We're going to do this and open technology back up to innovation and progress, or just watch the tech giants continue to grow in power and abusiveness year after year while new startups continue to decline.
Let's be real here. None of these megacorps are getting broken up any time soon. We haven't had a trustbuster in office for a very long time. The megacorp/lobbyist/politico triopoly has ruthlessly, slickly snuffed out any perceived opposition for quite a long time.
Economic incentives for innovation and disruption are greater when a monopolistic entity is over charging for it's good or service. If they are not over charging then there is not as great an incentive to innovate or disrupt. If the latter is the case, why bust a monopoly that is providing a fair service?
Care to back that up, or are we supposed to take your, frankly, very unorthodox views at face value? Every industry I can think of with entrenched monopolies sees almost no innovation until things get so bad that they are finally disrupted: aerospace, energy, advertisement, telecommunications, and the list goes on and on.
Intel's virtual monopoly of microprocessors has led to AMD's recent advancements: https://seekingalpha.com/article/4247790-intel-vs-amd-battle... https://www.tomshardware.com/news/amd-vs-intel-cpu-market-sh...
Check out the historical market shares in the links. Markets have changed in time with respect to computing. People are opting for mobile devices which use arm processors(even breaking into server space). Unless the behemoths in the industry adapt, their industry may not exist in the future. That is innovation and disruption happening right now.
Intel had in 2018 90.4% of the desktop/notebook/server market with 96.8% of the server market share. Maybe this is only Intel vs. AMD stats. Are servers run with other processors?
Standard oil(Arguably the most notorious monopolistic company in the history of the United States) by comparison: "At one point, it was believe that they controlled somewhere between 88% to 91% of all the oil in the United States"
Railroads still are. If you mean transport in general, it's because the government build a huge number of roads, waterways, and airports.
You're not a Google customer. Advertisers are the customers. Your attention is the product.
Again, anyone who does not get an invoice from Google every month is not a customer.
I know virtually nothing about antitrust law, and I'm not a lawyer, so I'm speaking largely out of my behind, but those seem like logical-enough divisions.
It's Facebook's version of Google's DoubleClick.
https://www.cnet.com/news/momentum-grows-to-break-up-big-tec...
Amazon Freight, AWS and marketplace, if one wishes to keep going.
AWS is a $400 to $600 billion market cap company right now if it were trading on its own, based on its operating income and the insatiatable market demand for anything cloud. The ticker is even available conveniently. They'll get to $150+ billion in sales and $25+ billion in operating profit in the next six to seven years (average of 21% annual growth over seven years; very much within reach). It might approach being a trillion dollar company a decade from now (at MSFT type multiples).
You'd split Facebook and Instagram as the most obvious separation line (and then do something with WhatsApp, it can be spun off or go with either or; FB already has messenger, so it probably shouldn't go with that entity).
Instagram is a $100+ billion publicly traded company on its own plausibly. There is some question on erosion in both FB and Instagram once you detach them from eachother. They both lose a huge protective moat and cross promotion (Instagram has become a lot more mature at this point, it'll be more at risk to userbase erosion going forward, versus say five years ago; and FB is definitely at high risk for userbase erosion with fewer moats).
Amazon Studios would be the same business model as any other independent TV/film production company.
Amazon marketplace operates on very slim margins to stay competitive, but it's hard to believe it couldn't be profitable on its own. Maybe it would have to settle for slightly less universal domination.
Many businesses make money by exclusively selling through Amazon, so there's no reason they couldn't spin off a profitable business that sells Amazon Basics and whatever other store brands they produce.
Whole Foods is obviously a viable business.
I doubt Ring was profitable but it was clearly capable of getting VC money on its own. If it can't be a viable business, why did they start it? And why did VCs invest in it?
Twitch was profitable before acquisition.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_vs._Google#Goog...
I think it's a good start. All ancillary Google businesses outside of search/ads should be required to run at arms length IMHO.
Google is infinitely worse than Amazon and Facebook put together.
They just so happen to be an advertising company so they internet doesn't know about it yet.
> They just so happen to be an advertising company so they internet doesn't know about it yet.
Could you share your reasoning for coming to that conclusion?
Clandestine support of privacy researchers to publish favorable content.
They have normalized the concept of sharing your data to the internet and monetizing it. At least Facebook and Amazon are accountable for their actions.