other big companies around is pernicious. The idea is mistaken, no one should escape scrutiny because there are other bad actors. And if Google isn't big enough to be singled out, who is?
On the other hand, maybe that's a good thing.
Isn't that kind of the point of "break up google" though?
That "they" (big tech) destroy any other businesses in a similar space (video in this case) that isn't similarly an ads or social-media giant? Or that tech "eats the world" in ways that aren't always strictly good?
Twitch's feature set is not that different from YT's at this point. They both have very elaborate streaming services, a financial support mechanism, viewable archives with seeking, automated muting for copyrighted content, and recommendations systems.
In the case of Google/Amazon this makes additional sense because they own the cloud infrastructure, which I assume is the biggest cost of the platforms.
They are stifling competition because they have unlimited funds to throw at anything they want. They should definitely be split up.
My conclusion is that no, users would not get a better service.
But they must have huge hosting costs…
An idea I always had was embedding a big zip or something into the mp4 format and uploading it for storage. Would they save the original files for download or would they be encoded to a lower bit rate and make them unusual. Maybe data encoded in an audio track would be better? Sounds like more than a weekend of experimenting but would be a cool little project.
If YT were not part of Google, they would still need Google-scale infra in order to handle the insane number of pixels they're streaming every second of every day.
Might also be worth considering why there are effectively zero competitors.
The remaining 20% were apparently taken down due to nudity and other policy violations.
To be clear: I have no idea whether they're profitable or not. Just pointing out this article.
I strongly suspect that YouTube is profitable, with all these ads.
I ended up installing Newpipe instead, which is a much better experience.
They don't appear to bug me much though... maybe ublock origin blocks those ads.
Why suspect when you can Google...
"On an annual basis, Google says YouTube generated $15 billion last year and contributed roughly 10 percent to all Google revenue. Those figures make YouTube’s ad business nearly one fifth the size of Facebook’s, and more than six times larger than all of Amazon-owned Twitch."
Microsoft, Amazon, FB, Tencent, etc. swoop in to grab the market share.
Besides, subsidized services are a special case. Especially Maps and maybe YouTube. Yes, YouTube makes a lot of money. But imagine paying market rates for storage, egress/ingress. They would need to focus even more on monetizing absolutely every interaction on the platform.
For all its faults I value the fact that literally every user can create an account and start uploading (practically) unlimited amounts of video for free and have it be available to over 2.5b+ people. All other issues I would put below that very unlikely accomplishment.
> Mark Zuckerberg owns the majority of the voting rights to Facebook due to a dual class structure that weights certain shares over others.
I would like to see eminent domain used to restructure these companies with weird controlling shared structures in to being truly publicly traded companies as a first step. I have no problem with Zuck getting all the money his shares of Facebook are worth, but I have a big problem with him and the unelected Page and Brin having all that power with no recourse for the market. Am I being foolish?
I just don't get that mindset. Private-company Google said "hey, we're down to be public, but Larry and Sergey will always control the company... cool?" And the market said: "yeah whatever give us those shares".
It's not like anyone was holding a gun up to anyone's head, forcing them to buy GOOG. They went into it knowing that their shares' votes would be useless.
Page and Brin are elected: the shareholders have validated their control every day since Google went public; anyone who owns GOOG has either been ok with that arrangement, or foolish to hold those shares.
I don't disagree with that at all, and I would see the current holders compensated for their shares. What I _am_ saying is I don't think society is benefitting from this structure.
> the shareholders have validated their control every day since Google went public
What? No, that's not how that works. The market has decided solely on the current price for Google shares. There's no nuance about what the market thinks about Page and Brin other than they think that the stock is currently accurately price, no more and no less.
True, but those things are not the driving force of the corporate, they're things that the corporate has to do to remain in compliance with the laws of the land. There's a very different mindset between compliance (stuff you do as cheaply and minimally as you can) and your purpose - your raison d'être - the theme that earns the big promotions and holds the attention of the stockholders.
And as for voters deciding what they want the role of a corporation to be... well yes, in the same theoretical sense that voters can decide what sort of healthcare system they want. Or what tax system they want. Which is to say, not at all.
The effective market when it comes to voting shares consists of hedge fund managers like Carl Icahn and Bill Ackman.
Nobody else is organized enough to beat the activist investors and they do all sorts of terrible things with that kind of power.
I mean, except each other, and I think I'm OK with that? I'm not saying this is a whole solution, but making Zuck and co accountable to investors is an _excellent_ start. We got the Magna Carta as a result of rich people competing with other rich people.
My first question is "why?" What is this trying to fix or achieve, on behalf of who? Shareholders themselves can choose to buy or sell as they please, so I'm not worried about them.
The context of this article is monopoly. My feeling on this issue is that (a) it is a major factor in economic and tech progress (2) our current frameworks, in theory and especially in practice, are totally insufficient to deal with it. (3) Monopolistic positions are, paraphrasing Thiel, what most of the tech industry is about.
Beyond that, there is a lot that can be wrong with shareholder control too. One underlooked problem (IMO) is that "a committee is a committee." If money managers have all the control, we have the same company over and over again.
How is this connected to "break up Google" argument?
If this was illegal, I'm sure the SEC would be on it not just for Google but for the million other companies doing the same.
Depending on who you ask antitrust is about the impact on consumers (competition, fair pricing, etc), not about whether some particular footnote to a law was violated due to someone misplacing a decimal point.
FTR the US government has historically in fact made multiple efforts to prosecute companies like Google for violations of the law, so...
We, the people, choose the lawmakers (congress) via election.
I still don't see your argument. How is voting power tied to Tim's post?
"If this was illegal, I'm sure the SEC would be on it" is based on the assumption that laws are infallible text with obvious interpretation, when the history of law enforcement - especially in finance and antitrust - is very fuzzy and about interpretation, with interpretation often down to unelected officials.
Not sure exactly what it is, but it’s more a societal move that smells a bit of socialism. Google is a capitalist company in a capitalist system, but the breaking up companies / anti trust is a non-capitalist power above it that is willing to sacrifice money to create societal wealth.
A capitalist alternative would probably look more like levying fees or capping prices to try and balance the market... which is something that also happens from time to time.
But we don't need to attach moral connotations to this – the companies have done nothing illegal, and the executives are doing their jobs. The issue is when technology is applied to natural free markets, a monopoly logically results, which kills the market if left unchecked.
I guess it's still better than just sending money down the drain like Softbank does...
Imagine Google had filed for bankruptcy at the whims of Larry/Sergey during the 2007-2008 recession instead of buying DoubleClick. I believe that Google IPOed as a $23 billion market cap company.
Google Maps is a great example. The author has no idea if Maps is profitable. What happens if it isn't? You spin it off as its own company, it turns out Google is spending billions driving those camera cars around and has no revenue model (because you just split off Google's advertising business) and within a couple of years Maps can't afford to keep itself up to date, its an expensive unsustainable business (which is why no one else does it) and it either has to sell itself cheap and no one can buy it - because they all know what happened to Google and they don't want their business exploded by regulators. If Google Maps is a huge money spinner (seems unlikely but could happen) well great, you've just created a monopoly that no longer has any incentives for anything other than exploiting their position as a monopoly.
Let’s force Google to be like every other company in needing to constantly extract money from every project quarter by quarter.
Not to mention that it is not clear that any except advertising are viable businesses by themselves.
YouTube wasn’t profitable for a while. Even if it is now, it is probably barely so.
Not sure how Maps would make sufficient money without deep integration with advertising.
Android would just be dead.
For example (and sorry not trying to pick on any team in particular!) compare something like Google+ to Facebook Search, where the team had to actively make the UI worse to use to juice their metrics for FB's onerous performance reviews so they could keep their jobs and continue working on FB Search at all.
Does anyone remember back around the time that Graph Search was a big deal when you lost the ability to directly click on FB Search typeahead results, like starting to type a friend's name and clicking on the suggestion to go straight there? Requiring two clicks instead of one means every one of those searches now counts as a "full" search results page impression =p
Is that going to scale to more than a couple non-technical users?
> if you tried to cut out google entirely from your life your quality of life would drop substantially to the point where it might affect your job and well being. That is the main problem with google and that's why people think it needs to be broken up.
You can say the same about Microsoft Word. When will that be broken up in PowerPoint, Word, and Excel?
Android, also, was an acquisition. Google bought them in 2005 and launched in 2008.
Even their core ad business is mostly-acquired from DoubleClick. Even the "personalized search" they're known for involved an acquisition! Really, the list is amazing.
Fiber would have been great had they succeeded.
Can go on and on...
I agree with the article but have my upvote: this is good counterargument to parts of it.
I think you're actually making the argument for breaking up Google. Their search monopoly is so powerful and so profitable, that they can afford to just throw money away on hundreds of terrible side projects.
It doesn’t demonstrate that it is a monopoly nor that it is a harmful monopoly.
There are plenty of other highly profitable areas of business. They just usually take their earnings instead of investing them in new things.
Are you going to seriously argue that's the case? The companies that created the opioid crisis made a truckload of money off it. Health insurers make tons of money. For that matters, dealing illegal drugs is very very profitable and that's why crime syndicates are involved in it. So is selling weapons to the military, or generally involving yourself in foreign wars.
Thankfully Google, Facebook etc have not had the kind of negative impact the opioid crisis has, but there's a proven record of negative impacts like the whatsapp lynchings.
Profits alone do not indicate something evil. Evil things can be profitable, but the inverse is not necessarily true.
* Large profits don't make Google a monopoly
* Large profits don't make Google evil
However, no one in this thread asserted otherwise. On the other hand, above you assert that large profits alone are enough to qualify Google as a "good business." It's very easy to come up with historical examples of businesses that made lots of money, but which no one would describe as "good."
Google is a monopoly, not because it makes lots of money, but because it is a monopoly. It captures the vast majority of internet search traffic.
How is that a problem? I'm glad we have companies that can afford to experiment.
First search result...
"YouTube generated nearly $5 billion in ad revenue in the last three months, Google revealed today as part of parent company Alphabet’s fourth quarter earnings report."
> Netflix operating expenses for the quarter ending March 31, 2020 were $4.809B, a 18.4% increase year-over-year.
They're obviously not comparable directly like this, but just based on internet bandwidth usage, they're probably in the same ballpark, but netflix has a far, far easier technical problem. They have a relatively small library that can probably be cached easily. Imagine the infrastructure that is behind a youtube CDN.
Oh no. How could they make us pay for the software services. Imo, this mentality needs to go. People spend $$$ in cafe, buy expensive branded clothes, transportation, hanging out with their friends, outside food, and so on. All of those are not necessary but they pay for it. They should pay for the digital services they spend most of their time on now a days. What's different?
Which is how I've been watching YouTube, ad-free for years.
Yeah, no. The problem is Sturgeon's Law: 90% of everything is garbage, and people don't like to pay for something that is mostly garbage.
What is your point here? You want Youtube to be like a cable television company and make money off ads and subscribers?
How does this relate to YouTubes 5BN in revenue?
There's a pretty good case for breaking up Google, but this article doesn't make it. The word "monopoly" doesn't appear once in the whole article, which is pretty weird in an article about how to break up Google and the justifications for doing so. It lists six reasons, and not one of them is about how anybody would be better off if Google were broken up, nor are there any about the legal burdens that must be satisfied to do so.
Instead, we get reasons like "YouTube has become the visual voice of several generations and is too important to leave hidden inside an opaque conglomerate." That's not even an argument. "The world needs Google Cloud to be viable?" That's an argument AGAINST breaking up Google.
You're correct on that! It appears three times.
The "argument" appears to be that if GCP were a separate company, instead of just a bunch of products inside Google, it's not going to get randomly axed like Google Reader was.
The article also goes on to undermine its own argument by noting that a) GCP is now important enough to be broken out in the financials and b) GCP serves a very different class of enterprise customers.
I’m not strongly opinionated either way, but google cloud being connected to the main advertising company is the one of the two major reasons the European public sector isn’t using it. Terrible support is the other major reason.
Maybe google doesn’t want the public sector billions, but something like firebase is actually a better fit for us in a lot of cases than what AWS or Azure has to offer, but we’ll never use it because google won’t guarantee our data stays in Europe or that only European citizens access it like AWS currently does. Likewise, we would never chose to use g-suite over office365, but there you can add a 3rd major reason in that it hasn’t really been updated for 10 years and is now horribly behind office365.
This is my opinion, but I don’t think the services google actually sell for money rather than privacy benefit a whole lot from being a minor part of a major advertising company.
Do these products meaningfully compete? G Suite seems to be the simple version and Office365 seems to be the complex behemoth.
I see them as a shovel vs a backhoe.
Please cite. And is M$ not also advertising? If this ridiculous argument can get people to stop using M$ azure crapfest it might be just the boon I needed.
This was described as the ultimate reason to break up Google. Then he goes on to explain 6 more reasons.
The sudden focus on google is a bit weird, given how non internet companies have been doing their thing in total impunity for decades. Not saying we should not do it, but it would be sane to also ponder if we are being influenced in doing so, and why.
„For many years, the astonishing torrent of money thrown off by Google’s Web-search monopoly [...]“
Feel free to make a better one, I'll upvote that as well ;-)
Starting with companies that make over a billion dollars a year and are in multiple markets seems like an uncontroversial place, though.
The problems don't occur when companies are in multiple markets, arguable that is better for competition and hence the person on the street. The problem is when a company or two dominates a single market.
In the case of the article, it's specifically talking about how Google is doing that.
It would also be bad if one company dominated multiple markets. (just a nit pick on your phrasing)
Anyways, I think all the talk about breaking up google/Facebook etc feels performative at best - never seem see any solid reasons Or arguments. Would be nice to see tech people use their clout for actually monopolies, eg intel, ykk group, Tyson, etc.
So, we want to break up Google because it has gotten too big. What about Luxottica? It has over 80% market share on eyewear brands. What about Pearson? It has over 60% market share on testing market? What about Paypal? It has over 80% market share on online payments. What about Aetna (merged with Humana) on health care market? List goes on..
That being said, Google gets primary access to your personal data and habits, and then also gets to sell advertising based on that data. That's certainly more unseemly than having too few choices for eyewear, don't you think?
And Google has acquired hundreds of companies in the last 20 years.
US anti-trust litigation has degraded to the point of non-existence. Microsoft faced anti-trust charges in 1998 that will puzzle most youngsters in HN today - because both Google and Apple do far-far worse. Destroying all competition via control of the market has become normalised US corporate behaviour. Why has this been allowed to occur ?
For all its faults, the EU appears to notice this when the US doesn't.
Luxottica, Pearson, Aetna - no idea. Perhaps they're having similar discussions on eywear community messageboards and healthcare messageboards where they know about such things?
Or perhaps you can write a sensible, well-reasoned article using evidence on how these companies are similar to Facebook, Google or some other tech behmoth and what the appropriate remedies are or aren't? Just a thought.
Why would people try to cancel Luxottica? Eyewear touches a much smaller market and doesn't have nearly the same potential to manipulate people as Google does (at least not yet). People will always focus all of their attention on the largest threat.
For what it's worth I do think those ones should be broken up as well, no reason to confine our attention just to popular tech companies.
His second article is about breaking AWS out of Amazon, into a fictional company called A-Cloud. And he’s using Amazon’s own project planning process to do so, though I can’t tell if it’s out of habit or for the mordant irony.
All the examples you mentioned probably have a negative impact on the market (and the public), the ones I'm familiar with definitely do.
> What about Luxottica? It has over 80% market share on eyewear brands.
I would assume optometrists and opthamologists argue about that on their own forums rather than this tech forum filled with people mostly from tech.
You can also find it in many marketing strategies of some companies. Take duckduckgo for example, I love them more than google but I'm kinda tired of 'Use us, Because Google is BAD' approach
I'd adopt a salt the earth policy with respect to the spying parts of Google. That'd be a start.
Sadly, there'll be plenty of companies that'll fill its shoes to continue spying on people, and many more that already do.
So much of the modern internet is built on a foundation of spying on users, and most companies will not willingly give up all the dollar signs they see when they think of spying and even more spying on their users and everyone else they can gather data on.
It's super depressing.
Disconnected from the other stuff it subsidizes, what is the massively profitable search business actually supposed to use that money for? Massive dividends? Diversifying into anything just gets them into the same kind of problem immediately, no?
It sort of feels like the main benefit here would be from the proposed privacy law vs. breaking up Google.
Read a little about anti-trust first. Matt Stoller has an excellent, approachable email newsletter called BIG about monopolies.
So splitting off YouTube seems obvious, since it should never have happened. Some of the others are more difficult, since they're not the result of acquisitions. Then again, DoubleClick was a large acquisition, so splitting off Gmail and so on as a proxy for undoing the DoubleClick acquisition probably makes sense, too.
As Bray points out, Google is deliberate vague about a lot of numbers, but reverting acquisitions always seems like a good first step to me.
For example if Chrome would only work with google docs and not microsoft live.
USA does not have laws to break up companies simply for being too big or even for being used by majority of customers.
Who has the domain is not a small problem...
Not sure I'd argue either of those would work, but there are options.
Google, facebook etc. They don't pay tax. Do you? What do you get for your tax? What do they get from tax revenue to which they don't contribute their share?
The kicker is going to be when you think "What if I didn't want to use any google product. And I was willing to pay real money to achieve that. Could I?" Then you realise google still have all your mail and browsing history. Paying. Yep. How? Through the nose.
If you think you're getting Google products and services for free, you're just not paying attention.
It still seems to be a pretty good deal when you compare the bill for GMail, YouTube, Google Search, Drive, Docs/Sheets and Maps to the cost of the phone bill, cable tv, and internet.
"But YouTube definitely has to be its own thing; it’s got no real synergy that I can detect with any other Google property."
This is a funny observation because YouTube was originally an acquisition and its integration with other Google products is very strange. It has at most points in time had its own rules about anonymity, privacy, multiple accounts, etc. Supposedly the gender setting (now google-account-wide) was originally a YouTube piece of data that got repurposed for use in G+ and other services that needed it.
This makes sense.
Maybe then we would see some attention directed back to search quality and to delivering a quality alternative smartphone os (I finally caved and went for iPhone last year after 8 years of waiting for another good Android. Yes, that means I used to like one or two of the early models.)
Arguably Apple also learned the lesson of how valuable Google Maps is. Direct ad revenue from maps is not the only source of revenue. Maps is a key feature of Android phones, (and iOS really) and Android OS is valuable due as a source of search engine traffic. And the money search engine traffic makes is able to invest in more improvements in Maps.
> The online advertising business has become a Facebook/Google duopoly which is destroying ad-supported publishing and thus intellectually impoverishing the whole population
There is a pretty insightful twitter thread from a journalism prof I can't find just now that made a persuasive case that newspapers killed themselves. They had 30 percent margins in the 90's and instead of adding staff and growing the business they focused on cost cutting. Ad-supported publishers kinda did this to themselves, and it was craigslist who knifed their cash cow (classifieds). And really, Craigslist sat on its ass too.
> The world needs Google Cloud to be viable because it needs more than two public-cloud providers.
IDK how Tim thinks public clouds are funded. Cloud vendors have massive startup costs -- every server you buy takes years of customer billing to pay off -- and I don't think anyone is gonna be down for a bond issue for 'we promise to just be like Google but smaller' spinoffs. I can name a dozen public cloud venders, but none have any where near the clout. And yet for some reason Tim isn't talking about why Amazon is a near monopoly.
> the real reason Android exists is that Google needs mobile advertising not to become an Apple monopoly.
This is the same reason Apple Maps exists (and dozens of other services you've never heard of). I have no idea what breaking up Android would accomplish though; Android Inc would pretty much have to replicate the same state of affairs via contracts with Alphabet, with diminished ability to integrate. It's super weird that Nokia face planted a decade ago in their role of providing a third option.
> What we do know is that people who try to make a living as YouTubers sure do complain a lot about arbitrary, ham-handed changes of monetization and content policy.
I don't see how a spinoff saves Youtubers any grief. Tim's general thesis is that Google should spin off it's services, watch the profitable ones thrive and let the break even (or worse) ones die off. If Youtube is a break even affair, I don't see how viewers or content producers benefits from less platform competition in the space. If it's capable of standing alone, what's the harm in Google owning it?
: Google, Oracle, AliCloud, Azure, Rackspace, IBM/Softlayer, Digital Ocean, Saleaforce, VMWare, OVH, Hetzner, Linode,