For various reasons people seem upset at "big tech". But I don't see how breaking Google (Alphabet?) into separate units will make anyone happier? It is not apparent to me how that would stop fake news or better moderation or less censorship or whatever people want.
Does anyone know?
2. Freeze the scope of the company. Google's 15 years since IPO has been that of a whale under the guise of a "search" company, hoovering up plankton in M&A largely just to snuff out competitors.
More generally, if "Search" is a function of products, a well-behaved business would sell the infrastructure to do "Search" rather than seeking to undermine every other product and marry it to "Search" it's just a sign of pathological investment, and public companies have a reputation of being regulated.
OTOH, this could be a sign that regulators are happy with Google's size and market position, and maybe DAU "growth" is finally over, and the massive product-quality volatility we've all been wrung through the past decade is finally over too. Or just create enough uncertainty that FAANG doesn't become the new punchbowl.
The value to consumers is hypothetically that splitting it up will increase competition in the ad tech space. This will in turn lower ad spends from brands and hopefully push their real metrics to be more accurate, less fraud, etc. This will in turn lower advertising spend for these brands will which theoretically end up in lower costs to consumers.
Some other random thoughts. 1. Why would google (or any of them) make a good faith effort to stamp out fraud when it is lining their pockets? They are so big their really isn't a strong alternative and brands can't choose to just not play. 2. Why should the dominate browser effectively drive the privacy/tracking conversation for the largest ad tech player? This is an inherent conflict of interest and is unlikely to lead to better privacy for the consumer. 3. Why should a company that benefits from tracking/analytics be driving the development of one of the top 2 OS for mobile. On face value we are heading towards a world where buyers have to pay a premium for privacy (arguably iPhone, debatable), but android (largely budget phones) have no such or at least inferior protections. Why would they ever strengthen consumer privacy on mobile if its lining their pockets now.
Personally, I like the idea of a monopoly on ads: a competitive market would mean lower prices and more supply. Only the average human doesn't want to see more ads. Or have less free cash to spend on services that are free to consumer like Gmail, Maps etc.
I wonder if people cheering this know they're basically demanding to have to pay for email and to have even more ads on YouTube.
I worry they think this will mean more/less moderation etc and they're being sold a bill of goods...
If we introduce competition, and it works like it is meant to, then:
* Ads will be cheaper
* There will be more Ads
* Both the free cash for AND willingness to spend on a load of things Google gives away for free (gmail, maps, drive etc) goes down so they vanish
How does this help anyone other than people who make ads? 99% of us will be worse off if this succeeds right?
Another poster has made a decent point about privacy (since 5 mini-googles would all only have 20ish percent of the data one big one has). But that's the only prospective upside I see so far.
> 99% of us will be worse off if this succeeds right?
I think people have gotten the idea that competition is good for its own sake. But it's not, it's just a means to an end of getting more quality, lower prices etc... If an industry is obviously making excessive profit, that's a good case for competition being in the public interest. With complex industries like advertising (when the "product" is actually of no interest to the main "consumer") it's much more complex than just "lower prices means success"...
So we've established we can't trust Google. Now we try something else.
So no, your assumption has proven to be incorrect.