That works to some degree, but there's some point at where it is more beneficial to just spin the platform into its own company and let it be regulated while all your other services can operate freely without having to hide most of their revenue.

Sure, some of your IP moves to a new company that is more restricted in how it can operate. But at least your marketplace doesn't hold back everything else your company is doing.

PG&E is fine with this model and they don't have to give up their IP or profits. Essentially it would turn Google and the other tech platforms into legal monopolies. That being said, I think this is probably the best way we can keep getting awesome technology from Google while at least having some government oversight. I kinda feel like were getting to the point in human evolution where we need giant giant groups of people to work together to solve really big technical problems. While problematic on many levels, a government sanctioned and regulated monopoly around google could potentially accomplish those things.

>If I ran a company that had a platform as described, and we were approaching the 25bn mark, I'd find ways to make sure we never crossed that line.

I feel like shareholders wouldn't be very happy with this

>Hiding revenue is something multi-national corporations do really well.

I thought it was profits that were easily hidden. Hiding revenue seems like it would be very difficult.

> Losing IP to what would become a 'public utility' would discourage me from ever trying to develop beyond the 24.9bn mark.

(it wouldn't be a public utility but) I feel like that's kind of the point? Encourage dozens of smaller (if multi-billion counts as "small") businesses to thrive rather than one 25bn+ business. And if you do want to go big, you have to do it in a way that lifts up significantly smaller businesses.

Ok, works as intended.