Even if you split Android off from Google, the Play store is still the Play store, nothing would change except it wouldn’t be under Google anymore.
There’s a problem too saying “it’s a monopoly”, as long as Apple is running their app store and Google has theirs, there’s no monopoly. Change phones. Problem solved.
nothing would change except it wouldn’t be under Google anymore.
That’s a massive change.
Google is an ad company, so they have a vested interest in knowing what apps you use, how often you use them, and perhaps even what you do with those apps. Splitting that off means the app store needs to sustain itself without the massive ad network (I suppose they could sell the data).
It could even be split three ways:
Google - all the search and ad stuff
Android - just the OS, which survives based on license fees to manufacturerers
Play Store - just the play store
That way the Play store would need to compete with alternatives, like vendor-specific stores and FOSS stores. Whether that’s desirable is certainly up for debate, but it would definitely be a significant change.
Change phones. Problem solved.
That’s a duopoly, so no, the problem is absolutely not solved. If there were more than three phone OS options, I’d agree with you. But right now there are pretty much just two major ones, which means they can get away with a lot of nonsense because their customers really only have one other option.
Not sure what changes, but it’s scary how much Google controls. Even if we just broke off YouTube from them, that would be a big deal.
Ideally we would split their search engine, YouTube, and chrome each into two competing companies. (Google A, Google B, Chrome A, Chrome B, YouTube A, YouTube B)
Because Google has so much power they can make changes that will break search results, websites, and browsers if you don’t accept changes that are beneficial to them.
Without the rest of Google, Youtube doesn’t exist, because it doesn’t make any money and it costs a shitload of money to run.
Google’s actual businesses aren’t Android, or Chrome, or Youtube (not including Youtube TV). They’re AdSense, Google Cloud, their hardware division, the Play Store, the aforementioned Youtube TV, etc. Those are the things that make Google money, and really the only things you could realistically split off from Google and expect to still exist in a year or two.
This honestly seems pointless. Would be better off just not allowing google to own the property, even as a subsidiary. That would throw a wrench into too many aspects of society, so I don’t actually see that happening.
Yeah, I would bet that Alphabet would continue to own (or immediately buy) any separate split-off company Android becomes and there would be absolutely no meaningful change. 100% pointless.
If Google is broken up what changes? Are there going to two different companies creating a map app?
The breakup this is referring to is splitting off the Android operating system from the rest of Google.
Even if you split Android off from Google, the Play store is still the Play store, nothing would change except it wouldn’t be under Google anymore.
There’s a problem too saying “it’s a monopoly”, as long as Apple is running their app store and Google has theirs, there’s no monopoly. Change phones. Problem solved.
That’s a massive change.
Google is an ad company, so they have a vested interest in knowing what apps you use, how often you use them, and perhaps even what you do with those apps. Splitting that off means the app store needs to sustain itself without the massive ad network (I suppose they could sell the data).
It could even be split three ways:
That way the Play store would need to compete with alternatives, like vendor-specific stores and FOSS stores. Whether that’s desirable is certainly up for debate, but it would definitely be a significant change.
That’s a duopoly, so no, the problem is absolutely not solved. If there were more than three phone OS options, I’d agree with you. But right now there are pretty much just two major ones, which means they can get away with a lot of nonsense because their customers really only have one other option.
Not sure what changes, but it’s scary how much Google controls. Even if we just broke off YouTube from them, that would be a big deal.
Ideally we would split their search engine, YouTube, and chrome each into two competing companies. (Google A, Google B, Chrome A, Chrome B, YouTube A, YouTube B)
Because Google has so much power they can make changes that will break search results, websites, and browsers if you don’t accept changes that are beneficial to them.
Without the rest of Google, Youtube doesn’t exist, because it doesn’t make any money and it costs a shitload of money to run.
Google’s actual businesses aren’t Android, or Chrome, or Youtube (not including Youtube TV). They’re AdSense, Google Cloud, their hardware division, the Play Store, the aforementioned Youtube TV, etc. Those are the things that make Google money, and really the only things you could realistically split off from Google and expect to still exist in a year or two.
This honestly seems pointless. Would be better off just not allowing google to own the property, even as a subsidiary. That would throw a wrench into too many aspects of society, so I don’t actually see that happening.
What property?
Alphabet 2, Alphabet 3, Alphabet Final Final V3 …
Yeah, I would bet that Alphabet would continue to own (or immediately buy) any separate split-off company Android becomes and there would be absolutely no meaningful change. 100% pointless.