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.