Since they're talking about small publishers having trouble keeping up with google SEO updates, is there a reasonable way to actually break up google search?
The problem is not SEO updates. The problem is that there is only Google and no one else.
Google, under Eric Smidt,start prioritizing big/branded sites over mom-and-pop. Nothing wrong with it - their search, their choice. The problem is that because they have overwhelming market share, there is no other choice left for smaller sites, but to shut down.
They have overwhelming search market share not just because of search algo, but because they own the hardware that powers it, they own the browser which delivers those result, they own the analytics which tells them more about you and they own the ads on every site you go to.
A startup should have the right to compete with Google - even if they dont build their own browser, even if they dont build their own analytics, even without the huge hardware farms and even without the ad engine that powers google.
Once we split Google up, these network effects go away. Smaller startups can compete with Google on a relatively better footing. There can be more than one search providers and hopefully some of them can favour smaller shops as opposed to bigger brands.
From a "supporting startups and other peoples business ideas" your point makes sense, but from a consumer perspective it really doesn't.
You're advocating for limiting a companies ability to provide a product to the customers that the customers want, so that others are able to compete. Using regulation and laws to hamstring a companies ability to provide a successful and demanded product or suite of products doesn't improve things from a consumer standpoint, it actually limits both the product they have now, and the products that may be developed in the future in the space you opened up with regulation.
The combined ecosystem of google is optional (I use google services in multiple browsers, I block all adds including google, the hardware it runs on is irrelevant to me, I could use bing or other search providers if they offer better results, sometimes I do).
The fact is the google ecosystem is convenient, but its not a huge value add for the customer like you represent. I'm able to switch out any one google product for a competitor without a significant impact to my daily working life, but none of those other products that startups or others have provided are better than what google offers (browser, email, search). Even Amazon has taken android and stripped out the google suite, and that is a successful product showing that it can be done and has been done.
Startups have always had the incumbent/entrenched product to deal with. If its significantly revolutionary and disruptive, that overcomes the incumbents advantages of size, exposure and entrenchment. The issue is Google is not only innovating at the large scale, but actively seeks out and purchases startups with approaches that are better and implements those in house (sometimes, or just squashes the startup and moves the IP and people elsewhere for its own benefits).
Large companies like MSFT, Apple, GOOG, Salesforce etc.. have learned that at scale, you can't innovate as quickly due to unavoidable corporate overhead, but you can purchase innovation and implement it internally (some do it better, many worse). If the problem is google doesn't have any competitors/startups that are able to break into the market, its either due to a lack of innovation/disruption in that market segment, or if there is, google/others are purchasing that rather than compete against it.
How about Google is forced to split up into two competing general search engines? Google is a monopoly, little different from Bell in the 1970s. Bell was forced to split into two corporations due to anti-trust laws: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breakup_of_the_Bell_System
Bing is so relatively tiny that its existence hardly matters. If Microsoft can't compete effectively against Google, then who can?
Edited to add: Perhaps the main problem is that Google has access to waaaaay more data than anybody else. They know what everyone is searching for. They know which search results get clicked on. The data that you would need to have any hope of building a better search engine is all owned by Google, so there is no real hope of competing with them.
Microsoft has access to information on what you do on your PC to feed into Bing. It's not a data quantity gap. And Bing has overlapping results for a lot of queries.
If you mean "relatively tiny" in terms of traffic, how do you know that's not just brand recognition at this point---Google still thought of as a "search engine company," MS as "an OS and business software company dabbling in search?"
So what about non-tech companies? And what makes a ‘tech’ company? Ford Motor Company is a tech company by pretty much any definition but one of their assembly line employees produces much less cumulative value than a Google engineer.
So you will tell Ford to shut down assembly lines to meet some arbitrary cap? That’s going to make manufactured goods either skyrocket in cost or, result in companies like Google or Ford just moving outside the US.
And what’s the benefit to the consumer of a broken up Google? Will I get a better search engine? Is the current one most people use somehow broken? Or is this all just philosophical? Meaning.. is there a startup right now that can’t compete because of Google? Is Google actually preventing them from building infrastructure, hiring people or doing really whatever they want?
Remember when Apple was born? HP and IBM were juggernauts. But a new innovative company eventually dethroned the both of those companies. Actually Apple dethroned every single company since Apple is the most valuable company on the planet. And it started in a garage going against the ubiquitous Big Blue.
We don’t need to break up anyone — we need people reading this to start building some real shit. With all the effort put into crypto currencies and other such trendy nonsense — how many people have tried to build and market better search? How many people are actually trying to solve hard problems that people care about? Honesty, nobody in the real world cares about Bitcoin. Google has a “monopoly” because it seems like nobody is trying to make something better!
If Google search were actually bad but we were still forced to use it, that would be an abuse of a monopoly position. However, Google actually works pretty good most of the time. It literally works better than any other search engine I’ve tried. So, for that reason, we break up the company? That’s ridiculous. How about putting that effort into making something better? Breaking up the leader just because they are literally too popular? That’s crazy.
Didn’t some ridiculous juicer raise tens of millions of dollars? Didn’t Mattermark waste $17 million or so just to gather startup data? Is there nobody actually trying to compete with Google?
My point is that the problem isn’t Google; it’s the attitude that Google can’t be beaten. ANY company can be beaten — it doesnt take the government, it takes motivated people.
Many companies already "outsource" internal IT, support, testing, finances, HR, ... to virtual companies sitting in the same offices, just to make public numbers nicer (any unexpected cost is hidden from investors by paying premium).
Wouldn't this be possible across tech teams as well? To meet some cap rules?
Might be ok as long as the virtual company is independently owned. Nothing stops them from selling the same function to other companies also.
That being said, I havent completely thought through this strategy - it might require additional regulation to work or there might be a better approach altogether.
There is no line. The state shouldnt intervene in business as much as possible. But search is at the core of the internet and an increasingly connected society. Its too important to be allowed in the hands of a single company.
Wikipedia doesnt own 90% of the 'knowledge base' market - maybe not even 9%. If it did, then there might be a case for it too.
Google, under Eric Smidt,start prioritizing big/branded sites over mom-and-pop. Nothing wrong with it - their search, their choice. The problem is that because they have overwhelming market share, there is no other choice left for smaller sites, but to shut down.
They have overwhelming search market share not just because of search algo, but because they own the hardware that powers it, they own the browser which delivers those result, they own the analytics which tells them more about you and they own the ads on every site you go to.
A startup should have the right to compete with Google - even if they dont build their own browser, even if they dont build their own analytics, even without the huge hardware farms and even without the ad engine that powers google.
Once we split Google up, these network effects go away. Smaller startups can compete with Google on a relatively better footing. There can be more than one search providers and hopefully some of them can favour smaller shops as opposed to bigger brands.