[domtom1]

I can't beleive more people who think tech companies are bloated dont use this argument. Its super obvious to people who can build a Twitter clone or even a website. Even if you wanted to get a product off the ground you could probably hire a bunch of people and then let 75% of them go once its built, keep 25% for maintenence. Google however I think is different. They built a simple UI with some algorithmic genius behind it. Much like we are seeing with openAi and ChatGPT. Then they started to just diverge into seperate things like AI for instance. But they maintained their best product.

[onlyrealcuzzo]

Even what people think of as Google.com - simply "search" is a decently diversified product (not business, it's all ads).

There's traditional web search.

Maps.

Images.

Video (which is essentially YouTube integrated into Google Search).

Each of these products would be Fortune 250 companies on their own.

Obviously, it's all powered by the Ads team / business.

But that's two majorly different parts - Google's 1P ads (including video), and the display network (3P ads).

None of this is useful without a gigantic analytics org.

And that's just "search".

Cloud & G-suite would each also be Fortune 100 businesses.

[propogandist]

> But they maintained their best product.

maybe years ago, this is not the case now.

[ROTMetro]

Yes, the internet turning to garbage is the aggregators' fault. When I go to Spotify and modern music sucks, I blame Spotify for aggregating it.