[switch11]

this is an excellent point

Google pushes Chrome EVERYWHERE

Now that Chrome is the leading browser they are turning off targeting for everyone else, so that only Google has access to target users

The solution is to STOP the monopoly of Search

So that a new thing like Google Chrome can't happen i.e. Search can't be used to take over another space

[henriquez]

Why not split search and AdWords while they’re at it? There are too many perverse incentives created by the combination of Google’s ad monopoly with their search monopoly.

[irrational]

Don’t the ads fund the search engine? If search was its own company, where would its funding come from?

[eitland]

They could sell ad spots like everyone else has to ;-)

[mancerayder]

Why not offer two Googles, one for people who don't mind sifting through three pages of SEO results when they search for actual information, and another subscription that cuts out ads for those willing to shell the cash?

[paulcole]

On average, if you’ve got enough money to pay to not see ads you’re exactly the kind of person who people will pay handsomely to show ads to.

[dannyw]

For example. If you’re looking to refinance a home loan; you’re easily worth $100-$300 of revenue to Google; with a decent number of searches and clicks (eg “refinance”, “mortgage interest calculators”, etc)

[CydeWeys]

Advertising. Advertising companies (one of which would be Google Ads) would pay them for access to add displayed on Search.

[shajznnckfke]

If Ex-Google Ads has the best ad marketplace and can use the space most efficiently, they will bid the most and buy most of the space. So we will still have Ex-Google Ads on Google searches, but they will be owned separately. What difference will it make?

[CydeWeys]

They would be owned, operated, and governed separately, and Search could have the different ad providers compete amongst each other to provide the best rates. Add it all up together and it'd be a huge difference. Each of the two separate companies would have separate management and a fiduciary duty to maximize their own profit independently, even at the expense of the other.

Consider that Verizon and AT&T, the two largest mobile phone providers in the US, are both Baby Bells resulting from the break-up of Bell Telephone Company in an anti-trust action. They compete strongly against each other, in a way that would absolutely not be true if they were still the same company.

[shajznnckfke]

Agreed that breaking up a company horizontally into two competing companies creates competition between the two companies. Here we’re talking about breaking up Google vertically into two companies with a supplier-client relationship. The supplier and the client aren’t going to be competing with each other because they are in two different businesses.

[checkyoursudo]

I just want to note that there is no fiduciary duty in US law to maximize profits. That is permitted, but not required. E.g., https://www.lawschool.cornell.edu/academics/clarke_business_...

[bdcravens]

The Baby Bell breakup was 36 years ago, resulting from antitrust action brought 46 years ago. Moreover, AT&T and Verizon have consolidated six of the seven Baby Bells into the 2 companies.

[nl]

> Now that Chrome is the leading browser they are turning off targeting for everyone else, so that only Google has access to target users

What - in detail - does this mean?

Because it doesn't appear true in anyway I can see. I can still buy ads exactly the same way targeting the same characteristics I've always been able to.

[dannyw]

They are blocking third party cookies. This doesn’t impact Google because they track visits directly from chrome://history

[nnt38]

Something you as a user can disable.