undefined | Better HN

0 pointsMBCook2mo ago0 comments

I would argue that the root of the problem is that Google was not broken up.

I don’t think one company should own all the stuff that Google does. It gives them way too many perverse incentives over the web.

I’m not saying it’s smart we got here. I’m not saying it’s good we got here. I’m not saying we should be here.

All I’m saying is we ARE here. And given that (effective screw up) I fear this will make things drastically worse.

0 comments

Max-Limelihood2mo ago

> I don’t think one company should own all the stuff that Google does. It gives them way too many perverse incentives over the web.

Does it? It might give them perverse incentives in some cases, but in others it perfectly aligns their incentives by letting them internalize their externalities. The whole selling point of Chrome to executives, and the reason it's introduced so many nice features, is that consolidating means they have an incentive to invest in things that make their websites work better (a better Chrome means a better Google/Gmail/YouTube/Drive).

MBCookOP2mo ago

We all think of them as Google but let’s face it, they’re DoubleClick.

Google feeds DoubleClick. Gmail does too. YouTube is a pure ad play.

Drive/Docs/etc. I’d say drives Chrome and undercuts competitors.

And Chrome? It drives Google. And Google also helps drive YouTube.

They all end in ads.

If Chrome wasn’t owned by an ad company that owned all that other stuff I wouldn’t be as worried. I still don’t like the idea of a Chrome monoculture. But if it was independent I’d be less alarmed.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse