• DreamlandLividity@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    5 hours ago

    How do you not see, that banning one company would just increase the monopoly the remaining companies hold?

    Google is not even the largest cloud provider. Amazon’s AWS has 30%, Microsoft’s Azure 20%, Google is third with 12%.

    You can’t “bust monopolies” by reducing the number of options. You need to increase the number of competitiors.

    • Vespair@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      5 hours ago

      That’s exactly what the US government did under Teddy Roosevelt when it forced by law these large entities to divest and break up into smaller ones not subsidiarized to each other. And yes, they should also do this to Amazon and Microsoft.

      edit: I guess I should say I understand they can’t force them to break up in this instance, but they can simply state they won’t do business with the entities at present and recommend it. If that doesn’t happen, I am confident other savvy investors will be happy to fill any hole left by these giants. The world will keep turning, I promise.

      • DreamlandLividity@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        4 hours ago

        Right, so if you massively extend your proposal, it could maybe make sense to a nontechnical person. Congratulations. Your original idea of just blocking google is still stupid and counterproductive to your stated goal.

        Anyway, the real issue isn’t lack of competitors. It is vendor lock-in and lack of independent data backups. It would take significant effort for most companies to migrate from one cloud provider to another, since different providers use slightly different, incompatible technologies. And of course, if a cloud provider went down suddenly, a lot of data would be lost.