Sacks thinks breaking Google into roughly three separate companies would actually be good for shareholders, but notes the irony that the DOJ is acting precisely when Google faces its most existential competitive threat from OpenAI.
I actually think that would be good. At the end of the day, it might even be good for shareholders. This thing should be probably 3 separate companies like we've talked about in a previous show. But it is true that Google is facing the” ⚑
Chamath believes a forced structural breakup of Google is likely because the technology innovation cycle has elongated, preventing creative destruction, making Google an obvious political target, and he advises Google to aggressively build AI consumer apps now to shore up its user base before the DOJ acts.
I think the problem though is that the technology innovation cycle has gotten too elongated. So you're not seeing creative destruction be the natural force that keeps all of these companies in their own swim lanes. And so they are allowed” ⚑
Friedberg argues that breaking up Google would destroy real societal benefits from its R&D investments (DeepMind, Waymo), and that antitrust remedies should target specific monopolistic behaviors rather than size, but acknowledges the DOJ action is underway.
I don't think that these big companies are bad just because they're big. I think we should take apart the monopolistic antitrust actions and behaviors that they take, and then identify ways to remedy those behaviors versus just saying” ⚑