[HN Gopher] DOJ will push Google to sell off Chrome
___________________________________________________________________
DOJ will push Google to sell off Chrome
Author : redm
Score : 78 points
Date : 2024-11-18 22:24 UTC (36 minutes ago)
(HTM) web link (www.bloomberg.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.bloomberg.com)
| talldayo wrote:
| https://archive.ph/PPGGV
| cerebra wrote:
| This...doesn't seem like a good idea.
| genericone wrote:
| Yeah, especially if this breaks Chrome Remote Desktop in any
| way, seems like that capability would be tied into the Google
| ecosystem... I wonder how long we will have to say goodbye to
| the simplest remote desktop that has ever existed.
| mikepurvis wrote:
| If getting more open protocols/APIs for that kind of thing is
| a consequence of this then I'll take it.
|
| Next please make Apple open up all the secret integration
| between iOS and Watch so that Fitbit and others can more
| fairly compete.
| steego wrote:
| Not to be dramatic, but from a security perspective, it feels a
| little like the scene in Ghost Busters where the EPA inspector
| orders a Con Ed worker to shut down the containment system.
|
| I'm trying to imagine all the operational implications and this
| particular suggestion feels hasty.
|
| I'm open to hearing different opinions.
| rvz wrote:
| That really does not come as a surprise and that was totally
| expected. [0] As soon as Chrome started to become more of a
| platform (for their extension API) with many other companies
| using it in their own browsers, it tells you why they had >90% of
| the search market for years.
|
| This is what the folks at Google have all feared and why they
| started to run away from the company, spurring up 'Google'
| competitors (including Microsoft & OpenAI) all bringing it down.
|
| Google will appeal and fight back and either way will survive.
| But we have given Sundar enough time to turn it around and it's
| time for him to leave and a wartime CEO to step up.
|
| It's possible as Sataya Nadella did this for Microsoft. Google
| needs to do the same.
|
| [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37116034
| okdood64 wrote:
| Who would buy Chrome and why would they buy it? And why would
| they be trusted to not do something nefarious?
| the_mitsuhiko wrote:
| Anyone with a search engine or equivalent product to sell
| that is not a monopoly.
| teg4n_ wrote:
| I'm guessing Meta would like to buy it. Probably for
| nefarious data sucking reasons tho
| curiouscat321 wrote:
| Who would possibly buy Chrome? Letting any of the large tech
| companies purchase it (the only possible buyers) would just give
| someone else monopolistic power.
|
| Chrome can't exist as a standalone business without being even
| more consumer hostile.
| bityard wrote:
| In the most chaotic alternate reality possible: Mozilla
| rty32 wrote:
| Very few companies would be able to manage a gigantic project
| like Chromium.
|
| I happen to be poking around the Chromium codebase the last few
| days. The size of the codebase itself is at the same level all
| of our company's code. Something as important critical as GPU
| rendering is only a small part of the entire project. You also
| have v8, ChromeOS, ANGLE etc to worry about, all require
| experts in those areas.
| wumeow wrote:
| ByteDance, or another Chinese company.
| bilal4hmed wrote:
| This seems like the best case scenario for them.....losing
| Android would have been a far bigger problem
| glzone1 wrote:
| Maybe one of the big spyware players will buy chrome
| pinewurst wrote:
| Other than Google?
| mindslight wrote:
| _Facepalm_. So I guess this is basically the peak of opposition
| to the coming total corporate takeover of US society.
|
| We might have had a chance if the government, a decade ago, had
| worked towards creating new regulations that reflected what
| competition in the digital realm actually requires - for example
| requiring the unbundling of client software from hosted services
| through the use of published APIs. Instead we got some token
| opposition of "selling off" ( _checks notes_ ) a web browser
| that's ultimately "open source".
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| Outstanding news!
| milesward wrote:
| "make" Mozilla buy it, give em a heaping grant from the Library
| of Congress to keep the open web open, and be the engine behind
| every browser keeping things fair... sounds good to me!
| okdood64 wrote:
| Are they being forced to sell Chromium? How would that work?
| afavour wrote:
| In this scenario I'd much rather than heaping grant goes to a
| newly independent Chromium nonprofit org. Browser engine
| diversity is a good thing and worth trying to preserve.
| exabrial wrote:
| Chrome??? Dude. THAT plus:
|
| * Android
|
| * Search
|
| * Advertising
|
| * YouTube
|
| Smash it into tiny pieces. Then the same for Apple and Facebook.
|
| We've been stalled for technological progress for 15+ years. Tear
| down the giants holding us back.
| bilal4hmed wrote:
| Apple will never be broken. Most of these folks use Apple and
| see it as the good guy versus Google, plus it would impact
| their daily lives.
|
| Also once they see the mess separating Google would do, theyd
| leave apple in tact
| azinman2 wrote:
| How is Google holding back android or YouTube?
| elmerfud wrote:
| So I understand trying to break up monopolistic companies to
| provide better competition in the market which is generally
| better for the consumer as a whole. This strategy of saying
| Chrome should be sold off seems strange to me because unlike
| other monopolies Google's monopoly with Chrome is fundamentally
| different.
|
| Since Chrome at its core is the open source chromium browser
| engine the ability for your competition to leverage what you do
| is already there. The dynamic here is fundamentally different
| than many other monopolies of the past due to this fact. It must
| be asked are people gravitating toward Chrome because they feel
| there is no other viable option to offer a similar experience or
| is it because they choose that because it feels to them to be the
| best choice to make in a free market.
| hinkley wrote:
| Isn't Google refusing to make changes that boost online privacy
| because it'll tank their ad revenue?
| nixass wrote:
| > It must be asked are people gravitating toward Chrome because
| ....
|
| It's because Chrome used to be shoved down everyone's throat up
| until few years ago. Once stable base of users was made (by
| force and deception) the market took momentum
| rvnx wrote:
| It also used to be distributed like an adware, bundled with
| along other softwares during installation.
| afavour wrote:
| People gravitate towards Chrome in part because of Google's
| heavy marketing of it. Whenever I sign into Gmail in Safari I
| get a pop up about a "better experience" awaiting me.
| andrewflnr wrote:
| What would that even mean? Chrome doesn't make money. Who would
| buy it, except maybe someone who plans to do something even more
| nefarious?
| justahuman74 wrote:
| What is the actual asset to buy precisely? The code is already
| mostly open. You'd be paying for a user base who could leave at
| any moment?
| detourdog wrote:
| If that hadn't forked WebKit DOJ would have to prove collusion
| instead.
| dyauspitr wrote:
| Why? What a stupid move. It's like actively working to drive our
| largest corporations into the ground so China can replace it with
| some bullshit.
| okdood64 wrote:
| So who would set the price in this? If Google just sets something
| moderately absurd then what?
| LordKeren wrote:
| That's what they mean by "force" - if this does happen, the
| government will have a hand in the behind-closed-door
| negotiations with potential buyers.
|
| Company forced to sell cannot simply set an absurd price to
| evade regulators, as that would be plainly acting in bad faith
| Spivak wrote:
| Weird that this is so doom and gloom, the world's most popular
| browser decoupled from the ad machine. What's not to love? People
| champion Firefox and Brave constantly and they're independent
| browsers.
| fooker wrote:
| Something like YouTube would have been a much better idea.
| yesbut wrote:
| This is just the corporate captured government pretending to do
| something significant as a performative act for an ignorant
| public.
|
| The DOJ knows this is pointless. The DOJ knows where Google's
| profits come from.
|
| The DOJ is pretending that thr public still thinks about the
| internet in terms of Microsoft/Internet Explorer bundling.
|
| Shame on you DOJ for wasting everyone's time and money.
| azinman2 wrote:
| Browsers are complicated enough that I don't see how a company
| could do the right thing without it being subsidized by a larger
| business. I feel like this is paving the ground for a Chinese
| startup to come take its place.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-11-18 23:00 UTC)