As a primary school kid in the Ugwunta village of Ovim, I observed that there were only two villagers with TVs (others were those living in the cities whose TVs were available only when they visited the village). Those two TVs – black and white types – were community treasures. Through them, we watched football games,  and enjoyed Nigerian Television Authority (NTA) shows’ like he Masquerade and Tales by Moonlight.  As Zebrudaya, Gregory, Jegede, etc did their stuff, the lady anchoring Tales by Moonlight was shaping the minds of the Nigerian kid.

Simply, the government had absolute control of what we listened to and watched, and through the National Orientation Agency (NOA) was able to program the minds of the Nigerian youth. And it worked – the government was supreme, with immense power and in an uncontested state. Yes, the government controlled all narratives.

Fast forward today, with Facebook, YouTube, Netflix, etc, the government has LOST most controls to influence the Nigerian youth. We call that disintermediation in the startup world; digital tools have cut-off the government, and it is largely powerless. 

But here, the government wants to fight back, and the latest is to use law to do the job of NTA and NOA: “The House of Representatives has introduced the Counter Subversion Bill 2024,..The bill, sponsored by Speaker Tajudeen Abbas, proposes stringent penalties for Nigerians who fail to recite the national anthem, as well as for those who destroy national symbols or deface places of worship. According to the bill, anyone found guilty of refusing to recite the national anthem could face a fine of N5 million, a 10-year prison sentence, or both.”

By this law, these men and women do not understand how digital technology works. It is not the abundance of Supply that wins, but the influencing of Demand, via aggregation that thrives. And to aggregate, you must offer value to the “subjects”. If Nigeria does not inspire and offer value, it must better spend its national budget on prisons, because most young people may actually not care about the national anthem. (I am just analyzing technology patterns; I sing the anthem.)

Why do I think so? When I joined Diamond Bank Lagos, the impact it had on my life made my admiration absolute. For 3 years, I did not go on vacation; I worked on Christmas Day, New Year Day and all holidays. And I memorized its vision and mission statements because it was a tough love for a company which made a village boy a “BIG boy”. And when I was leaving, I asked the bank to reverse some monies it paid me, as I was leaving and would be unable to work for it. 

Get the message: a nation must inspire the youth to get them to salute with love and unalloyed belief! Nigeria should wish those kids sing from their hearts, and not just the movement of the lips. That is the real national challenge, and is more important than the lyrics of the anthem.

Of course, you may ask if that is really an important matter considering the economic challenges in the nation.

My First Day in America and Kindness of Diamond Bank Lagos

“The U.S. Justice Department is considering breaking up Google… The report follows the landmark antitrust ruling against Google earlier this month, and divestment of the search giant’s Android OS and browser Chrome are among the possible measures under discussion. “ – LinkedIn News.

First, the probability that the US Department of Justice will break up Google, in my opinion, is closer to 0 than 1. Yes, despite everything, I expect Google to modulate its business model which even though it used innovation to become #1 on search, it cannot pay to remain #1, and that means, it is no longer permitted to pay Apple, Samsung, Tecno, Mozilla, etc to make the Google search page the default in those products.

In the core tenet of entrepreneurial capitalism, becoming a category-king is the desire of all companies, and assuming monopoly via innovation is attainable by just a few. For Google, it is a dominant king in the world of search, unrivaled and uncontested in all forms and ways. But Google was not sure of itself, and went into paying to build moats, to keep its castle of profits via advertising. The government must extract monetary fines, supervise the firm, and get concessions that the act must NEVER happen again.

And that is largely what will happen. Google seems harmless because most of its products are largely free. If you break it, you will introduce many vectors that may even harm the consumers you want to protect. Sure, you want the next Google to emerge in the future, but that should not come via breaking Google:a new operating principle will do, by forcing it to focus on innovation and avoid building illegal moats.

More so, if you take Android out of Google’s Alphabet, Apple iOS will become an uncontested mobile winner since there are few companies that have resources and technical capabilities to challenge Apple (Microsoft, Meta/Facebook or Amazon will not likely be interested to avoid antitrust searchlights). Take Chrome out, there is no data which shows that any company can live on a browser alone!

The Verdict: make changes on business model with some fines but leave Google and Alphabet alone.

The Justice Department’s latest considerations represent the most serious threat Google has faced since the U.S. government’s failed attempt to break up Microsoft over two decades ago. According to insiders, this time around, the department is pulling no punches. Among the remedies being floated are the divestiture of Google’s Android operating system, its Chrome web browser, and potentially even its crown jewel: the AdWords advertising platform.

The deliberations follow a bombshell ruling by Judge Amit Mehta on August 5, 2024, that Google had illegally cemented its dominance in the online search and search advertising markets. With this ruling in hand, the government is now poised to push for measures that could fundamentally alter Google’s sprawling business empire.

In what feels like a page torn from the tech industry’s most dramatic playbook, the U.S. Justice Department is once again setting its sights on a familiar target: Google. Following a landmark ruling that found the Silicon Valley giant guilty of monopolizing the online search market, Washington is now toying with a possibility as audacious as it is historic—a forced breakup of one of the world’s most powerful companies.

But while the idea of dismantling Google might sound radical, it’s not the first time the behemoth has been at the center of such conversations. The tech giant has, time and again, been a lightning rod for antitrust scrutiny, deftly maneuvering its way around challenges that would have felled lesser companies.

The Justice Department’s Big Gamble

The Justice Department’s latest considerations represent the most serious threat Google has faced since the U.S. government’s failed attempt to break up Microsoft over two decades ago. According to insiders, this time around, the department is pulling no punches. Among the remedies being floated are the divestiture of Google’s Android operating system, its Chrome web browser, and potentially even its crown jewel: the AdWords advertising platform.

The deliberations follow a bombshell ruling by Judge Amit Mehta on August 5, 2024, that Google had illegally cemented its dominance in the online search and search advertising markets. With this ruling in hand, the government is now poised to push for measures that could fundamentally alter Google’s sprawling business empire.

Yet, this isn’t the first time such drastic measures have been considered—or even attempted. Google’s knack for navigating these treacherous waters is well-documented, and history suggests the company may once again find a way to emerge relatively unscathed.

A Familiar Script for a Tech Titan

The narrative of Google facing the prospect of a breakup is almost as old as the company itself. For years, the search giant has been accused of leveraging its dominance to stifle competition, prompting calls from regulators around the world to break it up. But each time, Google has managed to sidestep the guillotine.

In 2020, the European Union slapped Google with a series of antitrust fines totaling billions of dollars for similar accusations of anti-competitive behavior in the Android and search markets. Despite the penalties and the accompanying rhetoric about breaking up the company, Google continued to thrive, tweaking its business practices just enough to appease regulators without ceding its market power.

In the U.S., Google’s tussles with antitrust authorities are even more storied. In 2013, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) ended a lengthy investigation into Google’s search practices with a settlement that critics lambasted as toothless. Then, in 2020, the Justice Department and a coalition of state attorneys general launched a flurry of lawsuits accusing Google of antitrust violations. The company, as always, braced itself, lawyered up, and continued business as usual.

Why This Time Could Be Different

So, what makes this latest challenge any different from the many that have come before? For starters, the political climate in Washington has shifted significantly. The Biden administration has made no secret of its desire to rein in Big Tech, with President Biden himself frequently voicing concerns about the unchecked power of companies like Google. The Justice Department’s antitrust division, now under the leadership of Lina Khan—a prominent critic of tech giants—has shown a willingness to pursue aggressive action against monopolistic practices.

Moreover, the stakes have never been higher for Google. Judge Mehta’s ruling not only affirmed that the company had abused its dominance in search but also opened the door for the government to seek remedies that could dismantle its business model. The Justice Department’s discussions are said to have intensified in the wake of this ruling, with officials exploring not just traditional antitrust remedies but also more radical options like breaking up the company.

If the Justice Department does move forward with a breakup, the most likely targets would be Android and Chrome—two pillars of Google’s ecosystem that have been instrumental in maintaining its dominance. Android, with its 2.5 billion users worldwide, serves as a gateway for Google’s services, while Chrome’s near-ubiquity on desktop and mobile devices ensures that Google’s search engine remains the default choice for billions of users.

Google’s Antitrust Defense Playbook

Although the stakes are heightened, Google is not without its defenses. The company has proven remarkably adept at weathering antitrust storms, thanks in large part to its vast legal resources and deep pockets. In previous cases, Google has managed to negotiate settlements that allowed it to maintain much of its business model intact, albeit with some modifications.

One strategy Google could deploy is to argue that breaking up the company would ultimately harm consumers by disrupting the seamless integration of its services. The company has long maintained that its dominance is a product of innovation and consumer choice, rather than anti-competitive behavior.

Moreover, Google could push back against the breakup by pointing to the rapid evolution of the tech industry. With the rise of artificial intelligence, cloud computing, and other emerging technologies, Google could argue that competition is thriving in ways that regulators may not fully appreciate. Indeed, the Justice Department’s own deliberations have reportedly touched on concerns that a breakup could inadvertently hamper the development of AI technologies—a field where Google is a leading player.

The AI Frontier: A New Battleground

Artificial intelligence is rapidly becoming the next frontier in Google’s ongoing battle with regulators. Judge Mehta’s ruling highlighted concerns that Google’s dominance in search could give it an unfair advantage in developing AI products, prompting discussions within the Justice Department about potential remedies. These could include preventing Google from using data collected through its search engine to train its AI models or requiring the company to license its data to competitors.

As AI becomes increasingly integrated into the digital economy, the outcome of this case could have far-reaching implications not just for Google, but for the entire tech industry. Google’s ability to navigate these challenges will likely determine whether it remains a dominant force in the years to come or whether it will be forced to cede ground to a new generation of competitors.

Undoubtedly, Google is once again at a crossroads. The company’s track record suggests that it is well-equipped to navigate these challenges, but the stakes have never been higher. A breakup would be a seismic event, not just for Google, but for the entire tech industry, reshaping the digital landscape in ways that are difficult to predict.

For now, all eyes are on Washington as the Justice Department prepares to make its next move. Whether this latest chapter in Google’s long-running antitrust saga ends in a breakup or another deft maneuver by the tech giant, one thing is clear: the battle over the future of Big Tech is far from over.