Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

I think the most obvious candidate is to split Google and Youtube.



Not at all. It's to split Amazon retail and AWS. Not that I'm opposed to that or not, but it is the most obvious. If you look at templates of prior antitrust action, you'd probably see roadmaps of splitting ad presentation/platform from ad brokering/targeting in all of the companies mentioning.


I might have a different perspective since I live in Norway. Amazon is not as dominating here as in the US.


It is not a monopoly in the US either. People are exaggerating.


AWS has plenty of viable competitors. They should split Amazon-the-website and Amazon-the-supplier-logistics-and-physical-retail-company, and force Amazon-the-website to accept listings from competitors fairly and openly.


I think you're getting downvoted because the "AWS has plenty of viable competitors" is not really material - it's just that Amazon gets anticompetitive advantages as a combined entity.

And that's really a shame, because you're also dead on about the logistics/product point. I almost mentioned that, but it's complicated by competition from Walmart, Target, et al. Upvoted you on that basis. That similar to my point of "ad distribution / ad sourcing" split on FB and Google.


which would be very interesting, as youtube is 100% dependent on Google infrastructure to work (everything from machine learning to data delivery).


And Windows was dependent in Internet Explorer to operate.

And that dependence was both created artificially and then abused.

Why can't YouTube switch to, say, Azure? Or Oracle Cloud? or whatever other magic exists?

Infrastructure exists outside of Google - as did the ability to decouple Internet Explorer from Windows.


windows was never dependent on internet explorer to operate. MS put a simple DLL with HTML and other web tech in the OS, making it easier to serve up help and other content. What they did (IMHO) was completely reasonable in terms of OS integration. Look at ChromeOS today- it's the same idea, taken to its logical conclusion.

People often misrepresent the MS trial.


> And Windows was dependent in Internet Explorer to operate.

I mean it was and still is dependent on MSHTML for rendering things like the help system as well as rich text in many pre-XAML apps. You don’t want the icon on your desktop, fine, but it certainly is a core part of the OSs rendering system.


By definition, since it's owned by Google. You can apply the same logic to any proposed split.


Not really; chrome and Android are far more independent.

YT is integrated at every level from infrastructure on up. It depends on Google-internal libraries which are in turn integrated with other parts of the infrastructure... It would pretty much amount to a full from-scratch rewrite of almost the entire product.

Moreover, I'd question whether other providers even have the available public resource capacity to support YT.


Or give both Youtube and Google ownership of the affected code, and let them develop separately from the split.


Sure, but those issues can be solved, both short-term and long-term.


I can't really see how. It would literally cost billions of dollars, be extremely wasteful in terms of duplicated efforts, consume millions of SRE and SWE hours, and the result would be slower and worse in many ways. Then people would complain that youtube sucked even more.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: