Hell, do all the “to big to fail” megacorps.

I worry what a broken up Adobe would do to workflows. One of the reasons I can do what I do is because Photoshop, Illustrator, After Effects and Premiere all work with each other.

Now if we want to save Behance and Frame.io, substance, Mixamo, etc, I am all for that.

I remember the days of google being a cool startup that had just made news releasing gmail with a whopping 1GB of storage making everyone go crazy for the invites. It’s a strange feeling.

No, Amazon next.

did somebody specifically ask you to look at this and comment? just wondering why are you asking such a weird question

No one really knows yet.

This could affect you in several ways:

Search Experience: If Google is broken up or forced to share data, you might notice changes in how search engines operate. Competitors like DuckDuckGo or Bing could become more competitive, offering better privacy, search results, or features, potentially giving you more choices.

Privacy and Data: If Google is required to share data, there might be concerns about how your data is handled across different platforms. On the flip side, increased competition could lead to better privacy practices as companies vie for users.

Technology and Services: Google’s services are deeply integrated into many products and platforms. A breakup could impact the availability, integration, or performance of these services, which might affect how you use technology in your daily life.

Economic Impact: Google’s size and influence mean that any major changes could have broader economic impacts, potentially affecting industries related to technology, advertising, and beyond. This could indirectly influence job markets, investment trends, or even consumer prices.

Overall, these changes could alter how you interact with the internet, your privacy, and the services you rely on daily.

“They said smugly without an ounce of depth in their argument.”

Microsoft already lost an anti-trust suit in 2001. It’s in the article if you care to read it.

How do the people who make this comment every single time something like this happens, expect change when no one’s allowed to be first?

This… Isn’t how large scale technologies work. Not even close, not even “same planet” close.

You could open source all ~15,000+ repos from my company, and be entirely incapable of actually operating the grand majority of it.

And we’re, maybe, 1/10,000th the size of Google on the tech side.

You also can’t just “split” a single technology apart, that’s gloriously, ignorantly, simplistic.

It’s going to be a nightmare to just rip seemingly unrelated, but interdependent, verticals of Google apart. Your request here is wholely unrealistic.

Antitrust comes in waves in the US. First, it’s a free for all to let the tech develop freely…then you see the horrors and a time of antitrust kicks in. This would be the 4th wave since the Sherman Act. Let’s hope it’s a good one.

Keep going I’m almost there

Amazon.

Ah yes, but you see, the US government only cares about faceless corporations, business owners and other rich people, and not about the average citizen, sorry. In fact, I would argue most governments are like this.

I would say even one a year would be too much.

That unless the business has failed and is no longer operating, for a merger and acquisition to occur they would have to petition the courts for permission first.

Imagine the shit that Microsoft and Google and Adobe and Amazon would be doing if they had to start their companies from scratch and compete against the already extant players in the field?

It would create so many jobs, and create an excess of consumer choice opportunity, lowering prices and fighting against inflation far more than a couple of percentage points on the interest rate index ever would.

I’m tired of only being offered incredibly overpriced very shitty low quality options in every single category.

We don’t need $100,000 cars. We need $5,000 cars.

We don’t need $1,000,000 homes, we need $25,000 homes that anyone in America who works a full-time job regardless of if they’re slinging fries at McDonald’s or digging ditches can afford.

We don’t need $100 a week grocery bills. We need $5 a week grocery bills.

Buying out companies takes longer than a year usually.

Buyouts shouldn’t be allowed by default. The only cases where it should be allowed are when the business being bought out is struggling to the point where a buyout is really the only way to prevent bankruptcy. It should never be a good deal for the selling company and only a last resort to stop closing doors completely.

One thing that I’ve always found interesting is that silicon valley has a common start up strategy that is basically: do well enough to get bought buy your bigger competition. Basically, be a threat so your VCs can cash in when a Google, Facebook, etc buys you.

I’m other words, Silicon Valley has a start up culture that feeds an anticompetitive/anti-trust ecosystem. No one complains because they are all making money. It’s the users who slowly suffer and we end up were we are not with 5 companies running the modern web and Internet infrastructure.

Can I vote for YOU for president?

I’d go further, restrict the market cap for businesses so they have to spin off if they get too big. Add to that a value limit for the number of boards you can sit on so 30 companies can’t be controlled by the same people.

It won’t. It simply benefits Apple and Amazon who should have been broken up a decade ago

Amazon literally has had a mostly worldwide monopoly

Don’t forget that the right wing has a hard-on for Google. People like them are Apple’s target market (I guarantee their families were the first to get iPads) and don’t forget their really warped questions during the congressional hearings which demonstrated that they had done absolutely no research and had a huge inherent bias. Stupid questions like “if I walk 3m to the right, can you guys see that”. Or, why does president Trump come up as the first hit on Google for loser

I support this, but only if it happens to all 3 companies simultaneously . Otherwise, we’re just transferring more power to Apple (who honestly have followed some Trump style tactics over the last 25 years)

I get the idea behind a duopoly, but from an economics and game theory point of view, but, if applied unequally, another monopoly will simply take advantage.

Capitalism finds a way.

Isn’t it already licensed under permissive Apache v2? Anyone can fork and carry on the project without the permission of Google, every manufacturer already does as a result of the license.

“you kids break it up or I’m gonna do it for ya”

• your mom probably, also the justice department