[thebokehwokeh2]

When people say this, what exactly does this mean? If you break Google up into Gmail, Search, Calendar, etc... what stops those from within, who have intimate knowledge of the innerworkings and HR related matters within Alphabet as a whole, from simply secretly colluding and sharing resources off the books?

[dmix]

I’ve asked this question an bunch of times and never got a serious reply. There’s no strong anti-trust angle or end game to these things, it’s purely vindictive because it’s trendy to hate on SV.

Sometimes companies are shitty but it doesn’t justify such a strong hammer. If anything their search products or mobile products would themselves need to be broken up, (or FBs network and Instagram) not the whole company... but even then it’s not like they will go away.

[BoorishBears]

So I don't necessarily support it, and I agree a lot of technical people just hate SV and have no idea what it'd mean, but as a developer I can see some benefits.

Here's an example from Apple:

Only Apple Maps can show you maps on a locked screen.

Until iOS 13 Siri tightly integrated with Apple Music ways no other app could.

Apple Pay is the only payment method that can work with a locked phone.

Only Apple's app store can install apps.

Only Apple's messaging apps can create new contacts.

All built-in apps only call other Apple apps for supporting functionality, for example Reminders will only open Apple Maps, Siri smart suggestions for ETA only work with Apple Maps as well.

All Apple apps get an immense head start of integrating with new APIs and OS features.

-

So if you create a competitor to one of those Apple apps, from day 1 you're at a disadvantage.

If they were broken up, all competitors would be on a much more even playing field with Apple's apps.

And Apple is just an easy example, Android is much more open than iOS, but Google Play Services is still a guillotine over anyone who dares to go against Google's wishes.

Imagine if Google services were separate companies so a claimed misdeed on one couldn't end what is the core of billions of people's online existence...

[zentiggr]

> it’s trendy to hate on SV.

Perhaps, but the vast majority of the hate lands on those companies that are actively screwing over their users, so... I'm happy with vindictive against a billion dollar monolith that I have no hope of ever controlling.

[blihp]

The idea is that breaking up a company will reduce both their resources available to behave badly (cash, infrastructure, people etc.) as well as getting the people in the newly independent organizations to start thinking competitively with each other as well as other companies in the market. If done right, the newly formed entities wouldn't be viewed as the 'same old people under a new name' but rather an entity no longer working toward the same goals if not an outright competitor. (that's in a perfect world... it rarely is perfect) What would keep them from colluding would typically be government/regulatory oversight for some period of time after the breakup with civil and/or criminal penalties being the stick for doing what you describe.

[SkyBelow]

You mean other than the laws that were used to break them up?

Generally, just because someone may find a way around a law is not a justified reason for not having the law.

[Mo_da_Vinci]

Simply, that's an extremely difficult criminal enterprise to pull of especially on an ongoing basis and for what gains? I would only see to do so for spite and active defiance of the law. Is that worth hefty fines, investigations, possible charges and jail time?

A break up usually means many of these people are laid off or move on. Every separate company would have its own books that would either need to be public if they remain public entities or have audited financials that match expenses to revenue and investments. Not an easy thing to hide QTR over QTR. Furthermore, depending on how the companies are broken up, they will be acquired by other companies or PE rather than be stand-alone enterprises. Lastly, whistleblowers.

TL;DR It's not worth it for spite and any significant gains or advantages that are imagined, are probably significant enough to be noticed by the government or some enterprising analyst.