Can Google survive a breakup? Experts weigh in on the future - Part 2

With calls to break up Google’s business units – such as its Chrome browser and Android operating system – the tech giant’s future dominance in online search and its role as a leader in artificial intelligence are being put to the test. What is the potential impact of such a breakup, and how it might reshape Google’s market power and influence its capacity to innovate. In the second part of this report, industry experts weigh in on the broader implications for the tech landscape, from competition and consumer choice to advancements in AI.

Also read:

Cracks in Google’s empire: Will app store ruling spark change? Part - 1

Abhinay Tiwari, Chief Growth Officer, Admattic, observes that the breakup of Google’s business units would inevitably decentralize the power it holds over the digital ecosystem. “Splitting Chrome and Android away from the core business would reduce the immediate feedback loop that Google has between its products, user data, and advertising business. This would, in theory, lessen its dominance in search as it wouldn't have the same tight control over the platforms through which search is accessed,” Tiwari says.

In terms of innovation, he adds, Google’s AI capabilities –  currently among the best in the world –  may face slower development due to fewer synergies between its various business units. “AI thrives on massive datasets, and Google's integrated platforms (Chrome, Android, search, YouTube, etc.) currently feed that ecosystem in a way that propels both search and AI development. Breaking these up could result in less efficient data collection, and subsequently, slower AI progress. That said, Google has been deeply invested in AI, and even if it were broken up, it would still be a formidable player. However, its competitors would finally have the breathing room to innovate without the constant shadow of a dominant incumbent looming over them,” he observes.

Gopa Kumar, Chief Growth Officer, Successive Digital, is of the opinion that separating Chrome and Android could weaken Google’s grip on online search and its ability to collect user data across multiple platforms. “This could make it more difficult for Google to maintain its dominance in search and potentially slow down its AI innovation due to reduced data access. However, on the flip side, it could also force Google to become more innovative in its search algorithms and AI development to compensate for the loss of data and platform control,” he adds.

According to Kunal Kothari, Co-founder, Chief Growth Officer, Mobavenue, a potential breakup of Google’s business units like Chrome and Android could diminish its control over the ecosystem supporting its services, creating more room for competitors. However, it could also affect Google’s ability to integrate AI advancements seamlessly across its platforms, potentially slowing its pace of innovation in artificial intelligence.

The way ahead

As Google faces mounting antitrust scrutiny from the US Justice Department, the tech giant must navigate a delicate balance between regulatory compliance and maintaining its competitive edge. The core concerns stem from allegations that Google has monopolized various aspects of the digital economy, including its dominance in search, advertising, and mobile ecosystems. What are the measures Google should take to address these antitrust issues?

“The best thing Google can do is focus on its current motto, “Do the right thing,” – not only for them – or return to its original motto, “Don’t be evil.” As the company has grown, it seems they’ve forgotten this, and adopted strategies that only serve their own interests. What's worse is that these behaviours also negatively impact the rest of the advertising industry, particularly publishers, by limiting their revenue potential,” says Mathieu Roche, CEO and Co-Founder, ID5.

To address antitrust concerns, Abhinay Tiwari reckons, Google should focus on fostering a more open, transparent, and competitive ecosystem rather than trying to cling to its monopolistic tendencies. According to him, there are several measures it could take:

• Unbundling its services voluntarily: Google could take a proactive step by unbundling some of its tightly integrated services, allowing third parties better access to Android, search, and Chrome without artificial barriers. This could alleviate regulatory pressure while showing goodwill in addressing anti-competitive concerns.
• Greater transparency in ad-tech: Google needs to make its advertising stack more open and transparent, providing advertisers and publishers with more choice and control. This would not only address the specific concerns about monopolistic behaviour in ad-tech but could also help restore trust in the industry.
• Collaboration with regulators: Rather than resisting regulation, Google should take a collaborative approach with regulators, helping shape a framework that encourages fair competition while still fostering innovation. This could involve open access to data, APIs, and distribution channels that have historically been monopolized.
• Investment in innovation beyond the walled garden: Google can still maintain its competitive edge by doubling down on its commitment to AI, cloud computing, and other areas of innovation that don’t rely on maintaining monopolies. By doing this, Google would demonstrate that its ability to innovate isn’t tied solely to its market dominance.

“Ultimately, Google’s ability to thrive post-regulation will depend on its willingness to evolve. If it addresses these antitrust concerns thoughtfully, it could maintain its status as a tech leader while allowing for a healthier competitive environment,” Tiwari adds.

Google’s dominance in online search is largely due to its ability to integrate its products seamlessly, says Vishal Rupani, Co-founder, Sprect.com. “Chrome, Android, and Google Search work together to create a powerful ecosystem that's hard for competitors to replicate. If these units were broken up, Google would lose some of that synergy. That said, Google is a very innovative company. Even if it were broken up, it would still have a lot of resources and talent. It's possible that it could find ways to innovate, even without the same level of integration. Think of it like a chef who loses their favourite kitchen tool. They might still be able to cook a great meal, but it would be more difficult,” Rupani says.

While Google is taking necessary steps, Gopa Kumar is of the opinion that Google should proactively address antitrust concerns by:

• Increasing transparency: Be more transparent about its data collection and usage practices.
• Promoting interoperability: Make its services more interoperable with those of competitors.
• Levelling the playing field: Avoid practices that give its own products and services an unfair advantage over competitors.
• Investing in privacy: Invest in privacy-enhancing technologies and give users more control over their data.

“By taking these steps, Google can demonstrate its commitment to fair competition and responsible data handling, potentially mitigating the need for further regulatory intervention and I am assuming that Google is taking step in right direction on all of the above mentioned points.

“In the end, the recent antitrust ruling against Google is a significant development, but its long-term impact remains to be seen. It’s crucial for Google to address the concerns raised by regulators and proactively work towards a more competitive and fair tech landscape. This will not only benefit consumers and smaller competitors but also ensure Google’s continued relevance and innovation in the years to come,” Gopa Kumar concludes.

According to Vishal Rupani, Google needs to start by increasing transparency in how its core services work, especially its search algorithms and ad-tech processes.

“Instead of just issuing vague statements, they could release detailed reports or dashboards that show how search rankings are determined and how ad auctions are conducted, allowing advertisers and regulators to see that Google isn’t favouring its own products unfairly. It’s like opening up a restaurant kitchen – customers don’t need to know the secret recipe, but they want to be sure the ingredients are high quality,” he adds.

Additionally, Rupani points out, Google could also reduce default settings that favour Google products on Android and Chrome, making it easier for users to choose alternatives could help alleviate some of the regulatory pressure.

“Finally, Google should proactively engage with regulators, offering solutions rather than waiting for penalties. For instance, they could propose an independent oversight board to review their compliance efforts, ensuring they meet fair competition standards while still operating efficiently. This way, they’re not just reacting to antitrust concerns but shaping the future of regulation themselves, turning a challenge into an opportunity to stay ahead,” he concludes.