[jmatthews]

You essentially outline why it should be broken up.

I'm not convinced making the ad tech sector more competitive would prompt that outcome but, "It would disrupt mature products" isn't a compelling argument to allow the existence of a monopoly.

Google is a monopoly, they exert monopoly power and enjoy monopoly pricing.

I think the more likely outcome would be more dynamic products under smaller bannerheads.

[roywashere]

If Chrome would need to be sold off, or Android, or Maps, those can only become even more pressured to be monetized for user data, I’m afraid

[casey2]

More pressure than the max? Do you think they are going to start using your password hashes to mine bitcoin?

Whatever Google stopped tracking they did because of regulation not out of user backlash or goodwill.

[ReptileMan]

Or for someone finally to solve the micropayment problem. I don't mind paying the 53 cents it costs google to provide me their services per month with 30 or 40% margin. But I refuse to subscribe for close to zero value services for 10 or 20 dollar a month.

[intended]

I think the point here is that it should be done carefully and thoughtfully.

[nick3443]

This guy Sundars.

[qwertox]

DOGE should read your comment.

[mattmaroon]

Nobody thinks otherwise so what’s the point of such a comment?

[loki49152]

"You essentially outline why it should be broken up."

No, they didn't. They explained why breaking Google up would kill all of those "free" services.

"Google is a monopoly, they exert monopoly power and enjoy monopoly pricing."

No, they aren't. There are a multitude of other ad platforms available for anyone to use. Google has no power to stop them. "Most desirable service" does not constitute a monopoly in an open market. Monopolies can only be created by government dictate, like old AT&T or modern cable companies.

[agarren]

> Monopolies can only be created by government dictate, like old AT&T or modern cable companies.

By virtually every definition I can find, a monopoly is a an entity that functions as the sole, or effectively the primary, provider of a good or service in some market. That seems to perfectly describe Google’s position wrt web-based advertising. Do other ad-platforms exist? Absolutely. Do they exhibit the kind of market dominance or control that Google does? Nowhere close.

> Google has no power to stop them.

Fact? I’d argue that Google’s sheer size and dominance means they don’t need to stop them. Potential competitors simply don’t stand a chance given Google’s size, number of resources, and reach. Explain how that’s not a significant factor into Google “power to stop” a potential rival?

[thomastjeffery]

Monopoly does not mean what you apparently think it means. It doesn't matter that competition ostensibly exists. What matters is that anticompetitive behavior is stifling that competition.

It's not a binary. By distilling the entire concept to a dualist perspective, you have evaporated most of the concept itself.

[hluska]

Sorry but you’re starting with a very poor definition of monopoly. If you define things incorrectly, you can make any point logical but the definition (and point) are still wrong.

[robertlagrant]

> Google is a monopoly, they exert monopoly power and enjoy monopoly pricing.

What is monopoly pricing?

[oezi]

Pricing you can only achieve because you are the only seller.

[HDThoreaun]

marginal cost = marginal revenue is the traditional definition

[YetAnotherNick]

Google is an ad monopoly and ad business should be broken up somehow(I don't know how). Here we are breaking up every business other than ad business.

[lolinder]

This case is about their search monopoly. There is another case pending about their ad monopoly.

And also: breaking everything else off of the ad company is the obvious answer to the ad monopoly. Every other part of Google exists to feed its advertising monopoly and maintain its edge there.

[harrison_clarke]

i like an ad monopoly. it makes ads cost more

[coev]

which makes everything you buy cost more, are you sure you still like it then?

[mrybczyn]

that's an interesting perspective.

are expensive ads higher quality? but are they therefore pushed more to justify the cost?

does the higher cost improve the information conveyed?

[gpt5]

> Google is a monopoly

This argument was stronger a couple of years ago. But search is being commoditized at such a rapid pace that it's not clear that this is true anymore.

When analyst measure companies moats, they measure their strength in years/decades. How many years would you give Google Search at this point?

[raydiak]

https://gs.statcounter.com/search-engine-market-share looks pretty clear to me. If this suit turns into another nothingburger, that moat probably extends from here to the AI apocalypse.

[selfhoster]

> You essentially outline why it should be broken up.

I disagree:

    1) My wife and I have a FREE Gmail account we use for home and other combined interests.
    2) We watch all our streaming (movies, docs, etc.) and TV (Tablo TV DVR for free OTA) using FREE Chrome on Linux laptops in our LR, MBR and one for ambiance that runs all day between the kitchen and LR visible across both rooms showing relaxing aquarium and bird videos. We pay for YouTube Premium and Amazon Prime which we watch on Chrome and Netflix is free with T-Mobile. All courtesy of Chrome and Linux. Chrome is the leading browser. We don't want Edge as our main browser, even though it uses Chrome underneath it, like Windows 11 (which we also don't use) is loaded with Microsoftie crap and garbage.
    3) We have individual FREE Gmail accounts for our individual interests.
    4) I have my own FREE YouTube account for tech videos.
    5) We use only FREE Google Maps, the other map services suck in comparison.
    6) We pay $2 a month for Google Drive because it works well (although there is still no Linux client) it works well in the browser (any browser). Amazon's deal for uploading files doesn't work as fluently, tried it. Microsoft OneDrive works OK but only for large single compressed files in my experience, it gets confused with small files and especially borks .git folders.
    7) Google Search, even in the age of AI (or what we are all calling "AI") is still the  best search engine.
    8) There is no way I will ever use an iPhone. Microsoft got out of the phone market which is great since the only thing I can't stand more than Apple products like Mac (which I am forced to use at work because our COO is a die hard Apple fanboy).. is Windows. That leaves Android which has worked extremely well and is technically FREE except the two biggest vendors are Google and Samsung and in this case, Google sucks because we've had several Google phones and a tablet and all quit working too soon, became useless too soon or batteries failed too soon and Samsung is even worse than Microsoft at loading crap and garbage on their phones.
    9) We pay for everything with FREE Google Pay, it works extremely well and doesn't cost us a dime to use.

Windows, the crap that it is, is the monopoly which is incredible because the OS sucks but not as bad as Mac. We should all be using Linux laptops and desktops.

[hluska]

And again, under an economic definition of monopoly, you have explained why Google should be broken up.

[thomastjeffery]

Have you tried Firefox recently? It's been my favorite for a decade or so. Now that chrome has crippled its extension API, it's objectively better.

I'm not convinced that any of these would change for the worse. Maybe we will start using more content and services that aren't made by Google. That sounds good to me. Of course, the overall situation will be improved the most by breaking up Apple, Microsoft, and Amazon, too.

The fact that you and I are happily using Linux is great evidence that software made collaboratively is better than software made competitively.