People always seem to conflate winning and monopoly which is false.

If Amazon achieve their goal, you won't have the option of going to your neighborhood supermarket.. because it will have either been run out of business or acquired by Amazon.

"Amazon has definitely pioneered online commerce and has excelled at providing a very engaging customer experience and executing the complex supply-chain steps of delivery purchases to consumers. But its success is not the result of that alone. Amazon has also greatly benefited from many years of resolute avoidance of sales tax collection on purchases, giving it an inequitable and potent strategic pricing advantage over bricks-and-mortar retailers that have complied with sales tax requirements. A recent study found that households in states where Amazon collects sales tax reduced their Amazon purchases by eight percent after sales taxes collection was implemented. The effect is more pronounced for large purchases, where the decline was 11 percent. This advantage is slowly coming to an end, but, over the years, it has cost states and cities billions of dollars in lost revenue, while forcing local retailers to compete with one hand tied behind their backs." - https://www.indiebound.org/spotlightamazon

While I believe that Amazon probably would have won regardless of sales taxes, emphasizing "fairly" seems a bit strong.

Walmart was contained to its brick and mortar footprint (no one in NYC for instance could use it). Amazon available to the entire population.

The obvious place to start splitting is to separate search from other things, like a non-search ad business, an OS, a browser, a mail client, a mapping and navigation business, and hey, another OS.

But I don't think it's impossible to split up search, either. I'm sure that Google doesn't just have 1000s of people working together in one big room with no structure. Their current organizational lines could tell us a lot about useful ways to break it up. Historically, for example, there were search infrastructure providers like Inktomi that sold services to consumer-facing search engines. Maybe a crawling-and-archiving group is separable; there are times I sure would have paid Google to use their crawl rather than doing my own. Parts of search were previously separate companies that perhaps could be spun out again. E.g., a lot of the structured-data stuff was once Metaweb.

You silo the search engine segment of the business as one company, the advertising segment as a separate business, etc etc. Alphabet is more than just the Google search engine at this point.

You would probably split google's search engine off from the rest of their services/products, so that they can't use their search engine dominance to unfairly harm competition.

Similarly, you could divide Amazon into a platform company that does fulfillment for others and a separate company that sells their own products, as well as splitting off things like AWS into their own companies.

Maybe that's not the right line to split across.

Keep search intact but mandate that it must offer equal access to 3rd parties to match any access it has internally.

(How you do this without a privacy disaster I'm not so sure about)

I'm thinking along the lines of privately held public infrastructure like local loop unbundling in telecoms.

a study of Standard Oil is really instructive. It is not a matter of there being no competition, it's a matter of having such market power that you can dictate rates for your competitors. Standard Oil got paid every time a railroad shipped a competitors oil!