The market for these loss-leading services is skewed because Google subsidizes their free offerings so that they improve their ads branch. Because it is hard to compete with a free (actually money-losing) service, it is very hard for competitors to spring up. And thus the whole thing is anti-competitive.
If they were separate companies and had to compete on their own merit, not subsidized by the ads division, they'd have to ask for money too. Then, competitors actually have a chance to offer something better.
And through that, the reach of the ads business is limited unless they start to work with the competing services. This opens up the market for other ad markets, too.
And then we are a step closer to the free market that is efficient and good for consumers.
The argument "but if you spin off this major part of the company, it wouldn't be profitable enough to survive on its own" is the whole damn point. Using your monopoly in one area to prop up an otherwise-unprofitable arm controlling another area is exactly the kind of behavior antitrust law is designed to combat.
Too many people (especially around here) seem to forget that.
> And then we are a step closer to the free market that is efficient and good for consumers.
With Apple, Amazon and Microsoft doing the same in same markets... are we? Because it doesn't seem like "whap the random company that didn't pay enough for marketing" strategy isn't really working into establishing proper competition that benefits society.
Maybe... a different approach needs to be taken? How about starting to talk about legislation which would force large companies to allow competition into their vertical integrations - ALL of them, not just the single pet megacorp we hate this week. Level playing field and all that.
How would the market change in the wake of such a move? I can imagine that other companies will try to rebuild what Google was in other form. And these companies might not be US entities.
> Android -- a cost center. No viable business model. Maybe Samsung would fork AOSP for their phones.
The Android company could simply get paid licensing fees for its OS and extras like Microsoft? Or maybe AOSP would instead continue as a intercompany project somewhat similar to Linux (the kernel).
> Cloud -- has to run at a loss in the immediate future to capture marketshare
That's dumping and I don't think it should be allowed so routinely anyway.
> Email -- nobody pays for email. Get ready for a much smaller mailbox and ads targeted by email contents. Get "sponsored" emails in your feed.
So, if people care they can pay for the paid service.
> YouTube -- was a separate company before
Was it profitable through? I see Alphabet published revenue numbers but I didn't find profit numbers. So maybe it would be hit by costcutting like limiting video length in some cases.
> Maps -- will become a free tourist map, may have to pay to unlock any zone except your home.
OpenStreetMaps exists, so an independent Google Maps company would have to compete with that.
> Search -- if it can sell ads independently, could be a viable business.
It's the starting and most profitable part that paid for all the rest, no? How it could not be viable.
> Advertising -- all the other units need advertising to survive. This could be a clearinghouse
But is the profit in the clearinghouse part or the selling ad space part? I'm guessing both.
