That obviously wouldn’t be a simple job, of course, and maybe there are some interesting reasons why it wouldn’t work well.
What would be the revenue model for their search then?
Doesn't that make them an ad business?
Pre Split:
- Company A
- provides: search
- sells: ad space
- Company A
- provides: search
- sells: ad space
- Company B
- (re-)sells: ad space
If post-split that’s company B, I’d argue that is a genuinely new structure with some different properties.
Company A would still have an ads team to manage the integration, but they would explicitly outsource ad selection to (potentially) multiple partner companies.
What you're describing is exactly what Google ads are today.
I read OP's proposal as separating Google search business (search + search ads) from its third-party ad business (e.g. AdSense).
Given the complexity of (a) Google's search and ad integrations and (b) the adtech landscape as a whole, this would be difficult to do legislatively. That leaves settlement with the DoJ, a costly and time-consuming path.
The author's suggestion is not exclusive against a break-up of Google. Its moderation and basis in precedent, however, make it something multiple agencies--not just the DoJ--could implement. Including Congress.
It would be easy to write a law, not to pass one. Generally speaking, when a law is unpredictably disruptive it becomes (a) difficult to pass and (b) time-consuming and costly to defend in court.
This is a rare instance where anti-corporate leftists and dejected right wingers could actually do something substantive together.
In most cases I would agree with you the defenders of private industry are pretty fierce in the US, but all that ideology sort of dissipates when you feel like you are being oppressed (whether or not, or to what degree it is true).
Potentially. It's still more difficult than the author's index proposal. No reason they can't be pursued in parallel.
Regarding a search-ad break-up, I'd guess there would be lots of wrangling over (and lobbying around) defining search and advertising. For example, is Amazon's product search tied to an advertising business, given it sells third parties' products?
And breaking Microsoft's attempted browser monopoly required the DoJ.
To be clear, I believe we will eventually have to break apart--at the very least--Google and Facebook. But there are advantages to the author's proposed tactic of making the index public. It's a cleaner, cheaper, and quicker solution and doesn't harm the odds of a future break-up.
Apple and Google competed. Government intervention is rarely the right answer. A bunch of people who are both beholden to lobbyists and ignorant to technology won’t produce the outcome people think it will.
Besides, the last thing anyone should want is more government power. Given the choice between trusting the government - that has the power to take away my liberty and my money - with more power or trusting private corporations, I have much more to fear about government.
The slap on the wrist from the DOJ didn’t lead to decreasing dominance on Microsoft. Google/Facebook/Apple competing did.
A search engine is not life or death. Google doesn’t stop anyone from creating a website and reaching consumers other ways.
As someone outside of the tech bubble, this statement always confuses me. I see it once a week or so on this site. Someone will say 'well, company x is doing y, what's to stop you from just disrupting them and working around?"
Because people get their information in consistent, and predictable ways. And one of those main ways is to search for it using a popular website, so popular it's literally called 'googling' something.
If you are an unknown, a search engine is literally life and death for your company, from what I can tell.
Again, I'm outside the tech sphere, so maybe I'm just ignorant. But I don't think so.
I’ve worked for B2B companies that actually had a sales team.
Outlaw ad tracking in some way.