[HN Gopher] DOJ will push Google to sell off Chrome
___________________________________________________________________
DOJ will push Google to sell off Chrome
Author : redm
Score : 1083 points
Date : 2024-11-18 22:24 UTC (1 days 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.
| mattigames wrote:
| Buying the browser should come with most of the engineers
| that actively work on it, or at least the ones with most
| experience working on it, maybe even give them a tiny part of
| the shares of whatever company gets to own it, or perhaps
| with a contract for at least for a couple of years (and then
| could return to Google or whatever), and if possible include
| some incentives to make them focus on working on security
| bugs over new features, which tbh I think there is just too
| many every year.
| cmeacham98 wrote:
| > Buying the browser should come with most of the engineers
| that actively work on it
|
| The 13th Amendment to the US constitution makes the sale of
| people illegal.
|
| Seriously though - how would this ever work? Google cannot
| negociate on behalf of their employees or promise they will
| work somewhere if Google stops employing them.
| throwawaythekey wrote:
| Companies regularly buy and sell parts of themselves. I
| think the standard approach would be for Chrome employees
| to be given golden handcuffs of some sort.
| bsimpson wrote:
| I don't like it either, but it doesn't seem
| unprecedented. Companies sell units to each other
| (complete with staff) all the time.
|
| I'm pretty sure everyone who worked at Universal Studios
| still worked there after Comcast bought them. I don't
| recall any staff being included when Google sold Domains
| to Squarespace, but they very well could have been.
|
| Hell, if you've ever temped in tech, sometimes you wake
| up and find out you work for a different agency.
| "Yesterday you worked at Magnit. Today you work at
| TechPro."
|
| Or it could be something in between - the buyer offers
| you a new contract and the seller says you'll be laid off
| if you don't take it.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _Google cannot negociate on behalf of their employees
| or promise they will work somewhere if Google stops
| employing them_
|
| Of course they can. Read your employment contract. It
| almost certainly can be assigned.
| IncreasePosts wrote:
| I can promise someone that you will give me $100 too. But
| it doesn't create obligations on your end.
|
| My employment contract says nothing about me needing to
| work at any company that Google decides I should work
| for.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _My employment contract says nothing about me needing
| to work at any company that Google decides I should work
| for_
|
| It probably also lets you quit with short notice.
| mattigames wrote:
| Being owner of even a tiny bit of a brand new company
| that owns Chrome would be very attractive to engineers
| already working on Chrome, and it wouldn't be wise for
| any parent company to piss them off as they know the
| software better than anyone.
| dnissley wrote:
| The revenue and profitability of "the Chrome Company" is going
| to be far less than Google, since Google's rising tide is what
| lifted that particular boat.
|
| How would the Chrome Company deal with this?
|
| Would they do closed source development going forward, no more
| free lunch for other browsers or shells using Chrome as an
| engine?
|
| How much of a hit does this mean for employees salaries? They
| are currently making Google money, and now they're about to
| make Microsoft money.
|
| How many would just be flat out laid off due to a lack of
| revenue, at least in the short term? Would it be a 50% lay off?
| Into a job market that's already bad?
| throwawaythekey wrote:
| Firefox makes hundred of millions of dollars in revenue per
| year. If you assume the same revenue per user and apply it to
| Chrome's market size (about 30x that of firefox) then you
| have a top 20(?) tech company in revenue terms.
|
| They will have more money than they know what to do with. But
| yes, going closed source does seem more likely.
| sidibe wrote:
| Isn't firefox mostly making its money from Google? They'll
| be struggling too if Google gets out of the browser
| business and no longer feels the pressure to sustain them
| everdrive wrote:
| Why would it be a bad idea?
| 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
| incognito124 wrote:
| You really like making predictions about the future
| 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
| JadoJodo wrote:
| In that same alternate reality: WPEngine is given control of
| Automattic/WordPress as a result of the lawsuits.
| ipaddr wrote:
| Firefox is sponsored primary by Google. WPEngine is not. It
| would be like Automattic giving control to Wordpress
| foundation.
| micahdeath wrote:
| na... Oracle.
| Narishma wrote:
| Broadcom.
| JoshTriplett wrote:
| Having it owned by a non-profit foundation would make a
| _huge_ amount of sense, especially if that foundation was
| then immediately funded by a _variety_ of companies rather
| than just one big advertising company.
|
| The obvious test for whether the browser is actually
| independent: what is the response to "let's add an ad-blocker
| by default".
| behnamoh wrote:
| > Having it owned by a non-profit foundation would make a
| huge amount of sense,...
|
| OpenAI joined the chat...
| Wytwwww wrote:
| There would be few incentives to try and pull off
| something like that if nobody had any faith in the
| product every becoming extremely profitable though.
| PittleyDunkin wrote:
| Isn't openapi pro-profit? Or at least I thought it was.
| whiplash451 wrote:
| This is wishful thinking. Non-profits that don't turn into
| for-profit turn into a shitshow of incompetence instead.
| niutech wrote:
| Not necessarily, see The Linux Foundation Europe
| competently maintains Servo.
| whiplash451 wrote:
| My comment could rub tech people in the wrong way (for a
| good reason).
|
| I meant incompetence at the company governance level, not
| technical.
|
| There's massive technical competence in non-profits.
|
| This brilliance is just wasted by leaders who sacrifice
| business acumen over the mission.
| mrandish wrote:
| With Mozilla becoming so hostile to their power users in
| recent years (or any user who just wants to customize the
| interface or core functionality), I'm not sure it would make
| much difference.
| AyyEye wrote:
| They'll do what their benefactor (Goog) wants whether they
| own chrome or not.
| somethoughts wrote:
| Interestingly if I recall correctly a lot of the original
| talent for Chrome/Chromium originally worked at Mozilla and
| were poached by Google. [1]
|
| [1] https://www.niallkennedy.com/blog/2008/09/google-
| chrome.html...
| underlipton wrote:
| That's just a different kind of monopoly.
| 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 as
| all of our company's code. Something as important and critical
| as GPU rendering is only a small part of the entire project.
| You also have v8, ChromeOS, ANGLE etc to worry about, all
| requiring experts in those areas. Not to mention things like
| Widevine and other proprietary technology surrounding Chrome.
| aeonik wrote:
| I'll do it, if they agree to sell it to me, I'll run it.
|
| I have a few hundred bucks that I'm willing to put into the
| pie, but based on the financials, it's probably going to go
| bankrupt pretty quick.
| DimuP wrote:
| Yeah, probably not worth the money
| michaelt wrote:
| _> based on the financials, it 's probably going to go
| bankrupt pretty quick._
|
| Stage 1: Buy Chrome from Google, with its 65% browser
| market share.
|
| Stage 2: Tell Google you'll keep them as default search
| provider for $5 billion per year.
|
| Stage 3: Profit
| mrweasel wrote:
| But didn't Firefox run into funding issues because they
| can't sell Google the privilege of being the default
| search?
| gorbypark wrote:
| I'm pretty sure they can, and do. The vast majority of
| Mozillas revenues come from Google for being the default
| search provider. The fact that Google pays Mozilla, Apple
| and Samsung (among others) to be the default search
| provider has been an issue with regulators, but as far as
| I know there has been no rulings on it (yet?).
| concinds wrote:
| > Tell Google you'll keep them as default search provider
| for $5 billion per year
|
| The DOJ is working to ban search deals too, you wouldn't
| receive a single penny. The DOJ is incomprehensibly
| incompetent compared to the EU DMA/DSA.
| ilaksh wrote:
| It's 95% of an operating system. In a way it is it's own OS.
| Chromium has ~ 500+ distinct APIs and features such as web
| APIs, extension APIs, DOM, JavaScript APIs, and platform-
| specific features.
| wumeow wrote:
| ByteDance, or another Chinese company.
| lofenfew wrote:
| firefox gets along fine
|
| how it could exist without getting money for setting the
| default search engine is certainly a question though
| gkoberger wrote:
| Firefox gets along... with money from Google. And I think a
| good portion of the $$ that Google pays Mozilla, in their
| mind, isn't to be the default search engine... it's to keep
| competition alive in order to avoid this situation.
| winterbloom wrote:
| How would they even sell it, chrome is based off of chromium.
| What is there to sell exactly? You can already fork chromium
| bogwog wrote:
| > What is there to sell exactly?
|
| The user base
| tedunangst wrote:
| And what do I, the new owner of this user base, do with it?
| vivekd wrote:
| 1. make your search engine the default
|
| 2. make your website the default
|
| 3. make it easier to access your suite of web services
|
| Eg. imagine instead of defaulting to google everything
| you typed in the search bar defaulted to chatgpt. Imagine
| open AI could buy that at a discount
| jonhohle wrote:
| Or the triumphant return of Yahoo!? (hypothetical, not
| interrobang)
| tedunangst wrote:
| So basically invite the DOJ to immediately take it away
| again?
| vivekd wrote:
| probably not going to be a popular take on this forum,
| but to me it looks like anti trust and securities laws
| are enforced almost randomly. Is Google a monopoly using
| its control to limit competition - yes but so is pretty
| much all of FANG and many successful businesses for that
| matter.
|
| Anti trust activities are not about any one act (such as
| routing browsers to your site), it's more about whether
| the fates choose your company to end up in the DOJs
| roulette wheel.
| bogwog wrote:
| This is a bad/uninformed take. The OP is about one
| particular anti-trust trial that ended already (with
| Google losing), and is in the remedies phase. The DOJ and
| FTC have been suing a lot of other companies over anti-
| trust, including the other big tech companies. Some of
| those are still ongoing, some haven't started yet, some
| have already ended.
| concinds wrote:
| But the DOJ wouldn't take it away. The parent comment
| describes exactly what the DOJ's _desired outcome_ looks
| like. That 's what will happen if the DOJ gets their way.
| It's the _only possible outcome_. The people praising the
| DOJ 's decision don't understand just how stupid it is.
| gorbypark wrote:
| I think the distinction is that the new Chrome company
| wouldn't be a "monopolist". If Chrome was a separate
| company and did exactly the same as Google is doing
| currently, there might be no problem. It's when a company
| "abuses" its market position to enter/capture/distort
| another market (or maintain the original market) is when
| in theory regulators have an issue. For example, free
| software is allowed, but when Microsoft used its
| dominance in the OS market to push a free browser on the
| world at the detriment to Netscape, regulators took
| issue.
|
| The issue is that Google's dominance of the search/ad
| business is distorting the browser market.
|
| This is my take, anyways (I'm not a lawyer or American).
| rawgabbit wrote:
| Fool me once shame on you. Fool me twice shame on me.
| Google can no longer be trusted with Chrome; time to give
| it to another caretaker.
| nobody9999 wrote:
| >1. make your search engine the default
|
| >2. make your website the default
|
| >3. make it easier to access your suite of web services
|
| Chrome is not a search engine. Chrome doesn't have a
| "suite of web services."
|
| That's Alphabet/Google.
|
| Chrome is just the browser.
| mrandish wrote:
| Be careful. Asking these kind of obvious questions might
| make you ineligible to be hired as a government
| bureaucrat.
| devnullbrain wrote:
| FYI the name for this type of comment is 'thought
| terminating cliche'.
| teractiveodular wrote:
| Logged-in Chrome users are tied to Google logins. The mind
| boggles at the complexity of trying to somehow separate
| Chrome identities from Google identities, much less explain
| that to the general populace for whom "Google", "Chrome"
| and "browse the Internet" are largely interchangeable.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _Logged-in Chrome users are tied to Google logins_
|
| Third-party sign in with Google [1].
|
| [1] https://www.google.com/account/about/sign-in-with-
| google/
| ForHackernews wrote:
| We had this for ~20 years. It wasn't mind-boggling
| complex. On the contrary, it was much simpler: you didn't
| have to "log in" to a piece of software that ran on a
| computer you owned under a user account you already
| logged into.
| Wytwwww wrote:
| You don't HAVE to login unless you want to share your
| passwords, history, bookmarks etc. between your devices.
| Simpler = not having those features (which most users
| seemingly find useful).
| perryizgr8 wrote:
| Except if you logon to gmail it automatically logs you in
| the browser.
| smolder wrote:
| > those features (which most users seemingly find useful)
|
| Do they? I would rather not have a "browser account" and
| just back up my own bookmarks like I was doing 20 years
| ago.
| Wytwwww wrote:
| > Do they?
|
| Presumably yes. I haven't seen any evidence to the
| contrary.
|
| > and just back up my own bookmarks
|
| Nothing wrong about that. But again.. most people don't
| find that to be very convenient (I'd actually bet money
| that that there are is magnitude or a few times more
| people using Safari/Chrome/etc. to sync their data
| automatically instead of doing it manually).
| amluto wrote:
| No boggling required. If you want to sync your browser
| state or settings across computers, make a Chrome
| account. If you don't, don't. If you want to use Google,
| make a Google account.
|
| This is how it should work anyway.
| whiplash451 wrote:
| 100%. And that's exactly how the DoJ sees it I believe.
| smolder wrote:
| There is no value to logging into chrome with a Google
| account that couldn't be replicated easily with some
| standalone service. The fact they added google logins to
| Chrome still bugs me.
| SahAssar wrote:
| The userbase and trademark are both very valuable. I'm
| guessing it would also come with some controlling positions
| in the chromium open source project, since those are mostly
| held by google by being the biggest developer and user of the
| project.
| hermitdev wrote:
| > What is there to sell exactly?
|
| widevine and all the other DRMy bits.
|
| Or, better yet, deprecate and disable all the DRMy bits. (One
| can wish)
| cloudking wrote:
| Good question. Chrome itself isn't a standalone business, the
| money generated through Chrome still primarily comes from
| Ads. The hardware tied to Chromebooks generates some revenue,
| but even ChromeOS is essentially free. They generate a tiny
| amount of revenue selling ChromeOS management tools in
| Workspace. Why not spin off an actual revenue driver like
| YouTube?
| rahidz wrote:
| A consortium of various tech companies, plus non-profits?
| Instead of it being in one corporate hand. One can dream of the
| EFF and Mozilla plus a bunch of other stakeholders owning it.
| gerash wrote:
| Is Chrome being run so bad that we need even more committees,
| councils and bureaucrats to implement every single feature ?
|
| Microsoft is already using the Chromium and changing the
| default search engine to Bing and shipping it as Edge. What
| else is needed?
|
| This DOJ looks like they just want to pad their resumes with
| some grandiose case which might be bad for everyone else.
| Sabinus wrote:
| Chrome isn't being run bad because of committee, it's being
| run bad because it's used by Google as part of their web
| advertising empire.
| concinds wrote:
| Notice how their web advertising empire, which they do
| have a monopoly on (unlike Chrome), is not being broken
| up?
| shadowfacts wrote:
| There is a separate, ongoing antitrust lawsuit over
| Google's adtech business. Closing arguments in that case
| are scheduled for Nov. 25, next week:
| https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/27/technology/google-
| antitru...
| StrauXX wrote:
| Chrome is not run badly at all. But in its current state it
| gives Google the ability to singlehandedly dictate
| webstandards. Thats an issue.
| wbl wrote:
| That doesn't go away with not Google. It's the result of
| having a browser with such big market share.
| internet2000 wrote:
| I think the point is to stop adding more features. The web
| is feature complete, everything Google is adding is just
| stuff to make them more money through ads and lock in.
| csjh wrote:
| That's not true, plenty of great stuff is shipping every
| year. Take your pick: https://web.dev/series/baseline-
| newly-available https://web.dev/blog/baseline2023
| nicoburns wrote:
| This is what Microsoft thought when they released IE6,
| and is why we ended up still supporting IE6 into the
| 2010s
| gerash wrote:
| is that based on feelings or facts?
| 05 wrote:
| Oh come on, I for one am excited about the upcoming
| WebKmem API that allows random websites direct access to
| kernel memory..
| jonhohle wrote:
| How else are web devs supposed to write kernel modules?
| lxgr wrote:
| There's nothing wrong at all with adding features as long
| as more than one browser/engine actually adopts them.
| cosmic_cheese wrote:
| There's an argument to be made that a high pace of new
| feature additions effectively functions as a moat that
| ensures that new competitive web engines cannot be
| developed as a result of not being able to ever catch up.
| lxgr wrote:
| Exactly: The part after "as long as" is both critical and
| hard to ensure.
| melodyogonna wrote:
| That is not true at all. Plenty of features added expands
| the capabilities of what can be built for the browser
| Wytwwww wrote:
| > and Mozilla
|
| So the market/consumers decided (due to whatever reasons)
| that they don't want to use Mozilla's browser. Lets reward
| them for that failure by giving them control over someone
| else's browser?
| fooey wrote:
| The full circle of course is MS will end up acquiring it.
| vermilingua wrote:
| This is surely the only real possibility, and puts Edge's
| shift to Chromium in a new light; could MS have
| predicted/lobbied for this push?
| preommr wrote:
| If this actually happens, I think it would turn perception
| of Nadella from good CEO that got lucky with OpenAI to a
| certified shadow master that's playing chess while everyone
| else is playing checkers.
| sensanaty wrote:
| I'm pretty sure M$ just shifted to edge because they didn't
| want to invest the money into catching up with chromium,
| since explorer was a pile of shit and was losing anyway
| tombert wrote:
| How is this the only possibility? What about Opera or
| something?
| zamadatix wrote:
| "Opera or somethings" tend to be too small. E.g. Google
| paid 20 billion just to be the default search in Safari,
| i.e. for a default seat in a significantly less popular
| browser. Opera's total assets are ~1 billion.
|
| But say it was forced to sell for peanuts because any
| large company proposal was denied by antitrust review
| itself, a forced sale of a US company's business to a
| non-US company under ownership by Chinese investors would
| likely not be allowed go through in the current
| environment either. Maybe some other "or something" at
| this point but it feels a bit like asking for a wildcard
| play from a very methodical and slow process.
| tombert wrote:
| Interesting, I didn't know that Opera was Chinese-
| investor-funded.
|
| There are a few American companies that could pull it off
| though; Oracle comes to mind? I know that they don't
| really work in the browser space, but they have plenty of
| money, and they work in pretty much every other part of
| tech.
| cyp0633 wrote:
| Then MS is such a giant that it will have to sell it after
| some time
| ForHackernews wrote:
| Nah, MS doesn't own search, ads, email and half the rest of
| the internet.
| vineyardmike wrote:
| MS owns bing. Which isn't anywhere near as popular but
| still exists and is large. And effectively owns the
| profits from ChatGPT's growing foray into search.
| Basically every Google competitor uses the bing index
| under the hood.
|
| MS owns an ad network that brings in ~$10Bn a year. Much
| smaller than Google, but certainly nothing to ignore.
|
| MS owns outlook/hotmail which is wildly popular.
|
| Does Microsoft own "half the internet"? No but neither
| did Google. Microsoft does own Windows which is a
| (already sued) monopoly touch point similar to Android.
| They own a browser. They own a cloud platform that
| profits from a growing internet. They own _plenty_ of
| consumer facing properties and should not be written off
| in monopoly or antitrust discussions.
|
| Personally, I don't know if I agree with the idea of
| spinning off Chrome (but I know Googlers so I may be
| biased), but I understand the appeal on paper.
| ForHackernews wrote:
| > No but neither did Google.
|
| "Google Analytics is used by 82.5% of all the websites
| whose traffic analysis tool we know."
| https://w3techs.com/technologies/details/ta-
| googleanalytics
|
| Google's adware is all over nearly every site on the
| internet.
|
| I don't even know what the real-world equivalent would
| be: maybe if you had to drive to the NYSE in an NYSE-
| provided vehicle (that could track your behavior to judge
| how much money you were likely to spend) in order to buy
| shares from the NYSE who sat on the other side of every
| trade in addition to running the market.
| ninth_ant wrote:
| It doesn't matter if no one buys it, or if it doesn't even
| continue to exist as a standalone business. That's preferable.
|
| The important part is ending the egregious conflict of interest
| where an advertising behemoth controls access to the internet.
|
| Ideal result is that Chrome ceases to exist and Chromium
| continues as an independent open source project controlled by a
| nonprofit. Even if Google is one of the contributors, so long
| as they don't control the product they will exert a lot less
| control over the web and how people access it.
|
| TLDR just be like Mozilla
| adamc wrote:
| To the users who use chrome, it will matter. Not clear to me
| how strong Chromium will be if the Google efforts for Chrome
| go away.
| JoshTriplett wrote:
| > TLDR just be like Mozilla
|
| Mozilla is rapidly deciding they want to be an advertising
| and AI company at the expense of their primary product.
|
| So, tl;dr: be like Mozilla _used_ to be, not like they are
| now.
| pseudalopex wrote:
| I don't like Mozilla's advertising strategy either. But
| their primary product can't sustain itself.
| JoshTriplett wrote:
| I desperately wish they'd give me the _option_ to pay for
| Firefox Sync. I would, genuinely, pay for that every
| month. I get a _massive_ amount of value from being able
| to throw tabs from my laptop to my phone and vice versa,
| and have everything synchronized, in a way I trust.
| pseudalopex wrote:
| Did you mean people could sync and not pay? Few people
| would pay. Or did you mean people would have to pay to
| sync? The market standard is free sync.
|
| You can give money to Mozilla Corporation by paying for
| Firefox Relay, Mozilla Monitor, Mozilla VPN, MDN Plus, or
| Pocket Premium.
| Wytwwww wrote:
| What would that even mean? Anyone can fork Chromium and do
| whatever they want including establishing a non-profit
| foundation to finance its development.
|
| Should Google be banned from forking an open source project
| and/or just developing any type of browser at all?
|
| The only reason Google "controls" Chromium is that they are
| spending the most money/development time on it.
| asadotzler wrote:
| Yes, Google can be forced to sign a consent decree saying
| it will not engage in browser building or distribution for
| a set length of time and the DOJ can set up offices inside
| of Google and staff them with DOJ employees who make sure
| Google follows that agreement.
|
| It seems like you have no familiarity with any of this. If
| so, happy to help educate you. If I'm wrong and you're just
| trolling, it was hard to tell.
| criticalfault wrote:
| > TLDR just be like Mozilla
|
| Please don't.
|
| Do we really want incompetent management going into ad
| business? Declining market share, while raising management
| salaries and firing developers?
| jsyang00 wrote:
| What about X (the everything app)?
|
| Could happen under Trump...
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _Chrome can't exist as a standalone business without being
| even more consumer hostile_
|
| Why not? Chrome's team isn't as prone to distracting itself as
| Mozilla. But there is still a lot of ancillary nonsense they
| get up to that wouldn't be necessary if it weren't in Google.
| Starting, for example, with not giving a fuck about how their
| product impacts ad sales.
| equestria wrote:
| Because you need to pay something like 1,000 engineers - and
| not just any engineers, but engineers used to Alphabet's SF
| Bay Area salaries and equity packages.
|
| This quickly adds up to billions of dollars. You have the
| option to massively downsize, likely sacrificing product
| quality; or to sell something very valuable to a business-
| mined buyer. And there's really nothing a browser vendor can
| sell that isn't bad news for the users.
|
| About the best option would be for Chrome to be spun off and
| then for Google to keep paying them for being the default
| search engine.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _you need to pay something like 1,000 engineers - and not
| just any engineers, but engineers used to Alphabet 's SF
| Bay Area salaries and equity packages_
|
| Why? I'm arguing you can downsize the portfolio without
| sacrificing product quality for most users. That should let
| one get by with fewer engineers and/or ones in lower-cost
| areas.
| equestria wrote:
| Mozilla has ~700 employees just to keep an ailing browser
| on life support. Brave has ~250 employees, but they're
| building largely on Google's core engine, so they're
| getting a ton of engineering for free.
|
| Browsers are massive. I'm pretty sure the complexity is
| exceeding the complexity of the Linux kernel. You can
| pull off heroics with fewer people, but if you want to
| build a company that brings in revenue, has a security
| team and a privacy team... all of sudden, it's a pretty
| big enterprise.
| jonhohle wrote:
| That seems to work for Mozilla. It would be nice to see
| other revenue models, but that exists and having the most
| used browser as a search client should pay at least as good
| as whatever deal Mozilla and Apple get.
| equestria wrote:
| Sort of? Mozilla is not doing well. Further, the only
| reason Google is paying Mozilla is to keep a notional
| third-party competitor alive; search traffic from a
| sub-3% browser is not worth that much. If the Chrome deal
| goes through, there's really no business reason for
| Google to keep paying them.
| Wytwwww wrote:
| Presumably Google, Bing etc. would still be bidding to be
| the default search engine?
|
| Google is paying Apple $20 billion per year just for that
| so financing 1000 engineers (which is probably excessive, a
| few hundred + contributions from other companies using
| Chromium might be enough) shouldn't be too hard.
| pseudalopex wrote:
| Google paying to be the default search engine was ruled
| anti competitive.
| Wytwwww wrote:
| Was it? Or are they just being investigated over it?
| pseudalopex wrote:
| It was. The article's 2nd sentence mentioned the ruling
| and linked to more information.
| Wytwwww wrote:
| Yes technically, but the appeal process will likely drag
| on for years and the outcome isn't clear (now that
| Republicans are in charge they might just drop it before
| that happens anyway).
| legitster wrote:
| > They are also prepared to seek a requirement that Google
| share more information with advertisers and give them more
| control over where their ads appear.
|
| Seems like the DOJ is angling that Chrome should be spun off as
| an advertising platform of some kind.
|
| Seems so, so much worse.
| hilbert42 wrote:
| _" Who would possibly buy Chrome?"_
|
| This is illustrates the extent and magnitude of the problem to
| fix the internet. That regulators failed to give enough
| oversight of the internet and to regulate its monopolistic
| players several decades ago when these problems first became
| obvious has meant that they are now almost insurmountable.
|
| Ideally, Google would be forced to divest itself of Chrome and
| that Chrome would become an open source project a la Linux.
| Clearly, that's very unlikely to happen.
|
| For those who'd argue that Chrome would have no funding to
| further develop I'd respond by saying that it already works
| well as a browser and from observation that Google is
| channeling most of Chrome's development funds into anti-
| features that are hostile to users.
|
| As an open source project that level of funding would be no
| longer necessary and its future development could progress at a
| slower pace.
| liopleurodon wrote:
| may as well just discontinue it then and let Chromium take
| its place
| hilbert42 wrote:
| Yeah, but if Google were forced to divest Chrome then parts
| of its proprietary code would have to be open-sourced and
| integrated into Chromium to minimize disruption to users.
| Alternatively, Google would have to make its services more
| interoperable.
| blitzar wrote:
| Or bundle all the prop code and services into a plugin
| for chromium.
| sangnoir wrote:
| > Ideally, Google would be forced to divest itself of Chrome
| and that Chrome would become an open source project a la
| Linux. Clearly, that's very unlikely to happen.
|
| Chrome's upstream (Chromium) is _already_ open source. If
| Google is forbidden from sponsoring Chromium 's development,
| and that of its proprietary downstream distribution (Chrome)
| who's going to fund Chromium's development? Even if forced to
| divest, Google will always have an outsized sway on any open
| source browser due to the engineer-hours they can spend on
| contributions. If they are blocked from even that, then the
| whole exercise would be anti-consumer IMO.
| hilbert42 wrote:
| If Google were forced to divest itself of Chrome and there
| were no takers then Chromium would take on an altogether
| different perspective. That Chromium exists shows there's
| already an existing infrastructure that would make
| transitioning to it relatively straightforward.
|
| Incidentally, I don't use Chrome, only Chromium-based and
| Firefox-based browsers.
| wepple wrote:
| > That Chromium exists shows there's already an existing
| infrastructure that would make transitioning to it
| relatively straightforward.
|
| I think there's a very very substantial underlying
| infrastructure maintained and funded by google that would
| disappear. This isn't a GitHub project where you can
| clone and make install.
| hehehheh wrote:
| An internet tax could pay for it.
| Workaccount2 wrote:
| The fundamental core problem with the internet is that users
| have an innate feeling that they have a right to view content
| without being charged for it.
|
| Google's entire existence is predicated on the ad-model
| internet existing, and internet users have overwhelmingly
| voted for this model of internet over the last 30 years.
|
| People hate ads, but they hate opening their wallet even
| more.
| underlipton wrote:
| Much as many are loathe to admit it decommercialization of
| huge swathes of the internet is, in fact, possible. People
| can make and share things without a financial incentive,
| and if that means that we have to reckon with the
| dysfunctional nature of the status quo - millions of
| livelihoods dependent on the grace of a few
| megacorporations - maybe that's a good thing (in the long
| run). Or, I guess we can just let the Attention-Industrial
| complex swallow everything without a fight.
| kylehotchkiss wrote:
| IBM? Amazon (that sounds worse)
| Despegar wrote:
| No one should. It should get an IPO. Chrome will make a lot of
| money from Google, Bing, ChatGPT, etc by selling default
| search.
| bufferoverflow wrote:
| Who would like to own the #1 most popular browser in the world?
|
| How is that even a question. It's worth billions. User data,
| ability to inject ads, ability to drive the future of web and
| web-based apps.
| SirHumphrey wrote:
| It's an open source project that can be forked - especially
| when google is not behind it to protect the market share,
| with users that don't expect to pay and microsoft also
| involved with their own version.
|
| Currently it's probably worth bilingual because Google owns
| it. I expect it to rapidly lose value should that change.
| mrweasel wrote:
| Probably MicroFocus, they seem to buy everything and not do
| anything with it.
|
| There is no potential buyers for Chrome that are serious and
| trustworthy. Chrome is not a profit center. Mozilla can't make
| money on Firefox and seems to be losing interest in the
| project, probably for the same reason. There's no reason to
| think that anyone would buy Chrome, keep it freely available
| and make money on the product.
|
| Worst case is that some one will buy it, slap ads on it or turn
| it into a subscription service. Still I don't see that being
| enough to fund the Chromium/Blink development. While I do think
| the adding of features to the web could do with a slowdown,
| we're talking Internet Explorer 6 levels of stagnation if
| Chrome is sold of to the wrong entity.
| whiplash451 wrote:
| They don't have to sell it. They have to spin it off. Which
| means an independent company with a C suite, RSUs and a P&L.
|
| There's probably a number of talented people out there who
| would love to drive that truck.
| forgotoldacc wrote:
| If the pool they're looking at is "talented people" looking
| to run a company, it'll be someone who's currently the CEO of
| 7 other companies and successfully driven each of them into
| the ground for short term profits, unfortunately.
| niutech wrote:
| Maybe Opera would buy it?
| 0xmarcin wrote:
| Let's hope it won't be Oracle.
|
| ehm... jokes aside. I think a more reasonable way is to setup a
| foundation, composed of biggest players in tech, also companies
| like Google, Meta, Microsoft, Mozilla Foundation, Linux
| Foundation, Apple and EFF. The foundation should steer the
| further development of Chrome. In that way Chrome will be owned
| by community just like e.g. Linux Kernel or standards like C++
| lang spec.
|
| If Chrome would be bought by a private entity, that entity
| would probably start milking the current user base straight
| away. Expect adds in bookmarks bar, more address bar spyware
| (e.g. sending all phrases to the cloud) and paid extensions web
| store.
|
| The most used and advanced browser that we have today must stay
| open source. It is more than a program, it is part of global
| internet infrastructure. We should not destroy it by a foolish
| political decision.
| SirHumphrey wrote:
| I doubt Mozilla would like to be part of a foundation owning
| another browser.
| nl wrote:
| Oracle was the front-runner for buying TikTok last time they
| were under pressure to sell:
| https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-54148474
|
| They were the first company I thought of.
| slightwinder wrote:
| Mozilla exist standalone, even if technically it depends on
| Googles money. They do the same, push Chrome to a separate
| Company, independent of Google, but getting money from who ever
| pays them the most for integrations and search engine-
| placments. It would need some additional constraints, but could
| position it on a more fair situation where there is not this
| harmful lock-in to google-services, but instead support for all
| services & companies equally.
|
| Just reducing the direct influence from one company would
| already be beneficial for the market. And maybe Mozilla and
| other browser will get something out of it too.
| galkk wrote:
| > Who would possibly buy Chrome?
|
| Somehow I think that if they will decide to stay in their
| niche, Cloudflare might be a good fit for Chrome
| Ancalagon wrote:
| I'll buy it for $5, final offer.
| devnullbrain wrote:
| The argument that something is untouchable because it can't
| continue as a going concern without continuing user-hostile
| behaviours is unconvincing. It's not our fault Google chose
| this business model, just as it's not a coincidence Google made
| it difficult to break up and just distinct enough to be
| (supposedly, formerly) legally sound.
| 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
| Applejinx wrote:
| Dang it, I think we missed a chance for it to be bought by the
| Onion
| blibble wrote:
| Microsoft?
| mindslight wrote:
| _Facepalm_. So I guess this weak cookie cutter approach is what
| we get for the high water mark of opposition before the imminent
| corporate coup against constitutionally limited government.
|
| Splitting the surveillance giants into different vertical markets
| makes no sense at all, and this particular division illustrates
| it well. We might have had a chance if government, two decades
| ago, had worked towards creating new specific types of
| regulations that reflected what competition in the digital realm
| actually requires - for example prohibiting this now widespread
| _bundling_ of proprietary client software with hosted services,
| by mandating that hosted services must only be offered through
| 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?
| JadoJodo wrote:
| That's what the article for this thread is about...
| positr0n wrote:
| No the article is about Chrome, not Chromium
| JadoJodo wrote:
| But Google also effectively owns that, right? Or was that
| your question
| afavour wrote:
| In this scenario I'd much rather that heaping grant goes to a
| newly independent Chromium nonprofit org. Browser engine
| diversity is a good thing and worth trying to preserve.
| NewJazz wrote:
| Seriously the chromium project needs an endowment to sustain
| operations. Especially when you consider chromium OS too.
| Tepix wrote:
| Then instead of two browser engines we end up with one? That
| doesn't sound like a win.
| 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?
| DimuP wrote:
| Do that in a simulator and see how the world starts to tear
| apart
| exabrial wrote:
| I love every moment of it.
| 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?
| elmerfud wrote:
| But I don't see how that equates to a monopoly. They
| certainly have the ability to direct their development of
| their product in the way that they want. Since the core
| foundation of their product is open and available to every
| other competing browser they could implement better privacy
| protections while still leveraging all of the other benefits
| of Chrome.
|
| If the edge browser was so much better and much better
| privacy wise or the kiwi browser or any of the others the
| internet can move fairly quickly from one choice to another
| when that choice is better. For all the downsides that Chrome
| has I don't see anything that fits the term better for my use
| case. I'm also guessing that most other users also haven't
| found anything "better"
| freeone3000 wrote:
| It's horizontal tying.
|
| If Chrome was not owned by an ad company, the owners of
| chrome would push _for_ instead of _against_ privacy
| protections (see: firefox, safari).
|
| The browser monopoly, which Chrome sells at a loss, enables
| the ad company. This is the problem.
|
| Chromium does not get features Chrome does not need from
| Google. So anything against ads does not get upstreamed to
| Chromium.
|
| Chrome also is a major browser vendor, whereas kiwibrowser
| and opera are _not_ , which means the standards boards
| listen to them more. If those seats were not owned by an ad
| company, standards would likely be different.
| lxgr wrote:
| As much as I find Chrome's ownership and market share
| problematic, that doesn't seem fair.
|
| What exactly do things like WebUSB and Web Bluetooth
| contribute to Google's ad business?
|
| (Except if you mean that _any_ new and initially
| exclusive feature bolsters Chrome's dominance further, in
| which case I'd somewhat agree.)
| JimDabell wrote:
| > What exactly do things like WebUSB and Web Bluetooth
| contribute to Google's ad business?
|
| Google keeps proposing specifications like Web USB, Web
| Bluetooth, Web MIDI, Web Serial, etc., and both Mozilla
| and Apple keep shooting them down on privacy and security
| grounds. Meanwhile Google ignores the problems and builds
| them into Chrome anyway, and guess what happens? They
| start getting used to fingerprint and track people.
|
| Who knows, maybe it's just a coincidence that all of
| these technologies that advertisers can use to
| fingerprint and track people keep making their way into
| the browser owned by one of the world's largest ad
| companies.
| lxgr wrote:
| How would you use WebUSB or Web Bluetooth for device
| fingerprinting?
|
| HID, mass storage devices etc. are required to be
| filtered by implementations, and why would I grant a
| random news or social media site access to my MiniDisc
| player, Arduino board, Bluetooth thermometer/hygrometer
| etc. when it asks for it?
|
| The prompts are pretty scary/disruptive, and I've never
| seen any website actually try (unlike for e.g. web push
| notifications, which are fairly private but can be super
| annoying).
| JimDabell wrote:
| > why would I grant a random news or social media site
| access to my MiniDisc player, Arduino board, Bluetooth
| thermometer/hygrometer etc. when it asks for it?
|
| Part of the problem is that a vast number of users
| neither understand nor care about these prompts. They
| just click to make them go away.
|
| There's a few long discussions on the unsuitability of
| these specifications in the Mozilla standards positions
| repo:
|
| Web Bluetooth: https://github.com/mozilla/standards-
| positions/issues/95
|
| Web USB: https://github.com/mozilla/standards-
| positions/issues/100
|
| Web MIDI: https://github.com/mozilla/standards-
| positions/issues/58
|
| Web Serial: https://github.com/mozilla/standards-
| positions/issues/336
|
| Here's some Hacker News discussion about it:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23679063
| Scion9066 wrote:
| Or things like Web USB start getting used to provide
| useful features without needing to install whole apps,
| like mouse/keyboard dongle pairing, phone OS flashing,
| etc.
|
| As far as fingerprinting/tracking goes, I have never seen
| a random site prompt for these features, only apps where
| it makes sense.
| lxgr wrote:
| Same here, so I'm really not sure why you're getting
| downvoted. I'd be really curious to hear any examples of
| sites doing that!
| winterbloom wrote:
| "Chromium does not get features Chrome does not need from
| Google"
|
| What does this mean?
| duped wrote:
| The monopoly the DoJ is trying to break up isn't Chrome,
| it's Search. From TFA:
|
| > Antitrust enforcers want the judge to order Google to
| sell off Chrome -- the most widely used browser worldwide
| -- because it represents a key access point through which
| many people use its search engine, said the people.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _I don 't see how that equates to a monopoly_
|
| The monopoly is in ads. Google uses its control of Chrome
| to act uncompetitively in advertising.
| 3836293648 wrote:
| Monopolies aren't bad per se. Monopolies are bad because
| they allow you to abuse the market and consumers. If you
| can be similarly abusive without a full monopoly that's
| equally bad.
| hinkley wrote:
| Such as to track their every move and exploit or sell
| that data.
| devnullbrain wrote:
| >Since the core foundation of their product is open and
| available to every other competing browser they could
| implement better privacy protections while still leveraging
| all of the other benefits of Chrome.
|
| With what funding? Chrome loses money. Edge loses money.
| Safari loses money. Firefox loses Google's money. Brave
| loses VC money.
|
| Without some endless source of money, funding you for an
| ulterior motive, you can't compete with them. Which is why:
|
| >For all the downsides that Chrome has I don't see anything
| that fits the term better for my use case.
|
| The anti-competitive practices ensure there can't be
| effective competition.
| consumer451 wrote:
| Isn't it even worse than that? Didn't they make changes via
| Manifest v3, which will not allow me to follow the FBI's
| advisory about using ad blockers, to make sure their ad
| revenue does not decline?
|
| I do realize you can still use uBlock, but my understanding
| is that updates will be slow rolled, correct? Doesn't this
| open the window to malicious people to serve me mal-ads?
| hinkley wrote:
| M3 seems to be failing, but I agree that it matters that
| the tried.
| teractiveodular wrote:
| Quite the opposite, Google is the key sponsor of Privacy
| Sandbox: https://privacysandbox.com/intl/en_us/
|
| Working out _why_ they 're doing this is left as an exercise
| to the reader.
| kivle wrote:
| The whole reason for "privacy sandbox" is to still do user
| tracking, but do it in an anonymous way that they hope
| legislators won't go after. It's Google seeing the writing
| on the wall that legislation will soon ban third-party
| cookie tracking and fingerprinting and the like, so they
| need to be proactive and protect the ad tracking business.
|
| A better name for it would have been something like
| "anonymous user tracking / data collection", but "privacy
| sandbox" is probably a good marketing term to fuzz what
| it's really doing. To a normal user it makes it sounds like
| Google is doing something good and protecting them, while
| it's really just "please opt in to our new more anonymized
| tracking technology while still allowing us to track you".
| teractiveodular wrote:
| The _entire point_ of Privacy Sandbox is to get away from
| tracking individuals and allow ad targeting of anonymous
| cohorts (interest groups) instead.
|
| https://developers.google.com/privacy-sandbox/private-
| advert...
| jcranmer wrote:
| The root problem here is that users don't want any of
| these tracking alternatives. All of the other browsers
| have said "no thanks" to any of the alternatives, and
| already moved forward with blocking third-party cookies
| (the main vector for tracking). Chrome hasn't moved
| forward with this because their ability to still track
| you thanks you being logged into Google means that
| disadvantaging every ad provider paints a _massive_
| target on their backs for antitrust law (even more so
| than they already have). Hence their attempt to fix it by
| creating new vectors of tracking so they can get the
| privacy "win" of blocking third-party cookies.
| pawelmurias wrote:
| Blocking third-party cookies is a big privacy win.
| Getting untargeted ads is not something 99.9% of people
| care about and getting rid of actual real spying
| opportunities is great.
| hinkley wrote:
| We all know this is going to push tracking server side
| but at least that makes it expensive and dangerous for
| companies that run it. Cloud costs for the hardware, and
| having to run third party code on your servers, built by
| known creeps.
|
| But we should still make it harder on them.
| wbl wrote:
| Everyone else's ad revenue. The UK computing regulator is the
| main player here.
| jsnell wrote:
| No. They're not doing those changes because regulators like
| the DOJ[0] threatened them with anti-trust action if they
| did. That's the same DOJ that's now asking for Chrome to be
| divested.
|
| [0] https://www.engadget.com/google-antitrust-doj-cookies-
| privac...
| hinkley wrote:
| Uh. That was not my understanding of that situation.
|
| Blocking third party cookies this way still leaves Google's
| tools which people voluntarily install with access to data
| that now nobody else has access to.
| 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.
| elmerfud wrote:
| I do think you're rewriting history a bit here. Of course a
| Google advertised to their product but people didn't move to
| Chrome simply because of the advertisements. Chrome took hold
| because literally every other choice sucked and sucked hard.
| When you only have sucky choices you have to deal with them
| and they made something massively better than anything else
| at the time. Companies with buckets of money like Microsoft
| didn't innovate in this space and even when they saw what
| Google was doing with Chrome their ability to compete with it
| was laughable. Even when they finally switch to their edge
| browser because the Internet explorer name was so tainted
| with bad experiences they still suck in this space. Even with
| Bing and the billions of dollars they can throw at it they
| still suck in this space.
| nixass wrote:
| It took hold because it was a part of almost every popular
| piece of software installer back in the day, and enabled by
| default
| JoshTriplett wrote:
| I think it's a combination of both. There was absolutely a
| period where Chrome was faster, and Chrome still has a
| better security design. But Google _also_ pushed Chrome
| incredibly hard, including bundling it with other software
| as a checked-by-default box, and used _all_ the tactics to
| get it made the default browser and make it hard to switch,
| and advertised it on Google services for free, and made
| some features of Google products require it.
| robocat wrote:
| > Google also pushed Chrome incredibly hard
|
| To fight the Microsoft monopoly. And we are lucky that
| browsers (Firefox&Chrome&SafariMobile) won on the back of
| DOJ action against IE. We could all be using Windows
| applications and a few lucky rich have a Compaq iPaq
| phones: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=compaq+ipaq&iar=images&
| iax=images
|
| Without Chrome would we have got Safari on the iPhone? I
| also remember WAP (uggggh) pages before HTML. In the
| alternative universe DOJ is fighting their 10th lost
| cause against Microsoft (who keeps getting away with
| their evil ways).
| flir wrote:
| Nah, it was faster, lighter and better.
|
| I say this as someone who has been back on Firefox for years
| at this point.
| xnx wrote:
| > it was faster, lighter and better
|
| And more stable
| 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.
| cosmic_cheese wrote:
| Google also turns every link tap in their iOS apps into an
| opportunity to upsell Chrome for iOS when it should just open
| the link with the user's default browser.
| dwetterau wrote:
| I'm shocked that Apple hasn't cracked down on this process
| through App store reviews. It's such an awful experience.
| lxgr wrote:
| I'm not surprised, though. They're not exactly on the
| most solid ground with them preventing any engines other
| than their own WebKit for third-party browsers or even
| apps.
| robocat wrote:
| How else is Google supposed to "integrate" within iOS?
|
| Safari and Messages etcetera link to within the closed
| Apple ecosystem - just like Windows. It can be between
| difficult to impossible to send an email or create a
| calendar item unless you use the iOS apps.
|
| I'm definitely no Google fanboi but every answer being
| "Google are arseholes" feels dishonest.
|
| The Chromium developer team absolutely kick arse and being
| open source is a true gift. Mozilla is badly failing to
| compete. Microsoft failed to compete with their first Edge
| rewrite, and now ironicalky MS "competes" using Chromium
| open source.
|
| And why did Chromium have to split from WebKit? As an
| outsider it just looked like "because Apple don't want to
| play nice".
|
| The story is always simplified to Google greedy arseholes.
| A typical response: you can never ever ever satisfy open
| source proponents... The stereotype that every open source
| user greedily wants more.
| cosmic_cheese wrote:
| > How else is Google supposed to "integrate" within iOS?
|
| Like everybody else. If the user wants Chrome on iOS,
| they can install it and set it as their default browser.
| To link to other Google apps, Google can use Universal
| Links[0] to directly open Calendar, Sheets, etc or open
| the corresponding App Store page if they haven't been
| installed yet.
|
| Google forked WebKit because they wanted to take it in a
| direction that was fundamentally incompatible with the
| direction Apple wanted to go: Google wanted more core
| functionality (process management, etc) to be written as
| part of the browser (likely to serve as a moat) while
| Apple wanted all that to live within the engine itself so
| third party devs could take advantage of it without
| having to fork a whole browser (just drop WebKit into
| your app and go).
|
| [0]:
| https://developer.apple.com/documentation/xcode/allowing-
| app...
| robocat wrote:
| > Google forked WebKit
|
| Yes - working code that everybody uses now including a
| major competitor - Microsoft. Where's the alternative
| timeline with a WebKit browser on Windows? Oh, Apple
| killed v5.1.7 Safari on Windows in 2010 - their choice.
| Windows Safari had its issues but it was a great browser
| when it was released. Virtually nobody has chosen to base
| their browser on WebKit - and they choose not to for good
| reasons. Similarly why nobody forked Gecko - they didn't
| want that code.
|
| > without having to fork a whole browser (just drop
| WebKit into your app and go).
|
| But Apple failed at that goal - saying that WebKit works
| better as an engine is just not what happened in reality.
| WebKit was certainly a worse choice for open source
| engine on Windows back when Windows really mattered.
| Nobody used it.
|
| > likely to serve as a moat
|
| That is just making shit up. If Google wanted a moat then
| they could have built a moat. History has shown that the
| multiprocess design of Chromium was no moat. You might
| argue there are other moats - and that is what the DOJ
| seems to be arguing.
|
| Link to the reasons the Chromium team wrote:
| https://www.chromium.org/blink/developer-faq/
|
| Edit: I guess I would also like to link to a great
| response to "you must be the product":
| https://danfrank.ca/most-businesses-dont-work-that-way/
| and we should always refer to Spolsky's "comoditize your
| complement" https://gwern.net/complement
| cosmic_cheese wrote:
| WebKit never took off on Windows, true, but saying that
| it was a failure is a stretch. It's served Mac and iOS
| devs well in the past 22 years, both as a full-featured
| embeddable multiprocess webview and as the core of
| alternative browsers (OmniWeb in the past, Orion today).
|
| The reason I believe that moving functionality out of the
| engine into the browser serves as a moat is because it
| gives Google more power to exert its will on Chromium
| forks.
|
| If Blink were fully independent, third parties wouldn't
| be beholden to forking Chrome; they could just drop Blink
| into their bespoke UI. Google's decisions in Chrome would
| be entirely irrelevant to these third party devs. As
| things are now, forking Chrome is for practical purposes
| required if you want to use Blink, and diverging from
| mainline presents a risk -- the more divergent forks
| become, the more effort and developers it takes to keep
| up with patches. Few organizations have the kind of
| manpower required to move at the Chrome team's pace while
| also maintaining their own large sets of patches.
|
| This means that every decision in Chrome that forks
| disagree with adds more maintanence overhead, limiting
| the bulk of changes to those that are skin deep.
|
| Google may not have intended this effect from the outset
| but it's certainly realized the leverage it gives them in
| the time since.
| plorkyeran wrote:
| iOS has an option to set your default browser and mail
| client, and it works fine. There is nothing even vaguely
| difficult about sending an email or creating a calendar
| item without using the Apple apps. Google is in fact
| being an asshole by prompting every time if you want to
| ignore the default app and use chrome in the hopes that
| you'll finally accidentally hit it.
| robocat wrote:
| > default mail client
|
| Thanks - I never discovered that - sorry.
|
| > There is nothing even vaguely difficult about sending
| an email [] without using the Apple apps.
|
| While offline, I can attach a photo to an email with the
| Apple mail app and Q it to send later. However Gmail
| pauses or fails if slow connection. I've always assumed
| (perhaps unfairly) that was due to an iOS API issue - but
| perhaps the Gmail app is buggy?
|
| > or creating a calendar item without using the Apple
| apps.
|
| Not sure what I'm doing wrong then - I don't even have
| the Apple calendar app installed and somehow I hit
| problems.
|
| I guess I default to blaming Apple - over the last year I
| have found my iPhone to be unreasonably buggy. Or I could
| be emanating anti-tech radiation.
| cosmic_cheese wrote:
| > While offline, I can attach a photo to an email with
| the Apple mail app and Q it to send later. However Gmail
| pauses or fails if slow connection. I've always assumed
| (perhaps unfairly) that was due to an iOS API issue - but
| perhaps the Gmail app is buggy?
|
| This is most likely a Gmail issue. How apps behave on an
| unreliable connection is entirely up to the developer.
| elmerfud wrote:
| That is true in a valid point but install Windows sometimes
| and see how much it pushes you toward the edge browser. Which
| is chromium at its core but the experience it provides is not
| as good as Chrome even with all of Chrome's downsides.
|
| So while I don't have the specific answer I think there is a
| much bigger question here of is it free market choice that is
| gravitated everyone here or is it monopolistic pressure that
| is squeezed out the competition. Microsoft is no small player
| in this space they're just the suckier player as they lost
| their crown with Internet explorer when they effectively
| owned the market too.
| cmeacham98 wrote:
| > That is true in a valid point but install Windows
| sometimes and see how much it pushes you toward the edge
| browser.
|
| The difference here is that Microsoft's reputation is
| beyond ruined in this product category due to Internet
| Explorer.
| NewJazz wrote:
| It is not. Plenty of newcomers and old boomers won't even
| notice if you switch edge for chrome.
| elmerfud wrote:
| You're correct Microsoft ruined their own reputation with
| Internet explorer but does that mean when a company
| utterly fails with one of their products to the point
| that a competitor can come in and dominate the
| marketplace we should somehow automatically reward the
| one who failed.
|
| If it's really anti-competitive practices then I would
| agree but if it's just market forces then we should not
| reward those who've already mismanage their ability and
| their dominant market position to lose out in such a
| short period of time.
| leptons wrote:
| Chrome is definitely a better experience than Safari, and not
| by a little bit. In many ways Safari is the worst browser out
| there right now. Most of its market share comes from the fact
| that Apple still forces Safari to be used on iOS no matter
| what browser you think you have installed. I think the DOJ
| should go after Apple harder on that than they are on Google,
| because nobody is forcing anyone to use Chrome the same way
| Apple is forcing their users to use Safari.
| afavour wrote:
| I agree that the DOJ should enforce browser choice in iOS
| much like the EU has but in this scenario it feels besides
| the point. No matter how better or worse anyone might think
| Safari is it's my right to choose which browser I access a
| site with, and I'd rather not be harassed to change.
| leptons wrote:
| Apple forces you to use Safari because it's the least
| capable mobile browser, which pushes developers to
| develop iOS apps to use the device APIs that other
| browsers allow but Safari won't implement - this drives
| people to the 30% cash grab Apple gets from their app
| store, instead of using web applications that are
| possible on other browsers on other platforms. It's awful
| what Apple is doing with forcing Safari on iOS. To make
| it worse, there are plenty of Apple-only proprietary
| things about Safari that make buying their hardware a
| necessity to debug problems that only appear on Safari.
| Web developers hate Safari, it's now known as "the new
| IE" because it's so bad.
| afavour wrote:
| Like I said, I agree with you on all that. I develop
| mobile web sites, I'm very familiar with all this. I
| still choose to use Safari on my Mac, it should be my
| choice to make.
| cosmic_cheese wrote:
| Desktop Safari's ~15% market share, which exceeds Firefox's
| ~7%, suggests otherwise. Mac users can freely switch and
| yet many don't.
|
| There are likely several reasons for this but I think the
| two biggest ones are its differences in philosophy: first,
| that browsers should be just one utility among many on a
| desktop OS and not try to set itself apart and second, to
| actively combat the internet's hostilities on behalf of the
| user.
|
| Chrome will never do either. It tries to be a distinct
| brand and platform instead of meshing with your desktop
| nicely and it's not going to do anything that will
| negatively impact Google's many ad businesses.
| gerash wrote:
| I find Safari to be a fantastic product overall both on
| desktop and mobile but I have stuck to Chrome to keep my
| options open in future in case I want to use non-Apple
| hardware
| Wytwwww wrote:
| > still forces Safari to be used on iOS no matter what
| browser you think you have inst
|
| What's the difference whether Chrome is using WebKit or
| Blink from the perspective of most users? How would they
| notice that and why would they care?
| XorNot wrote:
| I genuinely have no idea what "missing features" or
| incompatibilities keep people on Chrome compared to the
| benefits of uBlock just plain working better on Firefox.
| bcye wrote:
| PWAs being entirely unsupported by Firefox for instance.
| quickslowdown wrote:
| This is the last big thing keeping me on Vivaldi (based on
| chromium). I do use those, and would most likely fully
| switch to Firefox when implemented.
| duped wrote:
| What things are only available as PWAs that are worth it?
| Like I know they exist, but I've never installed or used
| one.
| mdaniel wrote:
| "Only?" probably none
|
| However, recently there was a healthy thread about the
| massive trackers found in mobile apps[1] which wouldn't
| be a problem with PWAs since they live in the same
| sandbox as the browser (meaning no exfiltrating all the
| shit) but yet can one-click launch from the normal app
| mechanisms and (AFAIK) can be the subject of Intent
| handlers just like apps
|
| 1: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41923931
| crazygringo wrote:
| uBlock Origin Lite works perfectly fine for me on Chrome.
|
| Maybe there's some 0.01% of ads that would get blocked in the
| Firefox version that aren't in Chrome. But I don't see any
| regular users switching because they're noticing ads not
| getting blocked now.
| Sabinus wrote:
| That's just Google boiling the frog slowly.
| rpdillon wrote:
| One difference between lite and the full version is CNAME
| cloaking protection. The enforcement of Manifest V3 in
| Chrome opens up a gap in the ecosystem where analytics and
| advertising providers will increasingly use CNAME cloaking,
| since it can't be blocked from the world's most popular
| browser. And this is the world in which using Firefox with
| its support for Manifest V2 suddenly becomes quite a bit
| more attractive.
| crazygringo wrote:
| If CNAME cloaking takes off in a big way, then yes at
| that point I agree I could see people moving to Firefox.
| But for now that's not happening.
|
| Also, if that actually led significant numbers of people
| to leave Chrome, isn't that where we'd see "Manifest
| V3.1" or whatever that allows matching against CNAMEs?
|
| Chrome is pretty central to Google's strategy. If we
| assume that people who want to block ads will (by
| switching to Firefox when necessary), then it's in
| Google's interests for Chrome to support ad blocking. If
| they're not going to get ad revenue anyways, they'd still
| rather it be happening on Chrome.
|
| Also see a recent comment by a member of the Chrome team
| on why Manifest V3 was for performance reasons, not to
| cripple adblocking (I don't know if it's true, but it
| seems worth considering):
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41815861
| pseudalopex wrote:
| CNAME uncloaking was a difference between Firefox and all
| other browsers even before Manifest V3.
| rpdillon wrote:
| Thanks for pointing this out! I had mistakenly conflated
| it with the manifest V3 switch.
| Rohansi wrote:
| It works fine for now. As soon as Manifest V2 is officially
| gone you will certainly see an increase in ads. What ad
| company wouldn't take advantage of more limited ad blocking
| capabilities in the most popular web browser?
| noahbp wrote:
| Firefox still lacks webgpu support.
| wildrhythms wrote:
| Bookmarks, passwords, payment information, recent tabs,
| extensions... all synced with your Google account in Chrome.
| Firefox can't sync to your Google account. All that
| information is synced across the entire Google account
| system, to your Android phone, other Chrome browser instances
| and so on. Yes I know you could export your data from Google
| and pull it into Firefox's sync system, but that's a hurdle.
| NewJazz wrote:
| It is a hurdle to switch, yes.
|
| But everything you listed (apart from integrating with
| Google's servers) can be done with Firefox.
| elashri wrote:
| You can either use Mozilla accounts to do that for free
| and as easy as it is with Google accounts. Or if you are
| a power user and would like an adventure, you can
| selfhost sync and accounts servers yourself. Does chrome
| provide that ability?
| glenstein wrote:
| Right, I was confused by this comment. I actually don't
| think it's that hard to switch, tools to import your
| stuff across browsers have existed for a long time. It
| might be that Firefox isn't particularly polished on this
| front but I don't think it's outside the realm of
| achievable and I don't think the difficulty of switching
| is by any means a deal breaker.
| dom96 wrote:
| Why would you want all this stuff synced? The only thing I
| want out of that is passwords, but 1Password works just
| fine for that. In fact, I don't trust a browser to store my
| passwords securely.
| pseudalopex wrote:
| Would any answer satisfy you? People want bookmarks
| synced because they use the same bookmarks on different
| devices. Many trust Google to transmit their passwords
| securely and store their email securely. Why not store
| their passwords securely?
| XorNot wrote:
| This would be a relevant list, except no one I know who
| compulsively uses Chrome...uses any of that stuff at all.
|
| Google Meet is particularly Firefox hostile with
| camera/audio support, but I'm not sure how common it
| actually is.
| xnx wrote:
| > uBlock just plain working better on Firefox.
|
| In what way does uBlock work better on Firefox? I don't see
| any ads in Chrome. Ad block is more important to me than any
| browse. I use Kiwi on Android instead of Chrome, and would
| switch immediately on desktop if I saw ads.
| worble wrote:
| https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/uBlock-Origin-
| works-b...
| elashri wrote:
| This wiki page on uBlock origin repository is a direct
| answer to your question.
|
| https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/uBlock-Origin-
| works-b...
| nunez wrote:
| I use FF full-time but have to use Chromium for WebEx and
| Teams calls to avoid massive jank.
|
| I bought Ozlo Sleep buds recently. Really cool hardware that
| does exactly what they say they do. However, the device I
| read with at night runs Android 11 which is too old for their
| app (requires Android 12). I can configure and update the
| sleep buds through a browser with WebUSB...but only with
| Chrome.
| devnullbrain wrote:
| The only reason I keep a Chrome installation is for when I
| want seemless in-page translation. Firefox just added a
| version of this feature but, for some reason, didn't include
| the most important language for nerds: Japanese.
| throwawaythekey wrote:
| In the context of Google's ad business the fact that chrome is
| open source has little bearing. Chrome is both massively
| popular and also a loss leader designed to further entrench
| Google's ad monopoly. If Chrome were broken off then a
| competitor in the ads space like Meta could purchase the search
| traffic instead which would force Google's ad business to be
| more competitive.
| gerash wrote:
| Is Meta or Microsoft buying Chrome a good outcome?
| ForHackernews wrote:
| IMHO Microsoft yes, Meta no.
|
| Microsoft wouldn't have a the kind of vertically integrated
| monopoly where they control both the internet properties
| and the browser used to access them.
| throwawaythekey wrote:
| My ideal outcome would be something like:
|
| 1) Chrome is spun out as a standalone entity. Google would
| originally have full ownership but be forced to sell down
| over time.
|
| 2) Google buys the Chrome traffic at a fair price
|
| 3) Apple sells their traffic to someone else, potentially
| an AI search player (Meta??)
|
| 4) MSFT makes a new browser in response to Chrome going
| closed source
| Wytwwww wrote:
| > 4) MSFT makes a new browser in response to Chrome going
| closed source
|
| Why would they? They can just continue why Chromium/Edge.
| Presumably the new standalone entity be able to invest as
| much into Google or even MS.
| cheriot wrote:
| If Apple, Mozilla, and a stand alone Chrome sell search
| traffic at the fair market price and Google pays the
| highest price (because they have the best monetization)
| we're back where we started.
| alt227 wrote:
| > MSFT makes a new browser in response to Chrome going
| closed source
|
| Really? Another one after IE, Native Edge, and Chromium
| Edge? I dont think they really need another one.
| mrweasel wrote:
| Why would either of those two be allowed to buy Chrome.
| Meta is just as much an ad business and quasi-monopoly as
| Google is. Microsoft has already been in legal trouble over
| browsers and is actively trying to recreate Google ad
| empire.
|
| Governments are kinda stupid in these cases, but I think
| Google would be able to argue, if forced to sell, that
| neither of those two companies would improve the market
| situation.
|
| Sell it to Opera, except they're Chinese now. Jon
| Stephenson von Tetzchner, the co-founder of Opera and CEO
| of Vivaldi, should buy it, that would be a hilarious
| outcome.
| wbl wrote:
| Not really. If Chrome is forked they kill third party cookies
| and search ads remain king.
|
| Only search has high propensity to buy right there from the
| interaction. Third party and even meta don't have that.
| MisterBiggs wrote:
| I think the real issue is Google is able to use Chrome to push
| web standards in any direction they want.
| arebop wrote:
| The DOJ has renounced the consumer welfare standard
| [https://prospect.org/justice/2024-08-09-will-googles-
| monopol...].
| nobody9999 wrote:
| >The DOJ has renounced the consumer welfare standard
| [https://prospect.org/justice/2024-08-09-will-googles-
| monopol...].
|
| And, apparently, these guys[0] think that's a good thing.
|
| [0] https://law.stanford.edu/wp-
| content/uploads/2024/02/Publish_...
| Tepix wrote:
| I disagree. We get things in Chrome that is not in the
| consumer's interest simply because Google wants to get more
| data from its users and display more ads.
|
| If Chrome were to be separated from the Ad business, it would
| be beneficial for privacy.
| 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?
| kittikitti wrote:
| Chrome makes enormous sums of money through ads. Also, these
| companies pay fortunes for default settings like search engines
| and other backroom deals. Someone could buy Chrome and ask
| Microsoft for 30% of Bing's search revenue to be the default
| search engine and Microsoft would agree.
| wildrhythms wrote:
| What ads does Chrome make money from?
| richard_fey2 wrote:
| This makes sense, but it is made even more nonsensical by the
| fact that the DOJ is also separately saying traffic
| aquisition deals are anticompetitive as well.
| andrewflnr wrote:
| Google makes money from ads by having control of Chrome. I
| don't see how that would continue if it's spun out. I'm not
| aware of any ads in Chrome itself (but I've been using FF for
| years, so what do I know). And Chrome controlling the default
| search engine is exactly why they want it spun out from
| Google, so if the result was simply that it makes money by
| defaulting to a different search engine, that would be an
| absurd, pointless result.
| wmf wrote:
| Imagine if Google isn't allowed to pay Chrome Inc for
| traffic acquisition so Chrome changes the default search
| engine to Bing and now Bing is a monopoly because 90% of
| browsers default to Bing.
| andrewflnr wrote:
| > that would be an absurd, pointless result.
|
| Not saying it couldn't happen.
| geor9e wrote:
| Chrome has ads? Or do you just mean any browser that defaults
| omnibox searches to google.com? a.k.a. firefox, safari,
| opera, chrome, etc
| bogwog wrote:
| > Who would buy it
|
| If the decision drags on into the new administration, then the
| answer is probably Elon Musk.
| BadHumans wrote:
| This is good guess unfortunately. However, there are second
| order effects as we've seen with X that will drive people to
| Firefox so this could end up being a good thing.
| 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.
| eviks wrote:
| Users could switch from Google search at any moment, would you
| say search is not an actual asset to buy?
| aurareturn wrote:
| They can already do that.
|
| Chrome is funded by Google search.
|
| Why would anyone buy it without Google search?
| eviks wrote:
| Yes, they can, so it's not an asset???
|
| The answer to your question is simple - because you can get
| funded by Google to keep its search the default
| aurareturn wrote:
| But as many have said repeatedly here, people use Chrome
| BECAUSE it has Google's integrations. They choose to use
| Chrome because of Google. So why would anyone buy Chrome
| that is devoid of anything Google?
|
| Further more, why would Google pay money to Chrome's
| buyer if they can simply spin up another browser used
| open source Chromium (which Google maintains), and start
| marketing that?
| eviks wrote:
| On the main topic: do you see the the ability to leave
| does not not an asset make?
|
| The other things are also simple:
|
| Saying things repeatedly doesn't make them universally
| true.
|
| You don't need to buy anything, it can continue to be
| free, why did you make it up???
|
| Google would pay because they can't make another leader
| overnight. Also they might be banned from doing so.
| aurareturn wrote:
| So basically, you think:
|
| 1. Google must sell Chrome
|
| 2. Google must continue to pay the new buyer tens of
| billions for the right to be default engine
|
| 3. Google is disallowed from making a browser ever again
|
| 4. Google must abandon Chromium, and their engineers
| should stop contributing to Chromium because of #3
|
| I feel sorry for Google. The Biden administration is
| absolutely clueless on how tech works and the Trump
| administration will hate Google regardless.
| eviks wrote:
| Basically, I think you're making more stuff up to
| substitute for the lack of argument in the previous stuff
| you've made up, which isn't related to the main point.
|
| So, no, of course you guessed wrong again in your 1-4
| aurareturn wrote:
| On the main topic: do you see the the ability to leave
| does not not an asset make?
|
| This was your question right?
|
| I'd provide an argument if the question was more
| coherent.
| eviks wrote:
| How would you provide an argument with such a level of
| comprehension? There are 3 identical questions you
| ignored, if you can't comprehend the third one you could
| fall back to the first two, which are phrased a bit
| simpler.
|
| But that's enough of your trolling for me, goodbye
| aurareturn wrote:
| On the main topic: do you see the the ability to leave
| does not not an asset make?
|
| What does "not not" mean?
|
| Yikes.
| concinds wrote:
| It's actually dumber. Google can't "pay the new buyer
| tens of billions for the right to be default engine"
| either.
| aurareturn wrote:
| Which comes back to my original point, who the heck is
| going to buy Chrome?
| jiri wrote:
| User has to choose search engine once. During every install
| of Chrome I see forced selection of search engine.
| Shank wrote:
| This is most likely an EU special, because Chrome doesn't
| even remotely do that in the US or Japan.
| asadotzler wrote:
| The trademarks, the team, and the infrastructure. Mozilla spun
| out of Netscape exactly like that, with the trademarks, part of
| the team and part of the infra.
|
| The monetization is up to the spinoff or acquirer to figure
| out.
| andxor wrote:
| The team would dismantle pretty quickly once they stop
| receiving Google stock grants.
| devnullbrain wrote:
| For something supposedly valueless, Google are _really_
| interested in keeping it!
| 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.
| bsaul wrote:
| I think on the contrary, that the number of brilliant people
| being paid for doing nothing at google is what slows US down
| compared to china.
|
| Only monopoles like google can afford to burn so much cash. And
| that's a clear loss for the economy.
| phyzix5761 wrote:
| If they're "burning" money how is that a loss for the
| economy? They're spending the money on something; effectively
| stimulating the economy.
| Sabinus wrote:
| If the work you're doing isn't valuable then eventually
| economic reality will hit, the money will run out and the
| businesses from China that are actually disciplined and
| productive will take your market share.
| 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.
| oefrha wrote:
| Brave is not an independent browser, the majority of
| development comes for free through Chromium, funded by...
| Google. Firefox by Mozilla Corp survives on loads of cash
| from... Google.
|
| Whoever's going to pay for the acquisition _and_ the shit ton
| of ongoing development costs will have to milk it a lot harder
| than Google (unless the buyer is something like Microsoft, but
| what's the point then). A browser alone, especially the type
| people here champion, is a bad business.
| Spivak wrote:
| I think there's an implicit assumption here that Google _isn
| 't_ milking the browser for all it's worth. It isn't as if
| Google is footing the bill for all those ongoing costs for
| nothing. I think the argument that Chrome avoids some general
| badness because Google gets value from a purely strategic
| interest isn't without merit but even that value is captured
| eventually. Sure they'll probably sell their default search
| placement to Google for a pretty penny to sustain development
| just like Firefox but I consider that a strict improvement
| over the status quo because Google has less direct power over
| the new company.
| 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.
| niutech wrote:
| How about Servo and Ladybird?
| azinman2 wrote:
| Servo is dead but Mozilla is subsidized by Google. Ladybird
| is not a real serious contender but more a hobby project with
| effectively 0% market share.
| niutech wrote:
| Servo is revived: https://blogs.igalia.com/mrego/servo-
| revival-2023-2024/
| asadotzler wrote:
| Browsers simply require paying a few hundred very in demand
| engineers, and that's hardly impossible if Mozilla's been doing
| it for 20 years as a non-profit. How many software shops out
| there have 500 engineers? I'm guessing literal hundreds US
| companies have that today and wouldn't be surprised if someone
| could build something that scale in a couple years with the
| proper budget and leadership.
|
| But they won't have to build it, they'll just buy a chunk of
| Google's team with the Chrome trademarks and the chromium
| infrastructure and then scale back attempts to outpace the few
| other engine makers by piling on features only useful to an
| advertising monopoly and instead focus on the core feature set
| while raking in big bucks selling search and ad distribution to
| all the search and ad companies not named Google (and perhaps
| some even from Google too.)
| azinman2 wrote:
| Mozilla does it by getting Google to pay them a bunch of
| money, which itself is the subject of anti-trust
| investigations. That money could dry up if Google is forced
| to no longer fund Mozilla, and if that happens, they're
| screwed. It'll also mean others likely won't be able to pay
| either, which only leaves either buying software (who will
| pay for a browser?) or ads.
|
| Also note that Mozilla has been doing this a long time, and
| yet they're effectively irrelevant in market share now. So
| they've done a terrible job.
|
| Browsers are a specialized technology and skill set that
| isn't easily found, nor can you just throw any old SWE at the
| problem.
| citizenpaul wrote:
| A much better decision would have been to require them to fund
| some amount of the various open source competitors so there can
| be alternatives. Makes as much sense as forcing them to sell a
| thing that has no market.
|
| "Selling" off chrome is probably not even really possible in any
| reasonable business way.
| timbit42 wrote:
| It could be spun off into a separate company, or Microsoft
| could buy it seeing Edge uses the engine.
| afavour wrote:
| I don't really understand how this would work and the article
| doesn't really give me enough detail to know. But for me, Google
| abandoning their plans to disable third party cookies tells me
| everything I need to know: their ad business calls the shots and
| an ad company having monopoly over the browser market is an
| unequivocally bad thing.
|
| I just have no idea how we get from here to there. And let's be
| real, with Trump re-elected the chance of the DOJ following
| through with this is very low.
| techjamie wrote:
| Somewhere in a possible future, Trump hands Chrome to Elon and
| he makes X Browser.
|
| If this comes true, I take full responsibility for causing it.
| zb3 wrote:
| Chrome can't really be sold unless it'd mean Google is not
| allowed to maintain a fork of Chromium.
|
| While you can sell access to the existing installations (control
| over the update url), if Google continues to invest development
| into a fork (and just drops the information about it on Google
| frontpage) then that new fork will become defacto Chrome.
|
| EDIT: To clarify, the value of Chrome is not only the userbase,
| but also its placement in Google products and importantly, the
| development effort on a scale few can afford.
| NewJazz wrote:
| I think this would be a very unfair action to perform so late
| in the administration.
|
| Simply because the other two dominant personal computer OS
| vendors, Microsoft and Apple, will be allowed to maintain their
| browsers. The less entrenched company and younger company is
| getting singled out?
|
| If they had more time to build cases against the more
| entrenched Apple and MS, maybe I'd give them some benefit of
| the doubt. But we can't assume the next administration's
| antitrust policy will be consistent or even sensible.
| charliebwrites wrote:
| Plot Twist:
|
| Google sells Chrome, then immediately forks Chromium and starts a
| new "completely unrelated" browser with all the same features
| called "Magnesium"
| bongodongobob wrote:
| I'd be so excited if the did this and named it "Ultron".
| AnonMO wrote:
| Google Matte. chrome is out of fashion now.
| philistine wrote:
| With those rulings come conditions. Corporations under a
| judgement under monopoly practices can't do anything they want
| wily-nily. AT&T, for example, was forbidden from selling
| computers in 1956.
|
| https://economics.yale.edu/sites/default/files/how_antitrust...
| peutetre wrote:
| The actual plot twist will be Google transacts some business
| with Trump and the problem will be "solved".
| worldmerge wrote:
| So what would happen to Chromebooks?
| bsimpson wrote:
| There was an article from Android Authority today that said
| it's being rebased on Android.
| bilal4hmed wrote:
| https://www.androidauthority.com/chrome-os-becoming-
| android-...
|
| this is it ... chromeOS is dead
| xeonmc wrote:
| And heralding the year of the Linux Desktop!
| mjevans wrote:
| Spin off, maybe. Make it something more akin to The Linux
| Foundation where a consortium of vested interests donate time and
| resources. This should also include public funds as part of civic
| infrastructure and national defense funding. BTW, Mozilla really
| should be in such a bin too.
| lemoncookiechip wrote:
| I'm very confused. Chrome is just Chromium with Google's own
| Telemetry. Chromium is open and maintained primarily by Google.
|
| Sure, there's a userbase, but you need a business model to take
| advantage of it in the first place because the benefit was the
| Telemetry (Google's) and Google's Ecosystem.
|
| Also, the article specifically mentions Chrome, NOT Chromium
| (which again, is open), so what incentive would Google have to
| maintaining the project without their own version of it? Would
| they be bared from starting a new one? Would someone else take
| over Chromium? Who would have the resources to do such a thing
| other than say Microsoft who currently uses a Chromium browser?
|
| Why not just go for the jugular and separate Adsense from the
| rest of Alphabet? It's the main driving force in all their dark
| patterns for all other platforms (Youtube, Android, Chrome,
| Search...)
| leptons wrote:
| I'm worried about what happens to the Chrome extension store.
| If Google sells Chrome, then does that also mean the Chrome
| store? I guess it would have to. So not only does someone need
| to buy Chrome, they also have to operate the Chrome store too.
| I'm not sure this is going to work out well.
| throw_m239339 wrote:
| Forcing Google to sell their ad business would be the death of
| that company. After all, it's mostly an ad company...
| techjamie wrote:
| They would just have to go back to their original business
| model before they became an ad company when they ran third-
| party ads on Google search.
|
| Granted, that may not get them enough income at their current
| scale. They would definitely have to scale back _hard_ for
| that.
| Jensson wrote:
| They wouldn't need to do that, they would just need to sell
| the third party ads part they can still run their own first
| party ads on their own domains.
|
| Forcing Google to do that would just hurt other websites
| income, not Google.
| techjamie wrote:
| As much as I dislike thinking it, out of the realistic
| possibilities for who could buy it, Microsoft is probably among
| the more preferable. Their primary income isn't from
| advertising, at least. Most other big players would be even
| more likely to continue with Google's direction of killing ad
| blockers. MS, to their credit, has never shown interest in
| doing that.
| onlyrealcuzzo wrote:
| > Their primary income isn't from advertising, at least
|
| Surely they wouldn't auto-default Chrome to Bing and try to
| become an ad company.
|
| It's not like they're selling ads in the Start menu or
| anything...
| shepherdjerred wrote:
| MS gaining control of Chrome would be the worst timeline
| Wytwwww wrote:
| > Microsoft
|
| So we'd end up with even less competition? As flawed as Edge
| is it still somewhat new/innovative/different features that
| Chrome doesn't because MS has to try and compete with Google.
| almatabata wrote:
| > Also, the article specifically mentions Chrome, NOT Chromium
| (which again, is open), so what incentive would Google have to
| maintaining the project without their own version of it? Would
| they be bared from starting a new one?
|
| I wonder similarly if they are only selling the brand and the
| existing installation base. I do not see what is stopping them
| from just creating a chrome clone called Manganese and
| continuing.
|
| It would be an interesting experiment though to see if the
| google version will regain the same market share or if chrome
| will maintain its current market share under the new
| stewardship.
| eightys3v3n wrote:
| Interesting idea. I'm not against forcing Google to choose
| either all the user platforms they run or Adsense. If they sold
| off Google Drive, Suite, YouTube, Google Play, etc they might
| improve faster. At the very least it would drive more
| alternatives. That seems so unlikely though.
|
| Google kills all their other projects often enough that I don't
| think they are contributing to many spaces anymore so giving
| the technical assets to other companies would be interesting.
| jsnell wrote:
| > Why not just go for the jugular and separate Adsense from the
| rest of Alphabet? It's the main driving force in all their dark
| patterns for all other platforms (Youtube, Android, Chrome,
| Search...)
|
| Because this is not the case about display advertising, but the
| one about search engines and search advertising.
|
| But also, if you think the display ads business is the jugular,
| I don't think you really understand their business. Have a look
| at the financials. The entire display ads business is <10% of
| their business, and shrinking in both absolute and relative
| terms.
| philwelch wrote:
| Is this really going to happen in the next 62 days?
| jsnell wrote:
| No, of course not. The article has the timeline. Hearings in
| April 2025, decision in August 2025. (Followed by years of
| appeals, I'm sure.)
| philwelch wrote:
| In 62 days we will have a completely different Department of
| Justice that is unlikely to follow the current
| administration's approach to these issues, so I'm surprised
| that they're even bothering.
| jsnell wrote:
| This has to be the case of the lifetime to anyone at the
| DOJ that worked on it. Of course they want to see it to the
| end. And there's no reason to believe that the approach
| would be different.
|
| Like, who exactly in the new administration is a fan of
| Google? The Republicans have complained for years about a
| perceived bias. Trump vowed during the campaign that he'd
| prosecute Google if he won re-election.
|
| They'll absolutely continue driving that case, if nothing
| else to use as leverage to try to force Google into making
| pro-conservative algorithmic changes.
| philwelch wrote:
| My understanding is that this is based on a fairly novel
| antitrust theory that only exists inside the Biden
| administration. I expect the new DOJ to attack Google for
| entirely different reasons. But you might be right.
| phyzix5761 wrote:
| I'm reading this on a non Chrome browser and I can search for it
| on a non Google search engine. I don't understand where the
| monopoly is.
| jmpetroske wrote:
| You can look up details of the lawsuit, but the idea is that
| Google paying Apple to be the default search engine prevents
| other search engines from competing with Google search. The
| default search selection has been shown to be quite important.
| Anti-trust law is built around the idea of maintaining
| competition - "monopolies" aren't inherently illegal.
| phyzix5761 wrote:
| Every company does this though. They pay to be the exclusive
| or official XYZ of some company or event.
|
| For example, Bud Light being the official drink of the NFL.
|
| Or Coca-Cola being the exclusive drink that can be sold at
| the Olympics and many other sporting venues.
| BadHumans wrote:
| Bud Light has a 9.7% market share.
|
| Chrome has a 67% market share. You also missed the entire
| point of defaults being important.
| jmpetroske wrote:
| I'm summarizing, the details of the suit are widely
| available.
|
| Bud lights and coca colas activity isn't enough to suppress
| competition. Google's is, and the U.S. justice system
| clearly thinks so.
| asadotzler wrote:
| Every company isnt a monopoly under antitrust scrutiny.
| nfw2 wrote:
| I'm reading this on a non-Chrome browser based on Chromium, the
| project Google gave freely to the world that enables
| competitors to reach hundreds of millions of users
| daft_pink wrote:
| Are they going to request this only for Trump to unrequest this?
| moomin wrote:
| I have no idea how this would work either, but I feel like the
| election makes this more likely to happen, not less, after the
| amount of rhetoric that Google needs taking down a peg.
| linuxhansl wrote:
| Slightly off-topic:
|
| I am always baffled with the widespread use of Chrome.
|
| On all my machines (including work) I use Firefox. Even on
| Android I disabled Chrome, so that the feed will have to use
| Firefox.
|
| Chrome is neither faster nor more convenient than Firefox, so it
| is a bit of a mystery to me - I guess on Android it comes as the
| default.
| bongodongobob wrote:
| To the average person, all the browsers are exactly the same. I
| use Chrome, Edge, and Firefox at work at its all the same to me
| as well.
| asyx wrote:
| It is mostly better advertising compared to what Mozilla was
| pulling of, the initial edge in performance (at least that's
| what people said), integration with google for the android
| users (Firefox was late to this) as well as some issues if
| garbage websites didn't test on Firefox.
|
| Regarding features, things I'd miss include PWA, some APIs like
| WebUSB that let me flash microcontrollers in the browser and I
| think WebGPU is still only in Firefox nightly.
|
| Most of those things are very specific to what I do. Most
| people don't need PWAs. Most people have no need for WebUSB and
| most applications run on WebGL so that's mostly an issue for
| developers.
|
| It's not like Firefox is bad but I think Google just managed to
| capture the market and now the userbase doesn't have a good
| reason to switch to Firefox (most people don't think about
| privacy if it's not in their face. Very few people will have no
| passcode on their phone. But even less people will think twice
| before uploading the images of stranger's kids to Google Drive
| because they happened to be in the background when you made a
| photo of your own kids even though google has no reason to
| respect your privacy).
| IncreasePosts wrote:
| Maybe force of habit from years ago when Mozilla was the
| dominant non-default browser and chrome rolled in and ate their
| lunch by feeling so much faster.
| adamc wrote:
| There are a lot of pages that work better in Chrome than
| Firefox. I say that as someone who always defaults to Firefox.
| bigger_cheese wrote:
| Netflix was tipping point for me, at the time Chrome was only
| browser on Linux that let me watch Netflix.
| HL33tibCe7 wrote:
| This is terrible news for the web
| Sabinus wrote:
| Why?
| czhu12 wrote:
| Not sure how this works but if some party purchased chrome, isn't
| the best business for it to sell advertising back to google? And
| then sell the default search engine back to google?
| gerash wrote:
| Looking at this case and the recent case against SpaceX (which is
| required to only hire US permanent residents and citizens) for
| not hiring asylees, makes me think DOJ which has the bandwidth to
| only work on few very important cases isn't doing a good job
| overall.
| sleepybrett wrote:
| you hate to see it.. no wait. love it.
| iandanforth wrote:
| They could spin it off and then set up the same kind of pay-for-
| default-search deal that Mozilla has. This might put just enough
| distance between the two orgs to satisfy the DOJ without actually
| changing much.
| xnx wrote:
| It would be a shame if the DOJ forced this. Google has the
| resources to continue to pressure Apple to allow non-nerfed
| Chrome on iOS.
|
| That said, this might be my favorite of the DOJ remedies I've
| heard because it would probably do the least harm.
| elashri wrote:
| They had these alleged resources for almost two decades now.
| Did they manage to force Apple? Or do they give them two digit
| billions dollars for Google to be the default search engine on
| safari?
| 1970-01-01 wrote:
| ByteDance has lots of extra cash. I hope DOJ is prepared to stop
| this from completely backfiring on the public.
| legitster wrote:
| I'm all for competition and increasing consumer choices, but the
| government is really not making a case that this is supposed to
| help consumers.
|
| The only reason I still use Chrome is because I already use other
| Google products and they integrate well together. There are many
| other better options out there otherwise, and they are all free.
| Breaking out Chrome from Google will not in any way benefit me as
| a consumer.
|
| > The agency and the states have settled on recommending that
| Google be required to license the results and data from its
| popular search engine
|
| > They are also prepared to seek a requirement that Google share
| more information with advertisers and give them more control over
| where their ads appear.
|
| It sounds like the end goal of this is to _enrich other
| companies_ , not customers. And if the DOJ has their way, they
| want to crack open Google's vault of customer data and _propagate
| it across the internet_.
|
| Not only does this sound _extremely bad_ for consumers, the DOJ
| is trying to completely change Google 's business model and
| dictate how they are supposed to make money. Regardless of how
| you feel about Google, this seems like a far overreach from the
| DOJ on finding and fixing market manipulation.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _only reason I still use Chrome is because I already use
| other Google products and they integrate well together_
|
| This is the point. Google's products integrate with Chrome
| better than non-Google products. Including its ad platform.
| jascination wrote:
| 1) does it though? It seems like the Google-specific parts of
| it are pretty ancillary to the whole experience
|
| 2) how is it different to Apples integration with Safari?
| mplewis9z wrote:
| > how is it different to Apples integration with Safari?
|
| It's not, other than Google has a way larger market share
| (especially if you count Edge/Opera/Brave/etc.) and has
| been (ab)using that position to push web standards in a
| direction that favors their business and that other browser
| vendors have to follow to keep up.
|
| If Safari had Chrome's market share and was throwing their
| weight around like Google does and Microsoft did with IE,
| it'd be the same argument and I'd also personally support
| forcing them to divest it.
| legitster wrote:
| Safari is the #2 browser behind Chrome. It's about 55% to
| 30%, so while Chrome has a larger market share, it's not
| an order of magnitude larger.
|
| Really the main difference is that Apple has a captive
| audience on iOS and no incentives to improve so they
| don't do anything with it.
| ipaddr wrote:
| 18.5 for Safari 65% for chrome + 5% for edge = 70%
|
| It is a magnitude higher.
| graeme wrote:
| I think you mean order of magnitude, which means 10x.
| Magnitude just means size. Chrome's market share is not
| an order of magnitude higher than Safari.
| whiplash451 wrote:
| In the business world it is, because going from 18% to
| 65% market share is _much more_ than a 4X improvement.
| Market share progress is highly non-linear in cost
| /investment/strategy. There are network effects at play
| favoring a winner-takes-all.
| freedomben wrote:
| A (truly) clever argument! Def seems like a stretch
| though, especially if you're hoping to save GP's comment
| by suggesting that this is what they had in mind :-)
| diffeomorphism wrote:
| No, that might be the word origin but not how it is
| actually used. Just like "decimate" nowadays does not
| require a factor 10.
|
| So instead of "10x" substitute "by a large enough factor
| or margin to make a significant difference". That is
| totally true globally speaking. Locally, in the US, you
| could however argue that apple abuses it's iPhone market
| share to sabotage competition (e.g. streaming,
| webstandards,etc). That just means you should sue both
| not neither.
| watt wrote:
| Decimate used to mean 10% less (1 out of ten gone),
| nowadays folks mean 90% or about so less (9 out of ten
| gone).
| dismalaf wrote:
| Nothing more evil than pushing standards and even sharing
| the source code. How dare they...
| kaba0 wrote:
| So why are those standards impossible to keep up with and
| we already see plenty of sites break under Firefox? Which
| by the way is the only independent browser remaining in
| game, even goddamn Microsoft leaving the domain behind?
| pitkali wrote:
| Because development costs money. Your "impossible to keep
| up" here is easily explained by Google simply investing
| more money in development and thus being able to
| "innovate" faster. The only way to compete is to invest
| more, but where do you get that money from?
|
| The easy fix is to make them slow down development, but I
| fail to see how that's a good thing.
| kaba0 wrote:
| Sure. Continuing my analogy to the British empire's rule
| over the seas has also surely resulted in technological
| improvements, but that is not the only way to achieve
| that.
|
| For a more practical example, Linux is also developed
| mostly by paid employees, but they are from many
| different companies and thus improvements can't be
| weaponized as easily.
| dismalaf wrote:
| Maybe if Mozilla spent more money on development and less
| money trying to be an NGO they could keep up... Mozilla
| gets more than enough revenue (from Google ironically),
| they just spend it poorly.
|
| Or they could do what Brave, Vivaldi and others do and
| simply use Chromium as a base.
| rc_mob wrote:
| As a long time FF user what is one website that breaks on
| FF?
|
| my ad-blockers ruin plenty of websites. never met a site
| that was broken due to FF itself.
| mulmen wrote:
| I see them all the time on internal websites. Corporate
| frontend devs favor Chrome and those sites aren't
| automatically tested.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _how is it different to Apples integration with Safari?_
|
| Apple hasn't been found to have a monopoly like Google has
| [1].
|
| [1] https://apnews.com/article/google-antitrust-search-
| engine-ve...
| gnabgib wrote:
| _Found to be_ is doing far too much work given the DOJ
| lawsuit that it has a monopoly (2546 points, 8 months
| ago, 2623 comments)
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39778999
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| Right. DoJ sued Google and a judge agreed. That's a big
| difference.
| ivewonyoung wrote:
| Google is a _convicted_ monopolist.
| dismalaf wrote:
| The DOJ is weird. They're so concerned with whether or
| not a company is a monopoly, not whether or not they're
| abusing their power.
|
| Look at the EU, levying multiple billion dollar fines
| against Apple. But in the US, Apple is free to abuse
| customers since their market share is a few % short of a
| monopoly...
| matwood wrote:
| I mentioned elsewhere, but the EU wrote an entirely new
| law to designate some companies as 'gate keepers'. A
| company no longer has to be a monopoly in the EU to fall
| under the new law. The DoJ is operating under US law
| where Apple has largely come out unscathed in any cases
| brought so far (like Epic).
|
| So far the US has had little desire to regulate big tech
| in any significant manner.
| dismalaf wrote:
| The EU laws make sense. If you buy something in the EU,
| you own it. You should be able to do what you want with
| it. They also have great laws to protect consumers WRT
| warranties and service and even their AI law is pretty
| good.
| itake wrote:
| 2) consumers cannot use products like Safari as their
| exclusive web browser. The web has decided that Chrome is
| the only browser worth supporting and the world needs to
| keep Chrome at-the-ready for when the alternative browser
| eventually breaks.
|
| For example, Chrome has replaced IE as the corporate
| browser, due to the integrations with Workspace accounts
| and Authentication mechanisms. In order to use the fingerID
| on my/employer's macbook pro, I have to give my employer
| root/sync access to Google Chrome.
| hilbert42 wrote:
| _" The web has decided that Chrome is the only browser
| worth supporting..."_
|
| That only tells me that governments can no longer leave
| technical aspects of the internet (standards/APIs, etc.)
| to market forces. There are many historical precedents
| for such action such as flight/aircraft, RF spectrum
| management, road and maritime regulations, health/food
| standards, etc. There's a myriad of them.
|
| Regulations would enforce interoperability and
| uniformity. To say this would stifle innovation is
| nonsense, it would be like saying that road rules and
| maritime law have stifled the development of motor
| vehicles and shipbuilding.
| tssva wrote:
| I use Safari as my exclusive web browser without issue.
| chgs wrote:
| I use Firefox, same result.
| kaba0 wrote:
| Try using a miro board. Unfortunately many sites have
| started breaking under Firefox, and it's a shame that web
| devs don't test under the 3 remaining browser, at least
| on a surface-level, before release.
|
| It's not like supporting a completely different OS..
| muffwiggler wrote:
| > For example, Chrome has replaced IE as the corporate
| browser
|
| Strange, thought it was Edge, as it integrates with MS
| products much better. Must be an US thing then.
| defrost wrote:
| Edge is a custom Chrome, much as Opera is custom Chrome,
| much as ..
|
| Although Edge _is_ Chrome _plus_ OS search & telemetry
| integration so there's extra over and above just
| browsing.
| mcint wrote:
| re: 1) logging into a Google domain in a chrome browser,
| logs the browser into the Google account [auto-profile-
| login] [gSignin], and by default, syncs browser history to
| the cloud, cloud-readable [gSync]. Google's own docs
| describe that you can add a passphrase "so Google can't
| read it". While Google can read it, they have an arguable
| duty to shareholders to read it.
|
| - [auto-profile-login]:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26200298
|
| - [gSignin]:
| https://support.google.com/chrome/answer/185277
|
| - [gSync]:
| https://support.google.com/chrome/answer/165139?hl=en
|
| > Keep your info private with a passphrase With a
| passphrase, you can use Google's cloud to store and sync
| your Chrome data without letting Google read it.
|
| Thank you appealing to reasonable expectations, but Google,
| as their own docs make clear, ties uses together quite
| aggressively^W conveniently.
|
| 2) Whatabout Apple and Safari? Apple doesn't offer an email
| service supported in part by scanning email content for
| ads.
|
| Apple has gone to some lengths to engineer a system where
| they can credibly(-ish) claim to "protect your privacy when
| you browse the web in Safari," [Apple private relay].
|
| - [Apple private relay]: https://support.apple.com/en-
| us/102602
|
| Google re-engineers their browser to prevent ad-blockers
| from working.
| chipdart wrote:
| > 1) does it though? It seems like the Google-specific
| parts of it are pretty ancillary to the whole experience
|
| You're unwittingly describing the textbook definition of
| anticompetitive practices only made possible by abusing a
| dominant position.
|
| > 2) how is it different to Apples integration with Safari?
|
| Safari does not represent >65% of all web traffic. Also,
| there's the major liability of having a single ad company
| controlling the browser that the average internet user uses
| to browse the web.
| Pufferbo wrote:
| You literally can't use your mouse to copy/paste in
| google docs if you're using Firefox. If that isn't
| anticompetitive, I don't know what is.
| freedomben wrote:
| As a firefox user, that copy/paste drives me insane, but
| I think you're making a logic leap here along with
| assuming the worst. It's very possible (and likely) that
| there are API deficiencies that break their ability to
| offer this when overriding the right-click menu. For
| example, Firefox not allowing javascript in random tabs
| from writing to the system clipboard.
|
| You can still use Ctrl+C / Ctrl+V (and in fact the UI
| will (or at least used to) tell you that).
| sailfast wrote:
| It's funny how many "unsupported" browser features
| suddenly start working if you happen to change your User
| Agent header...
| swiftcoder wrote:
| > 2) how is it different to Apples integration with Safari?
|
| It's only different in the share of the overall market they
| hold - and it's notable that the EU has already acted to
| break Apple's monopoly over specifically the iOS browser
| market.
| matwood wrote:
| The EU wrote an entirely new law that designated
| companies like Apple as 'gate keepers'.
| swiftcoder wrote:
| Yeah, and the effectiveness of the enforcement still
| remains to be seen - Apple is sure making every effort
| possible to adhere to the letter rather than the spirit
| of the law, and to isolate any changes they make
| exclusively to the EU. But I think it's a positive signal
| that we might see the decline of the big platform
| monopolies in our lifetime.
| graeme wrote:
| But where is the consumer benefit?
| michaelt wrote:
| Much better privacy protection and ad blocking.
|
| There's really no rational reason for third-party cookies
| to still exist. The only reason they're still around is
| because an advertising company's browser has like 97%
| market share.
| Arainach wrote:
| The same cookies that Google tried to eliminate but
| couldn't get traction from anyone else?
| dmix wrote:
| Which in itself shows 3rd party Cookies will only
| marginally make the internet more privacy friendly.
|
| That would have been nice in 2014 but in 2024 the big ad
| industry is ready.
|
| The only ones who will hurt the most are the ones without
| tie ins to authentication systems like Google auth or FB
| auth or apple ID etc.
|
| Although I'm sure theres plenty of mega databases which
| don't need overt auths to ID a user. And contextual ads
| work just fine.
| pseudalopex wrote:
| Google tried to replace 3rd party cookies with new
| tracking. Other browsers blocked or isolated 3rd party
| cookies without new tracking.
| graeme wrote:
| >Much better privacy protection and ad blocking.
|
| The order doesn't mandate that. It mandates google SELL
| the data it has collected on people to third parties.
|
| There are also privacy focussed, ad blocking focussed
| alternatives trivially available on the market....and
| people are not choosing them.
|
| Any company which buys Chrome (Microsoft?) will have just
| as strong an incentive as Google to track people and run
| ads.
|
| FWIW, Chrome has a 66% market share:
| https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share
|
| ======
|
| Disliking a company doesn't justify any arbitrary policy
| against that company
| N19PEDL2 wrote:
| > Microsoft?
|
| It already owns Edge. I would rather bet on Meta or
| Amazon.
| mupuff1234 wrote:
| I'm gonna place a wild bet on Musk.
|
| There's no way Meta or Amazon will (/should) be allowed
| to buy chrome.
| MikeHolman wrote:
| I think Meta would make the most sense. Funnel people to
| facebook, instagram, etc. Get all that juicy tracking
| data and boost additional ad revenue.
|
| Doesn't really seem like much of a win for consumers
| though... it's just trading one personal data hungry
| megacorp for another.
| rtpg wrote:
| consumer benefit is not the end all of antitrust.
| cratermoon wrote:
| It has been since the Reagan era, but before that
| antitrust law had teeth
| graeme wrote:
| This is from the DOJ's page on the Clayton Act, where
| they give two statements of purpose for the antitrust
| law.
|
| >This law aims to promote fair competition and prevent
| unfair business practices that could harm consumers. It
| prohibits certain actions that might restrict
| competition, like tying agreements, predatory pricing,
| and mergers that could lessen competition.
|
| >The Antitrust Division enforces federal antitrust and
| competition laws. These laws prohibit anticompetitive
| conduct and mergers that deprive American consumers,
| taxpayers, and workers of the benefits of competition.
|
| Both are aimed squarely at consumer benefit. Restrictions
| on anticompetitive behaviour and mergers *where those
| things impact consumer benefit.*.
|
| Mergers and actions against competitors are obviously
| allowed in the normal course of business.
|
| Lots of people have other ideas about what kind of
| antitrust law they'd like to see, but such a law has not
| passed the US Congress.
|
| https://www.justice.gov/atr/antitrust-laws-and-
| you#:~:text=T....
| rtpg wrote:
| The second one points to taxpayers and workers as well.
| This is especially important when it comes to antitrust
| action regarding workers rights. Actions which could lead
| to worse consumer experiences (at least if you consider
| price to be the end all)
|
| "Taxpayers" is an extremely broad category as well,
| though you need an appetite for it to argue through that
| clause.
|
| Though I think you can easily make a consumer argument
| for Chrome being unbundled (competition for Chromes
| default search engine pick)
| sdenton4 wrote:
| ...and competition is going so well in the browser
| market. The dedicated browser businesses (mozilla, opera,
| etc) are all tiny and/or struggling mightily. _All_ of
| the biggest browsers are side-projects of larger tech
| firms.
|
| Monetizing browsers requires either subscriptions or
| (further) enshittification of the web experience. Forcing
| /market/ competition into the space will not be great for
| consumers, IMO.
| rtpg wrote:
| Perhaps the fact that large companies can subsidize their
| browser operations through their huge war chest and large
| presence on the web or in the operating system space is
| indicative of them using market power to crowd out
| competition and make paid offerings less sustainable!
|
| Perhaps some antitrust action would help with this.
| RandomThoughts3 wrote:
| > prevent unfair business practices that _could_ harm
| consumers. It prohibits certain _actions that might
| restrict competition_ , like tying agreements
|
| So, it's plainly written - ations don't have to actually
| harm consumers, the fact they could do so is enough - and
| the key criteria is that they might restrict competition.
| pianom4n wrote:
| It literally is
| PittleyDunkin wrote:
| What would you say is the end all of antitrust if not
| consumer benefit?
| diffeomorphism wrote:
| About seven different things. The whole
| oversimplification that it has to be one single thing has
| been a drift in policy (over a few decades) in
| combination with trying to rewrite history books. The
| fact that you are even asking the question that way shows
| how successful that rewriting was.
| o999 wrote:
| Wouldn't consumer like it if they could use Google services
| on any browser with the same experience without having to
| give up other browsers? I use firefox mainly but I have to
| use Chrome when I use Google Meet because Google provide
| more features and better performance when you are on Chrome
| (intentionally, not because of other browsers limitations)
| makeitdouble wrote:
| More future competition and innovation.
| mupuff1234 wrote:
| In what? How to extract more personal information from
| the consumer and sell more ads?
| chaxor wrote:
| Perhaps if chrome finally fails people will move to better
| things, like servo https://github.com/servo/servo.
|
| It would be nice to have a completely open source browser
| that can be built with a simple one liner from cargo.
| Having several thousands of eyes on the code daily to check
| for telemetry violations, privacy issues, security, and
| performance daily in mostly a single language, small, and
| well structured browser repo would be phenomenal compared
| to the disjoint jumbled messes we have today.
| melodyogonna wrote:
| Better for who? I use Chrome because the experience has
| been the best for me.
| chaxor wrote:
| As indicated by the explanation, better for people who
| believe in FOSS rather than closed corporate software.
|
| Most developers work with a Unix mindset (do one thing
| well, with focus on simple and easily managed code),
| which tyically means telemetry is _wildly_ out of line
| (offers no real benefit for the basics while adding huge
| complexity), so privacy and security are naturally far
| better. Lynx like TUI browsers are a nice idea, but
| unfortunately sometimes an image is desired to be
| manually viewed, or javascript is required. It would be
| wonderful if javascript were simply dropped from most
| websites, but we don't live in that world, so we're stuck
| with the next best thing (disabling all js until
| explicitly allowed by the user).
|
| These are the types of things people in software devs
| typically care about, which there are many in HN.
| mulmen wrote:
| Best of what's available. There's no way to know what
| innovations were squashed by Google's dominance of the
| browser market.
| mulmen wrote:
| Innovation. Google has no competition and so has no
| incentive to innovate for consumer benefit.
| cmrdporcupine wrote:
| Out of all the parts of Google that take advantage of
| integration to pump up ad revenues, I'd say Chrome is the
| least of them?
|
| If we're serious about this, separate search and ads. Force
| ads-Google to pay search-Google for data on the open market,
| and let other people pay for the same data, make it
| transparent, and let consumers see exactly what's happening.
|
| While we're at it, separate Google's display ad network from
| its RTB facilities, basically carving DoubleClick back out
| again.
|
| Then watch the stock tumble.
| wrsh07 wrote:
| I'm failing to see why "this product we built from the ground
| up integrates better with our other tools" is an anti trust
| problem
|
| Isn't that what we want companies to do?
|
| I have two frustrations with this kind of decision:
|
| 1. It's not clear to me that the judge has any interest in
| creating value. 2. It does feel a bit like being punished for
| success.
|
| It's one thing when it's ill-gotten success, eg via coercive
| contracts (like Android has with play services), and we
| should aggressively deal with that sort of contract! However,
| what often seems to happen in these types of cases is the
| judge identifies a behavior they dislike and bans it without
| really considering more targeting / surgical treatments
| EMIRELADERO wrote:
| > It sounds like the end goal of this is to _enrich other
| companies_ , not customers.
|
| In this case, the "customers" _are other companies._
|
| Antitrust markets can be defined broadly or narrowly. In this
| case, the market was "general web search advertising" (among
| others).
|
| Who are the consumers in this market? People and companies that
| want their ads placed where (and to who) it matters.
| philistine wrote:
| Exactly. Everybody thinks _they 're_ the consumer, but often
| times consumers are other companies.
| xeonmc wrote:
| They may think they are consumers, but most often they are
| the consumables.
| crabmusket wrote:
| The thing I keep coming back to is that everyone needs a
| job. So unless we all go to work for Google, things that
| help other companies help the employees of other companies.
| jedberg wrote:
| It would be great for consumers. Google would be forced to make
| their products work just as well with other browsers as it does
| with their own.
|
| I only use Chrome to interact with Google properties. I'd love
| to use Firefox for everything.
| ozyschmozy wrote:
| I see a lot of people saying Google services don't work well
| on other browsers. Can someone give an example? I've been
| using Firefox desktop and mobile for a year and haven't had
| any issues with Google stuff. At least YouTube, drive, docs,
| sheets, etc. seem to work just fine
| rdedev wrote:
| I have random loading issues when I try to play something
| on the YouTube shorts page. The audio would play but not
| the video. Refreshing the page sometimes fixed this
| alt227 wrote:
| In google docs if you highlight some text and right click
| there are options for copy and paste. If you click them in
| chrome it works fine, if you click them in Firefox it says:
|
| "These actions are unavailable using the Edit menus, but
| you can still use: Ctrl+C - for copy, Ctrl+X - for cut,
| Ctrl+V - for paste"
|
| So for some reason some functions are just not present in
| other browsers. I can guarantee they could implement these
| functions if they wanted to.
| crabmusket wrote:
| Oh I didn't even clock that that was a Firefox thing.
|
| Could it be due to Firefox not supporting the clipboard
| APIs until quite recently?
|
| https://developer.mozilla.org/en-
| US/docs/Web/API/Clipboard_A...
| lxgr wrote:
| > There are many other better options out there otherwise, and
| they are all free.
|
| For how long, though?
|
| The trajectory for Firefox doesn't look good at all (and it's
| completely dependent on Google too).
|
| Apple are doing their share of anticompetitive shenanigans with
| Safari on iOS, although the other way around.
|
| Everything else is based on Chromium and therefore not
| contributing to any heterogeneity of implementations.
| DiggyJohnson wrote:
| Can anyone think of a hero to save us?
| password4321 wrote:
| _Ladybird Web Browser becomes a non-profit with $1M from
| GitHub Founder_
|
| 20240701 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40856791
| DiggyJohnson wrote:
| Precisely. Thank you for affirming that setup aha
| alternatex wrote:
| Maybe Zen Browser as an alternative to Firefox.
| chaxor wrote:
| https://github.com/servo/servo
|
| Servo is upcoming, but so far it is fantastic in comparison
| to any other browser out there.
|
| I tend to focus on any software that does not require 12
| teams of people 6 weeks to determine how to build a single
| binary because of the use of 20 different programming
| languages and mixing and matching of paradigms and
| solutions to subconponents. I very much appreciate
| simplicity and look for highly secure and private programs
| that highly discourage JavaScript from ever being run.
|
| Servo is finally a breath of fresh air in that regard.
| tombert wrote:
| Interesting, until today I had assumed that Servo was
| basically dead and that most of the interesting bits had
| been integrated into Firefox. I'll give Servo a try and
| see if I like it.
| avtolik wrote:
| > The trajectory for Firefox doesn't look good at all (and
| it's completely dependent on Google too).
|
| Can you elaborate on this? I am using Firefox since it was
| released, and it is getting better, not worse.
| dtech wrote:
| It's market share has been slowly trending downward since
| forever
| alt227 wrote:
| They keep firing large chunks of their employees due to not
| much cash, and the majority of their funding comes from
| google which it is phasing out over time.
| warkdarrior wrote:
| Once Chrome is spun out of Google and Firefox loses its
| Google sponsorship, Firefox and Chrome will be able to
| complete for $$$ on an equal basis -- maybe by charging
| for the browser software, or selling a subscription, or
| selling user data to companies, etc.
| niutech wrote:
| Not everything else is based on Chromium - see: Epiphany,
| Servo, Ladybird.
| UncleMeat wrote:
| For years people have complained "ugh Google is selling your
| data, how awful" and here is the government seeking to
| _mandate_ that Google sell your data! There 's no way that this
| is the right remedy.
| nielsbot wrote:
| How so?
| dismalaf wrote:
| Considering Chrome is just Chromium + a lil telemetry,
| forcing them to sell Chrome is akin to forcing them to sell
| consumer data. The Chromium bits are OSS, so the only
| proprietary and sellable bit is the user data really.
| st3fan wrote:
| > The only reason I still use Chrome is because I already use
| other Google products and they integrate well together.
|
| And that is exactly why Chrome should be broken up/out. It is
| unfair competition. And you say there are many other well
| working options out there but that is simply not true. Googles
| web applications work best on Chrome and often break on non
| Chrome browsers. Mostly because of changes to those web
| applications and not because of random browser bugs. This is
| how you win people over and complete your browser world
| domination.
| hilbert42 wrote:
| _" And that is exactly why Chrome should be broken up/out."_
|
| Exactly, we saw this with MS's IE 2--3 decades ago. That
| governments didn't learn from this and let it repeat with
| Chrome is so damn annoying.
| gnabgib wrote:
| Ah three decades ago, a year before Internet Explorer was
| released[0], and 7 months after Netscape was released[1],
| easy to correct in hindsight.
|
| Two decades ago IE6 was already 3yo, Safari 1 was 1yo, and
| it would take 4 years for Chrome to drop[2].
|
| [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Explorer [1]:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netscape [2]:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Chrome
| The_Colonel wrote:
| What a useless comment.
|
| When you use decades, it is implied that the precision is
| rough, interpreting it as exactly 30 years ago is just
| bad faith.
|
| OP is correct - in the timespan between 2 and 3 decades
| ago, MS / IE implemented its full range of anti-
| competitive practices and at least partially through them
| became even more dominant than Chrome is today.
| linuxftw wrote:
| I think the circumstances were quite different. MS was an
| entrenched player when they created IE/started
| monopolizing. Google was not an entrenched player. They
| rose to monopoly power.
| wrsh07 wrote:
| Do we really still think operating systems shouldn't ship
| with browsers??
|
| I thought that one had been retroactively deemed a pretty
| silly decision
| hilbert42 wrote:
| Well I certainly don't, but clearly MS, Google and others
| think the exact opposite.
|
| No points for guessing why as it's damn obvious.
| r00fus wrote:
| There are lots of MSFTers who now work for Google. They
| just relocated from the Microsoft office in Palo Alto to
| the Google one down the road.
|
| Same people = same mistakes.
| lodovic wrote:
| Browsing the internet hasn't really changed during the last
| 15 years or so. I hope that this will enable development of
| totally new browsers or even completely different ways to use
| the internet.
| Onavo wrote:
| Realistically nothing is going to happen. The incoming admin
| has made clear their distaste for Lina Khan. In other words,
| this is just an attempt at a swan song by the Biden White
| House.
| graeme wrote:
| This Trump admin lawsuit began this lawsuit, and Trump
| previously expressed distaste for Google. Things may change
| but they may not
| animex wrote:
| By that same logic, Safari is the #1 browser on mobile in the
| US and should also be spun off.
| typeofhuman wrote:
| This would be like if Tesla made the roads and the roads could
| recharge batteries but only to Tesla vehicles and you as a
| Tesla owner saying this is not anti-competitive.
| melodyogonna wrote:
| But Chrome doesn't work that way at all? Google gives
| Chromium away for free - which has enabled innovation across
| the software industry beyond the browser space if I must say
| so.
| tirant wrote:
| Even as a non Tesla owner I would say that's not anti
| competitive if every other OEM is also able to make their own
| roads, which is exactly the case with Chrome.
|
| There's multiple browsers, and people might choose Chrome
| because it has a better ecosystem around it. That means it's
| a better product for those people.
| r00fus wrote:
| Explain to me how there can be two roads occupying the same
| space? A road network is a natural monopoly.
| tantalor wrote:
| In this scenario do I get a free car and get to drive on the
| fancy roads for free? Sign me up.
| einpoklum wrote:
| > The only reason I still use Chrome is because I already use
| other Google products and they integrate well together. There
| are many other better options out there otherwise, and they are
| all free. Breaking out Chrome from Google will not in any way
| benefit me as a consumer.
|
| It will benefit you in many ways, including: Better
| compatibility of Google with multiple browsers, and a browser
| which doesn't actively encourage you to use Google products and
| services.
|
| Indirectly, a reduction in Google's centralized power will make
| life easier for many people and organizations which offer you
| services and products (yes, I realize that's a bit vague and
| needs some elaboration).
| concinds wrote:
| > It will benefit you in many ways, including: Better
| compatibility of Google with multiple browsers
|
| No, the way you do that is to pass a law that says Google
| can't intentionally make their websites work worse in other
| browsers. That's not what the dumb DOJ is doing.
| einpoklum wrote:
| Perhaps you're right, but this level of specificity is not
| usually something we find in primary legislation (AFAIK).
| Also, the DOJ may be motivated to act to a different extent
| than the two chambers of Congress. Still, it's always
| possible that this measure may end up not being effective.
| RandomThoughts3 wrote:
| > It sounds like the end goal of this is to enrich other
| companies, not customers.
|
| Then end goal is fostering competitions in a market where there
| is basically none. So yes, it obviously benefits would be
| competitors. That's the point.
| jrflowers wrote:
| > DOJ is trying to completely change Google's business model
| and dictate how they are supposed to make money
|
| This is good reasoning. It is overreach for a regulatory body
| to do something that could impact the business model of a
| monopoly. Monopolies are bad, unless being a monopoly is part
| of that monopoly's business model and an important part of how
| the monopoly makes money, in which case nothing should be done.
| cambaceres wrote:
| > unless being a monopoly is part of that monopoly's business
| model and an important part of how the monopoly makes money,
| in which case nothing should be done.
|
| Can you expand on this?
| hatefulmoron wrote:
| I would assume they're being facetious.
| TJSomething wrote:
| My read of this is based on an assumption that monopolies
| will always structure their business around being
| monopolies. This post is implying that there cases where
| there are not, and those are the only cases where antitrust
| law should be enforced. Based on this contradiction, as
| well as the odd phrasing, emphasizing how important making
| money is over resolving the badness of monopolies, I'm
| pretty sure this is a joke.
| lanternfish wrote:
| It's a distillation of the top level comment done in a
| sarcastic manner meant to indicate the dubious natute of
| the original claim.
| kaba0 wrote:
| I do mostly agree with grandparent, but not with your take.
|
| What is the problem with government regulating, say, the
| ingredients that can be used in foods, forbidding addictive
| drugs from being added to them? Or selling drugs that are
| completely fake or outright dangerous?
|
| This obsession with small governments (and basically,
| libertarianism) doesn't really stand on proper grounds.
|
| Why can't the government work _for you_? Maybe it 's an
| inherent bias given that I'm from Europe, but I think the
| stereotypical utopia about "big government" is much more true
| for huge corporations (which have absolutely no safety
| mechanisms built in to prevent a paper clip factory going
| overboard in the name of profit) compared to the slow-moving,
| democratic, slightly corrupt governments. Only one of these
| have accountability in a humane form, while the only metric
| for corporate is a single number.
| jrflowers wrote:
| This is a good point. "Why should anyone think about
| monopolies when we could imagine what it would be like if
| they put nicotine in beefaroni?" is exactly the sort of
| salient and nuanced discourse that is sorely lacking these
| day's
| verisimi wrote:
| This is the government answer to doing something about privacy.
| It's what the people said they wanted when they voted. Right?
| tombert wrote:
| > The only reason I still use Chrome is because I already use
| other Google products and they integrate well together.
|
| Isn't that kind of the complaint though? Google, by controlling
| the platform and therefore sort of indirectly controlling the
| entire web, can make it artificially easier to push you to
| their products, and push you away from others.
|
| If I wanted, for example, to make a competitor to Google Docs,
| I'm not just competing with Google Docs, I'm also competing
| with the _integration of Google Docs with Chrome_ , meaning
| that Google Docs can be artificially better than my product.
| While I don't know if Google has actually done this, it would
| be pretty easy for them to actively gimp any Google Doc
| competitor in Chrome so that you're more likely to use their
| service instead.
| ApolloFortyNine wrote:
| Again, no idea how Google's supposed monopoly of web browsers is
| worse for the consumer than Apple's actual monopoly on iPhone
| browsers (they're all Safari under the hood) and on App stores.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _no idea how Google 's supposed monopoly of web browsers is
| worse for the consumer than Apple's actual monopoly on iPhone
| browsers (they're all Safari under the hood) and on App stores_
|
| For the same reason proprietary cables aren't generally a
| monopoly problem: Apple hasn't been declared a monopoly. Google
| has [1].
|
| [1] https://apnews.com/article/google-search-antitrust-
| case-5911...
| pcj-github wrote:
| ^This. Apple's lock on the mobile market is far worse for
| consumers. Break off the App Store from Apple, a company that
| would actually be valuable.
| elashri wrote:
| The DOJ is after monopoly in search space (and how Google is
| using chrome position to strengthen the search monopoly) not
| the browser space itself (Which is another monopoly but to less
| extend). People don't look into one product and DOJ are not
| naive to fall into this trap.
| ApolloFortyNine wrote:
| Then pass a law that says all browsers must give a choice of
| search engine.
|
| I'm not sure your right though.
| elashri wrote:
| As you might know. DOJ is not able to pass laws for obvious
| reasons. They do enforce the current laws. Google is free
| to lobby for such law as they do with other things.
| 4b11b4 wrote:
| This doesn't seem helpful... Yet, Microsoft owning Chrome feels
| better. They are less incentivized to bake in features related to
| advertising.
| BadHumans wrote:
| Is this sarcasm? Because Windows 11 has a ton of ads and more
| ads/telemetry are getting added with every update.
| bryan_w wrote:
| It's very weird to see that same point brought up multiple
| times in this thread. It makes me worried that this all was
| cooked up my M$ all along (A company which doesn't have any
| antitrust litigation being brought against them despite
| putting ads in their latest operating system)
| ryukoposting wrote:
| My bet is that this is just lame-duck flailing, and the case will
| be dropped by the incoming administration.
|
| Alternatively, the Trump admin forces the issue, Google sells off
| Chrome, and Musk buys it.
| IncreasePosts wrote:
| What kind of continuity can be expected when the head of the DoJ
| is a political appointee by the president, and we're getting a
| new president in 2 months with radically different ideas compared
| to our current one?
| tokioyoyo wrote:
| None, lol.
| move-on-by wrote:
| I'm not sure, but per the article it's a continuation of it's
| beginning:
|
| > The case was filed under the first Trump administration and
| continued under President Joe Biden.
| asveikau wrote:
| Trump is known to change his mind about stuff on a whim or
| who he talks to most recently, I guess we'll see.
| DCH3416 wrote:
| Stuff like this. It feels like there's less of a case here than
| with Microsoft. In the 90s, Windows nearly became _the_ OS,
| especially had Apple folded like it nearly did. There really
| wasn't an alternative in the emerging home computer space as well
| as the OEM shenanigans among other things. Threatening to pull
| office for Mac if Apple failed to include IE.
|
| I'm struggling to see how Google is truly behaving monopolistic
| here. Chrome is available for compile, and is part of other
| browsers like edge. It's like suggesting linux has a monopoly
| because almost all web servers run on it.
| gcau wrote:
| My understanding is that google lets anyone freely use chromium,
| and chrome is just their flavour of chromium with google services
| integrated ontop of it. Microsoft took chromium and sprinkled ai-
| enhanced microsoft flavours on top to make edge, which doesn't
| look like a monopoly. Presumably, microsoft is able to use
| windows to push edge, and use edge to push bing. If chrome was
| sold and had the google integration removed I would switch to a
| vanilla chromium.
|
| I see some argument for google paying firefox to be the default
| search engine, but is that worse than firefox not existing at
| all?
|
| In terms of search engines, I think there's just a lack of good
| competition. The search engines I'm aware of are:
|
| Google: Just works. The only problem is you need to add "reddit"
| to most searches to get actual real, human-written non-seospam
| text, but I doubt that's unique to just google.
|
| Bing: I'm greeted with an uncomfortably flashy layout shift, a
| page full of american news and some popup about AI. They also
| cover up and censor for the CCP.
|
| Kagi: Their website is literally broken right now and I can't
| even see the pricing or other pages. I tried safari, chrome,
| firefox and edge, the hamburger menu doesn't open. Ultimately
| though, nobody except the kind of audience on HN is going to pay
| for it. If I told anyone else about a search engine that costs
| $16/month to use, I'm sure they'd think i'm joking, irregardless
| of how good it may be.
|
| Yandex: Good for the reverse image searching, but otherwise
| probably not good to use.
|
| Most of this article is ads, and it's paywalled so I can only
| read the first couple sentences, so if this is addressed in it I
| apologise.
| rand0mx1 wrote:
| Forget to add Brave search.
| freediver wrote:
| > Ultimately though, nobody except the kind of audience on HN
| is going to pay for it. If I told anyone else about a search
| engine that costs $16/month to use, I'm sure they'd think i'm
| joking, irregardless of how good it may be.
|
| What do you want out of an alternative though - Better search
| or free? Because you can't have both. Ad-based search being
| free is exactly the reason it is bad. You get what you pay for?
| bhawks wrote:
| This feels like a feel good headline for DoJ that doesn't
| materially impact the Search/Ads ecosystem nor improve things for
| the end consumer.
|
| Chromium exists - literally as a baseline for several other
| corporations to build a browser.
|
| If you wanted to do something meaningful - you must separate
| search and ads, everything else is rearranging deck chairs on the
| Titanic.
| jauntywundrkind wrote:
| This would be outrageously bad for the web.
|
| Right now a healthy web ecosystem is Google's existential hedge,
| against all the closed platforms of the world coming to devour
| the web and Google's business.
|
| Getting rid of Google as a patron for the web would be one of the
| most harmful damaging & awful things the DOJ could do this world.
| Strongly opposed, what a godforsaken heinous crime against
| humanity to consider leaving no one funding the web at scale.
| dismalaf wrote:
| This is the strangest decision I've ever seen. Chrome isn't the
| default anywhere except Pixel branded devices (most or all of the
| Android OEMs have their own browsers) and you need to actually
| seek out and download Chrome from Google.com. So how will Google
| selling Chrome lead to less traffic towards Google? It seems the
| DOJ has cause and effect completely backwards.
|
| IF Google is a monopoly that abuses search and ads, IMO it would
| make much more sense to split it like this: - Google Search - Ads
| - Consumer facing everything, so Chrome, Android, Pixel devices,
| Nest, etc... all together - YouTube
|
| This kind of split would prevent Google dominating search,
| abusing their dominance of ads while also enabling their device
| division to become a proper competitor to Apple and Samsung.
|
| Simply splitting off Chrome is weird, kills Chrome for absolutely
| no reason, does nothing to help consumers and most importantly
| doesn't prevent Google from dominated search and ads which is the
| whole point of the suit in the first place...
|
| It's also strange that the DOJ is letting Apple, MS and Meta off
| the hook when those businesses clearly engage in anti-competitive
| practices.
| dzink wrote:
| Chrome data may be feeding Search Results based on how long
| people stay at different pages and where they go. Thus removing
| Chrome may remove a substantial data advantage for search.
| tamade wrote:
| How likely will Trump DOJ drop this? Consumers have choice,
| albeit just a handful of credible options. Nobody is forced to
| use Chrome (unlike MSFT pushing IE back in the day)
| concinds wrote:
| Trumpers in the GOP hate Big Tech too, but their concerns are
| exclusively about censorship of conservatives (for Google) and
| domestic manufacturing (for Apple). Market competition is not
| their framework. Gaetz is in that group, but he's also a moron
| who doesn't care about policy details.
|
| If he's smarter than I think, then expect him to go after
| Google Search (the alleged source of anti-conservative bias).
| But if he's as dumb as I think, expect him to support the
| Chrome breakup, even though it would not advance his goals and
| wouldn't be coherent antitrust policy, because it would let him
| claim a "win".
| tgmatt wrote:
| Maybe this will lead to Chromium finally getting proper vertical
| tabs which Google clearly otherwise block due to it eating up
| horizontal real estate that would otherwise be used for ads.
| AlgebraFox wrote:
| I assumed this theory long back and I thought I was alone. Now
| it's great to see someone else has same theory.
| blackeyeblitzar wrote:
| Is this why Google is trying to deprecate Chrome OS and merge it
| into Android? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42175069
| da25 wrote:
| Thinking this through, it's hard to even imagine how such a
| selloff and transfer could happen. Chrome, which is built
| downstream from the open-source Chromium, is a behemoth project
| with development spanning nearly every domain -- rendering, GPU
| ops, WASM, AI, js engines, web standards, and much more.
|
| Sure, Google doesn't always prioritize developments that don't
| align with its ad monopoly. Still, Chrome remains a polished &
| widely used product.
|
| As far as I can see, it would be best to establish a "Chromium
| Foundation," akin to the Linux Foundation, with emphasis on
| advancing web standards, unencumbered by corporate priorities.
|
| That said, the more entrenched monopoly Google maintains lies in
| its "Search Experience," integrated with complementary products
| like Maps, YouTube, Android, and others.
|
| I don't see any other viable alternative that serves the needs of
| most users across the board. Bing doesn't come close, and while
| private search engines cater to power users, the average web user
| rarely switches search engines. For many, Google Search has
| become the de facto entry point to the internet and their view of
| the Web.
| shepherdjerred wrote:
| I would much rather Google be forced to fund alternative browsers
| (other than Firefox)
| DimuP wrote:
| A single attempt to separate google and chrome (with all its
| products) would make the eco-system pointless and swipe away
| google entirely from the global market.
|
| why not to give Youtube instead tho? (even if the
| revenue/monetization of every single channel would be heavily
| impacted)
|
| Android and chrome are necessary for google to live, so Youtube
| or something else would be better
| alsetmusic wrote:
| The point is not to do what is good for Google. The point is to
| do what is good for users and the market. Separating Chrome
| from Google's despotic plans such as AMP and blocking ad-
| blockers so that the browser is independent from their attempts
| to further control the web would be a good thing.
| BadHumans wrote:
| I can think of other ways to break up Google that don't involve
| selling Chrome. I'm not sure I understand how selling Chrome
| would weaken Google.
| tssva wrote:
| Google as Microsoft did years ago will stall until a new
| administration is in office and reach a settlement for what is
| effectively a slap on the wrist.
| nojvek wrote:
| Trump DOJ is gonna be very friendly to PAC donations.
|
| 100% bet, Trump gonna be easy on corporations that kiss his butt.
| flanked-evergl wrote:
| Whatever it takes to stop nonesense like this.
| Chatting wrote:
| This absolutely needs to happen.
|
| The main problem is that, thanks to Chrome's massive market
| share, Google is in a position where they can effectively dictate
| the future of the Web as a platform.
|
| We've already seen a few instances of this: Manifest v3 and
| FLoC/Privacy Sandbox, for example, were met with widespread
| opposition, but eventually they made their way into Chrome; WEI,
| on the other hand, was withdrawn due to backlash, but make no
| mistake, it _will_ come back at some point.
|
| The current state of Web standards can be summed up as: whatever
| Chrome does _is_ the standard. The other browsers have to follow
| along, either because their modest market share doesn 't afford
| them the luxury to be incompatible with Chrome, or because
| they're based on Chromium, so they hardly have a choice. The only
| exception is Apple, but let's be honest, they only do so because
| of their own business interests.
|
| Ideally, Chrome/Chromium should be spun off as an independent
| non-profit foundation set up to act in the public interest.
| Obviously there would be trade-offs: a slower development cycle,
| new features taking longer to be shipped, etc. But in my opinion
| that's far preferrable to having Google continue to exert this
| level of control over the Web.
|
| Unfortunately, the current administration has two months left in
| its term, so it's not going to happen.
| big-green-man wrote:
| The incoming administration has a bone to pick with these tech
| companies, so I expect these endeavors to continue to fruition.
| mark_l_watson wrote:
| This is so stupid. I am a fan of the books Privacy is Power and
| The Tech Coup, both books do a great job arguing for privacy and
| mitigating the harm of tech giants.
|
| What should be done is having strong privacy laws, requirements
| for encrypting user data, 100% transparency on how user data is
| sold (require all buyer and seller information to be public),
| prohibiting sale of user data in most cases, super fine control
| privacy and security settings.
|
| Google already does a good job on some of these things, and they
| and other tech giants need to be fenced in by strong privacy and
| user rights laws.
|
| Corporations are good at still making profits when they have to
| follow laws that are inconvenient to them.
|
| If members of the US Congress were prohibited by law from stock
| trading, that might help clean up the logjams preventing better
| laws.
| md_rumpf wrote:
| perplexity's valuation just doubled!
| ecmascript wrote:
| The ideal solution would be if they sell Chrome to a player like
| Shopify would buy it that actually makes money in a traditional
| sense.
| sandGorgon wrote:
| I dont think anyone has pointed this out - Apple and Google have
| long fought against improvements in mobile browsers. Specifically
| because they threaten the app store monopoly.
|
| Push notifications in PWA was one of the big big ones. Apple
| blocked it for years and years.
| ConcernedCoder wrote:
| The DOJ are apparently idiots that do not understand tech, let
| alone anti-trust or monopolies... for instance: I create a useful
| device that consumers love and use, I sell ads on the device to
| anyone who will pay, in fact I auction them to the highest
| bidder... DOJ: you are a monopoly and must sell the device...
| wtf?
| einpoklum wrote:
| Wow, what a world! Next they might make Microsoft sell of the
| army of evil monkeys that they got when they bought evil from
| Satan:
|
| https://www.bbspot.com/2000/05/04/linux-kernel-delayed-by-mi...
|
| (yes, that's 24-year-old humor, sorry.)
| FergusArgyll wrote:
| Thank goodness the era of ridiculous anti-trust is coming to an
| end.
|
| Every "normie" knows about edge, it comes with your new Windows.
| _no one_ uses it, people know quality when they see it and
| everyone prefers chrome. If there was a better browser we 'd use
| it.
|
| The default should _definitely_ be: Companies should be
| incentivized to create great products.
|
| If the incentives include, get 90% market share, that's great! No
| one would put it the amount of work Google has if the incentives
| were small
| wesselbindt wrote:
| I'm very surprised by the number of people in this thread who
| don't seem to understand that monopolies are _very_ bad for
| consumers.
| eru wrote:
| How is Chrome or Google a monopoly?
| rvense wrote:
| Monopoly is probably not the right word. "Trust" (as in
| "anti-trust") is maybe better, but I'm not sure the last
| gilded age really had a perfect analogy to what's been
| happening in the tech services sector.
|
| The problem is these sprawling companies who make so many
| interrelated services and can suppress competition in one
| area (browsers, e-mail, video-over-the-internet) due to
| extreme profits in another area (ads).
| nicoloren wrote:
| I think we can think in terms of market share.
|
| Google (the search engine) has a market share of over 85%
| worldwide. [0]
|
| Google therefore controls what can be found on the Internet
| for 85% of search engine users. Recent updates, or Core
| Updates, have demonstrated how easy it is for Google to put
| businesses out of business by removing their visibility. [1]
|
| It seems to me that this is a problem.
|
| Ditto for Chrome, which has +60% market share [2]. A failed
| or deliberate update could make a website inaccessible to 60%
| of the population.
|
| [0] https://gs.statcounter.com/search-engine-market-share [1]
| https://retrododo.com/google-is-killing-retro-dodo/ [2]
| https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share
| eru wrote:
| 60% market share is big, but it's not a monopoly. Even 85%
| ain't.
| rrr_oh_man wrote:
| Don't get so hung up on semantics.
|
| Quote: _The Supreme Court has defined (...) monopoly
| power as "the power to control prices or exclude
| competition"._
|
| [https://www.justice.gov/archives/atr/competition-and-
| monopol...]
| eru wrote:
| They don't exclude any competition, and, well, browsers
| and web searches are free.
| nfw2 wrote:
| to be fair, free is a price, and one that is very hard to
| compete with, at that
| graycat wrote:
| > update could make a website inaccessible
|
| There are billions of Web browser users and, from a fast
| Google search, 1.1 billion Web sites, still a large number
| if count only the ones that still have traffic.
|
| So, billions of _listeners_ and many millions of _talkers_.
| Without good, stable, universal _standards_ , we'd have the
| biggest "Tower of Babel" problem in history.
|
| Hypothetical examples:
|
| (1) Maybe Company A wants to change the standards so that
| Web sites will have to revise their code. Hmm!!! Many
| millions of Web site owners will say "no way". Company A
| just left the party.
|
| (2) Web site B wants to change their Web site so that only
| certain Web browsers will be able to use that site. Hmm!!!
| Site B won't get much traffic. Even if that site is Google
| -- people will use Bing, etc.
|
| (3) Maybe Google announces that as of July 1, 2025 the
| Google search engine Web site will work only with Google's
| latest Chrome Web browser. Hmm .... There are billions of
| people who will want a search engine that works with the
| old, standard Web browser they already have -- "billions of
| people"!! Sounds like, with Bing, Microsoft's stock just
| doubled! And July Google's searches per day fell by 50+%.
|
| E.g., I still like Windows 7 Professional. Occasionally I
| run Microsoft's Web browser Edge, and when I do there is a
| message that Windows 7 won't get updates for Edge and I
| should convert to Windows 10/11. I don't really want an
| update to Edge -- what I have does work; I don't like it;
| occasionally I use it to check some issues. Hmm!!!!
|
| Microsoft, one of your most important business _assets_ is
| that old applications will still run on the latest versions
| of Windows. So, I run Kedit, Object Rexx, Firefox, VLC
| media player, PhotoDraw, Media Player, PhotoViewer,
| Sketchup, Office 20??, IBM 's OSL (Optimization Subroutine
| Library and a certain Watcom Fortran compiler), LINPACK,
| etc., .NET 3??, and I do not want to lose use of any of
| those old programs.
|
| (4) Some company tries to have all the Internet ads flowing
| through their software, servers, etc. Hmm!! Sites have a
| file ads.txt that usually shows one heck of a long list of
| Internet _ad brokers_. Not easy for one company to dominate
| the ad market or even just the Web site ad market.
| pandem wrote:
| I would expect the monopoly referred here to be the
| government.
| Dalewyn wrote:
| Allow me to break this down:
|
| * Google effectively holds a monopoly of the browser market
| (Chrome). Apple (Safari) only exists because of vendor lock-
| in, and Mozilla (Firefox) is a vassal state; all "other"
| browsers are Chrome.
|
| * Google shares a duopoly of the mobile OS market with Apple
| (Android vs. iOS).
|
| * Google holds a monopoly of the video streaming market
| (Youtube).
|
| * Google holds a monopoly of the malvertising market
| (Adsense, Doubleclick, et al.).
|
| * Google effectively holds a monopoly of the web search
| market (Google Search).
|
| * Google holds the vast majority of the email market (Gmail).
|
| * Google is the absolutely dominant player in the consumer
| cloud market (Google Drive).
|
| * Google shares a duopoly with Apple in the cloud photo
| market (Google Photos vs. iCloud Photos).
|
| * Google shares a duopoly with Microsoft in the consumer
| office software market (Google Docs vs. Office 365).
|
| * Google shares a duopoly with Apple in the digital wallet
| market (Google Pay/Wallet vs. Apple Pay).
|
| I can go on, but with this being said let me ask you: Why the
| hell should Google _not_ be split and cut apart nine ways to
| Sunday?
| portaouflop wrote:
| Why not split Microsoft and Apple as well while we are at
| it?
|
| A bit unrelated but News Corp and Random House should also
| end up on the chopping block.
| rvense wrote:
| > Why not split Microsoft and Apple as well while we are
| at it?
|
| Indeed, why not?
| izacus wrote:
| Because they're better at bribing the government
| obviously. Duh.
| jdub wrote:
| Now you're getting it!
| eru wrote:
| Thanks. The summary seems to be: Google is a big player in
| many markets, but not a monopoly.
|
| You mentioned some as 'monopolies'. Let's go through them:
|
| Browsers: as far as I can tell, the other browsers that
| 'are Chrome' are Chromium at most. Eg Microsoft is surely
| capable of forking Chromium, if Google does anything
| untoward.
|
| Video streaming: I hear TikTok and Instagram and Netflix
| etc are popular for streaming videos, too? People also seem
| to be getting a lot of videos via telegram channels? (I
| don't know the exact numbers here. So I can't say anything
| definite.)
|
| Web search: Google used to be really dominant, but they are
| arguably on a downward trend without any government
| interference: more and more people are using the likes of
| ChatGPT to fill the same niche in their lives.
|
| > Why the hell should Google not be split and cut apart
| nine ways to Sunday?
|
| Presumably because there's a presumption of non-
| interference in the markets? The same reason the government
| doesn't just lock you and me up for no good reason, or
| confiscates our property.
| Dalewyn wrote:
| >Thanks. The summary seems to be: Google is a big player
| in many markets, but not a monopoly.
|
| And the combination thereof is an unholy abomination.
|
| Namely the unholy trinity of Browser + Malvertising +
| Search. _Nothing_ can compete against Google so long as
| that trinity stands, and it protects all the other mono
| /duopolies from incursions with impunity.
| eru wrote:
| The likes of ChatGPT are giving Google serious concerns
| over their search business.
|
| In any case, it's easy to switch to an alternative search
| engine. Users seems to like Google Search enough to stick
| with it.
| alkonaut wrote:
| > Google is a big player in many markets, but not a
| monopoly.
|
| Yes. The EU "dominant position" terminology is better
| because otherwise someone will do an "well achscually"
| about it being a 90% market position or whatever. In
| practical terms, you can assume "monopoly" is used as
| "too big" or "too dominant" not, "sole player". It's best
| to just accept it.
| junon wrote:
| Not sure if this is an innocent comment or not but I'll
| answer earnestly.
|
| They're not, technically. They're _hegemons_ , which doesn't
| make them much better. In fact, I'd argue the situation is
| worse.
|
| Chrome predominantly owns the web at this point. There are
| few contenders, and making a new browser is a lot of work
| (see the Verso browser). Google has the arguably unearned
| luxury of dictating what APIs and protocols the nebulous
| "web" should use, can throw a bunch of money at adding them
| quickly, and leave competitors struggling to keep up,
| effectively _buying_ chrome 's guaranteed superiority.
|
| "But there are standards committees!" Yes, but it really
| doesn't matter when Chrome either uses its own APIs privately
| on its sites[0] or just adds new APIs without any committee
| consideration for people to use and fall in love with and
| demand that other vendors add them (or something similar,
| such as proposing a great idea at the committee, it's
| accepted, and the other vendors lagging for months or even
| years - see WebGPU as an example).
|
| One might think "it's just a browser". Yes, but browsers are
| -for better or for worse - the global defacto for sending and
| receiving almost all of our sensitive data. Even "desktop
| apps" like Whatsapp, Signal, and Bitwarden all either use or
| have used Chromium to display their contents (via Electron).
|
| Much of the community has asserted Google owns the web at
| this point, and I tend to agree. It's very, very hard for
| smaller vendors to have much of a day these days without
| Google getting theirs, too.
|
| [0] https://x.com/lcasdev/status/1810696257137959018
| fifticon wrote:
| It is not just 'a lot of work'. It is on the level where
| microsoft gave up..
| pitkali wrote:
| I mean, in the world where chromium exists, maintaining
| your own entirely independent codebase of a full web
| browser does not make business sense. It's better and
| easier to reuse what you can and build on top of that.
| eru wrote:
| Yes, and it's open source. So Microsoft can fork it, if
| they think Google is pulling a fast one.
| kaba0 wrote:
| I think what people fail to see is that this is the same as
| "owning the sea by the British Empire" or "owning the
| railroads/roads". The economical benefit is not direct
| monetary gain, but nonetheless absolutely huge, and
| basically plays outside the "normal" rules.
|
| Google can use their web dominance to push another service
| of their, or cripple a competitor's in a completely
| different domain.
| eru wrote:
| > Chrome predominantly owns the web at this point. There
| are few contenders, and making a new browser is a lot of
| work (see the Verso browser). Google has the arguably
| unearned luxury of dictating what APIs and protocols the
| nebulous "web" should use, can throw a bunch of money at
| adding them quickly, and leave competitors struggling to
| keep up, effectively buying chrome's guaranteed
| superiority.
|
| As an example: Microsoft is building Edge on open source
| Chromium. Are you sure Microsoft is the little guy that
| needs protection? I'm fairly sure they have enough heft
| that they can fork Chromium and do their own thing, if
| Google does anything sinister.
|
| But in any case, there's still Safari with a substantial
| market share, too.
|
| > "But there are standards committees!" [...]
|
| I agree with you here: commercial standards are more
| important than whatever a standards committee says.
|
| I agree that Google has a large share in many markets. I
| just don't see the monopoly.
| debugnik wrote:
| > I'm fairly sure they have enough heft that they can
| fork Chromium and do their own thing, if Google does
| anything sinister.
|
| They were already doing their own thing and they couldn't
| keep up with Google. Although, starting from a Chromium
| fork, it could take longer for the code to diverge.
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18697824
| wesselbindt wrote:
| I'm not claiming they are. But given their current market
| share and its trajectory, they're marching towards one.
| Furthermore, it's a clear mechanism for further monopolizing
| the search engine market (I'm more comfortable calling google
| a monopoly on this front). I'm a staunch capitalist and
| believe in the innovative power of competition, and
| monopolies ground that whole machine to a halt.
| eru wrote:
| Google is currently feeling the heat from people switching
| to the likes of ChatGPT for what they would have previously
| used Google Search for.
|
| In any case, it's really easy to use alternative search
| engines, if you don't like what Google offers. They are
| dominant, because people are happy enough with what they
| are getting.
| pjmlp wrote:
| The Web is basically ChromeOS nowadays, if we ignore iDevice
| for a moment.
| eru wrote:
| Firefox works just fine for me.
| pjmlp wrote:
| Try to go here then, https://webgpu.github.io/webgpu-
| samples/
|
| Or here, https://webusb.github.io/arduino/demos/rgb/
|
| Or here, https://googlechromelabs.github.io/text-editor/
| Vespasian wrote:
| The EU uses better terms such as "dominant position" which deal
| with the fact that although a big vendor(s) can fully steer the
| market and has no meaningful competition while at the same time
| not "technically" being a monopoly / duopoly etc.
| moffkalast wrote:
| _coughs in Nvidia_
|
| I should ask a doctor about that, it keeps happening.
| whywhywhywhy wrote:
| An incompetent company shouldn't be allowed to succeed
| through government pressure just because a competent
| company raced ahead.
|
| The direction of the tide has been obvious for 15-20 years
| and AMD fumbled it, they earned and deserve where they now
| sit.
| mainde wrote:
| I'm of the opinion that NVIDIA raced ahead thanks also to
| shady anti-consumer tactics (https://www.forbes.com/sites
| /jasonevangelho/2018/03/08/repor...
| https://youtu.be/H0L3OTZ13Os) so..
| whywhywhywhy wrote:
| Find it strange to focus on what that article says when
| 10 years ago we were using CUDA in a professional context
| for real world work and AMD didn't have anything
| competitive at all in the field till very recently.
|
| If the tech was comparable maybe we could entertain the
| idea but Nvidia was just so absurdly ahead in tooling
| than AMD that the better dev team won.
| HeavyStorm wrote:
| This isn't about "deserving". Clearly you still don't
| understand why monopoly prevention exists.
|
| It's about protecting the customer and the market. Yes,
| Nvidia deserves their success - of course - but the
| concentration isn't good for the market. Companies exist
| to provide services and products to customers and should
| enjoy no special treatment from us, no matter how
| successful.
|
| Also, any measure should be not as disruptive as to
| bankrupt the company or even put it in second place in
| the market. It's just about leveling the playing field.
| poincaredisk wrote:
| In fact, splitting a company has been shown to be
| beneficial to investors (both "halves" are usually doing
| well).
| shafyy wrote:
| It's not about deserving. It's about the fact that once a
| company grows so dominant, that they will undoubtedly
| exploit their position of power. Which is bad for
| innovation, bad for the consumers and so on.
| niutech wrote:
| It's Intel, not Nvidia:
| https://www.statista.com/statistics/754557/worldwide-gpu-
| shi...
| water9 wrote:
| Intel is on the verge of bankruptcy
| niutech wrote:
| I thought we were talking about market share.
| MichaelCharles wrote:
| Monopolies are bad. Splitting up monopolies is good for the
| consumer.
|
| That doesn't mean this makes any sense.
|
| How are they going to separate Chrome from Chromium? If they
| do, what incentive does Google have to keep maintaining
| Chromium? Can Google make another new fork of Chromium and
| start yet another browser? Or are they now banned from making
| browsers? What company has the resources to maintain Chrome's
| massive codebase? What profit incentive is there in maintaining
| Chrome without Google's ad business? What about ChromeOS? How
| are they going to handle the extensions store and ecosystem?
| How is this going to impact web standards?
|
| There's just a lot of significant unknowns surrounding this.
| dijit wrote:
| in general, I find a little bit distasteful that the only way
| to build a browser is as a loss leading project for the
| largest advertising company on the planet
|
| No wonder nobody can compete, loss leaders tend to kill
| competition as they can be maintained without direct business
| revenue at all.
|
| The same issue plagues domesticated cats, they don't need to
| hunt for food since they have an abundance at home so instead
| without risk of starvation they are free to hunt all birds in
| the territory for fun.
|
| There are no browsers left except the artificial ecosystem of
| Safari. Firefox is not a blip on the radar.
|
| So, everything is chrome and chrome is the web standard.
| Having a single private company in charge of what is and what
| is not web standards is a little bit scary, as, like the cat,
| they don't really need to see and serve the needs of the
| environment. They are fed at home.
| nextlevelwizard wrote:
| How much of Mozilla's budget actually goes to Firefox? Last
| I checked making a browser wasn't even on the road map
| bonzini wrote:
| There's Mozilla Foundation (where making a browser is not
| on the road map) and Mozilla Corporation (which makes
| money _by_ making a browser _to_ finance the foundation).
|
| Mozilla Corporation revenue is about half a billion, most
| of it coming from Google and only 2% (from what I found)
| going to the foundation. The foundation gets most of its
| money from Google as well, but separately, and the
| foundation's revenue is about 10% of Mozilla
| Corporation's. So overall over 90% of Mozilla's budget
| goes to software development and to cost centers that are
| associated to Mozilla Corporation.
| Certhas wrote:
| That vast majority. And Firefox is massively profitable,
| too (with a rising share of income not coming from
| google, up to 15% the last time I looked).
|
| Software development was 220 out of a total 425 M$ of
| expenses. General and administrative coming in second at
| 108 M$.
|
| I don't know exactly what comparable software companies
| invest, but assuming that the 220 is entirely SWE
| salaries this seems appropriate overhead to my mind.
|
| Edit, all of this is 2022:
|
| https://assets.mozilla.net/annualreport/2022/mozilla-
| fdn-202...
| bonzini wrote:
| > assuming that the 220 is entirely SWE salaries
|
| With 750 employees for Mozilla Corp, that's unlikely.
| Even if 80% are developers that would be $350,000 salary
| on average.
| dijit wrote:
| good rule of thumb (at least in Europe) is that whatever
| your developer salaries are, double it to get closer to
| the actual operational cost.
|
| There's lots of hidden costs, licenses, insurances,
| computers/servers, email hosting, document editing
| suites; that's before you get to the big stuff like
| office space and social contributions. -- then there's
| managers, HR etc;
|
| Anyway, it's a reasonable rule of thumb. YMMV.
| devjab wrote:
| This is how it is in Denmark as well. Here the general
| rule of thumb is that any non-managing employee is
| 70-100k in expense a year. For some specialist workers
| it'a a little higher, but that is the general cost when
| you include sick days, vacation, cost-centers like HR, IT
| and so on.
|
| Somewhat ironically that metric is often used to cut-
| costs on the long term budget at an increased expense to
| hire tempts when a team is understaffed for whatever
| reason. (I'm not sure if "temp" is the correct word for
| when a team of nurses is staffed to only function within
| the law when nobody is on vacation/sick. It's what Google
| translate gives me for "vikar".)
| khuey wrote:
| In the US that kind of nurse is specifically known as a
| "travel nurse" because they work on short term contracts
| and travel from hospital to hospital but in general
| describing these sorts of workers as "temps" is accurate.
| devjab wrote:
| Cool thanks, I was thinking a "temp" might be more like
| an intern or something.
| MichaelCharles wrote:
| All very good points.
| graemep wrote:
| It is not the only way to build a browser.
|
| It is the only way to build a browser and push adoption.
|
| The problem is not the lack of direct revenues. It is the
| lack of marketing budget and control of platforms (Chrome
| dominates on Android for exactly the same reason Safari
| does on Apple).
|
| Firefox is a perfectly good browser, but has lost its
| market share because Google has huge marketing advantage.
| graycat wrote:
| .
| zelphirkalt wrote:
| > A Web browser is on the way to being similar, just a
| standard tool?
|
| I hope not, because then we get no choices regarding
| privacy and the most likely dominant player right now
| cares very much to not give you any privacy.
| graycat wrote:
| > the most likely dominant player right now cares very
| much to not give you any privacy.
|
| I've installed a recent version of Chrome, but likely
| your point is some of why I've never let that program
| even execute.
|
| Firefox seems to do well on _privacy_. Maybe that 's why
| I use it and some of why it gets funded!! And for privacy
| I do use the _proxy_ Firefox offers.
|
| Some people want privacy. If they begin to sense that
| Chrome is a real threat to privacy, people will look for
| alternatives. Then some people, maybe with venture
| funding will get one of the recent copies of the Chrome
| source code, modify it, and offer a browser with good
| privacy, maybe charge $50 for it. Okay, problem solved?
|
| Then hopefully privacy will be as accepted as 120 volt,
| 60 Hz AC home electrical power. All the homes want that
| power because all the appliences use it because all the
| homes use it.
|
| Google makes their money from people arriving for the
| Google search service, maps, etc. From _Web crawling_ ,
| or whatever is done now, for their search service, Google
| is also a HUGE _user_ of the Internet. Then it is very
| much in Google 's interest to have the many millions of
| Web sites, HTTP, HTTPS, TLS (Transport Layer Security),
| DNS (Domain Name System), HTML, JavaScript, etc. all very
| standard: Google has to be able to read those millions of
| Web sites so wants them all to be _standard_ , i.e.,
| without a Tower of Bable problem.
|
| Or all the Web sites (and programmers) follow the
| standards because all the Web browsers do (and several
| billion Web users use those browsers); and all the Web
| browsers do because many millions of Web sites do.
|
| Maybe some of what Google _might_ do but does not is due
| to some people noticing that situation and being sure to
| help Firefox.
| m463 wrote:
| and televisions. Now you can't get a television that
| doesn't spy on you because of unhealthy funding driving the
| price down.
| rrr_oh_man wrote:
| I love how this went from "monopolies are bad" to "fuck
| cats".
| antonvs wrote:
| Cats have a monopoly on suburban predation in many
| places. When is the DOJ going to step in?
| gryn wrote:
| After cats start selling their prey.
| satchlj wrote:
| Can you explain the cat thing? Why wouldn't cats who are
| not fed be forced to kill even more birds?
|
| Is it because they would be focused on more efficient
| sources of food like mice instead?
| dijit wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cat_predation_on_wildlife
|
| Essentially, in the wild, cats would be forced to hunt
| based on hunger, so they'd have to pick and choose what
| to hunt.
|
| Since they're never hungry, they do it based on fun, and
| they can "out-starve" their prey who may be hiding but
| have a higher need to eat and thus: leave their safety.
| account42 wrote:
| > they're never hungry
|
| IME cats are hungry as soon as they have finished their
| food.
| coretx wrote:
| They are predators while they eat too.
| whywhywhywhy wrote:
| > in general, I find a little bit distasteful that the only
| way to build a browser is as a loss leading project for the
| largest advertising company on the planet
|
| Safari came into the world on a similar timeline so this
| isn't true
| StilesCrisis wrote:
| If you look at the code size and feature set of Safari
| 1.0, it's really a different universe from 2024. Web
| browsers have become miniature OSes. They contain
| multiple 3D rendering stacks (WebGL, WebGPU), hardware-
| accelerated 2D compositors, multiple languages that JIT
| optimize into native code (JavaScript, WASM), and require
| passing test suites with millions of cases. The bar has
| been raised massively since Safari came out, largely to
| user's benefit, and honestly we mostly have Chrome to
| thank for it.
| executesorder66 wrote:
| Tangent, but I don't understand this argument at all:
|
| > The same issue plagues domesticated cats, they don't need
| to hunt for food since they have an abundance at home so
| instead without risk of starvation they are free to hunt
| all birds in the territory for fun.
|
| Please could you help me understand.
|
| - If they don't _need_ to hunt for food, the frequency of
| hunting birds should go down (even if they still do it for
| fun sometimes)
|
| - If they don't need to take risks to get food, why would
| they then take those same risks now for the purpose of
| entertainment? (That cancels out any meaning of there no
| longer being any risk in killing birds, so why mention it
| at all?)
|
| My understanding is that you are implying that cats not
| having to kill birds out of necessity leading to them now
| being able to do it for fun is a bad thing. Is that
| correct? And if so, I don't follow that logic because of my
| above two points.
| dijit wrote:
| The points you raise would make sense if cats were purely
| logical, unfortunately they're not and a lot of what
| makes a cat work is instinct.
|
| - Instinctively, cats will hunt.
|
| - Lack of care about food source will make cats outlast
| prey who have to leave safe areas to find food.
|
| - Lack of care about food availability can (and has been
| proven to) cause cats to hunt _more_ often, not less- as
| the "cost" of going for a hunt is basically zero;
| there's no consequences for failure and even success is
| met with satisfaction but no "cost".
|
| Anyway,there's better info on this subject:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cat_predation_on_wildlife
| executesorder66 wrote:
| Thanks, your second point makes a lot of sense to me, and
| helped me to understand your point.
|
| The Wikipedia article was also a good read.
| crabmusket wrote:
| > loss leaders tend to kill competition as they can be
| maintained without direct business revenue at all
|
| Ding ding ding. This is a classic monopolist strategy. It
| poisons the market for any other potential competitors by
| removing all possibility of profit from the category.
|
| It's kind of eyebrow-raising that more people in this
| thread don't notice this. And instead just assume of COURSE
| browsers can't be funded except by a monopolist using it to
| shore up their surveillance business.
| littlestymaar wrote:
| > There's just a lot of significant unknowns surrounding
| this.
|
| That's what happen when you let anomalies like this become
| the norm. Antitrust actions should have been taken against
| Google 15 years ago, and at that point it wouldn't have
| undermined the whole web because back then didn't yet control
| the entire web (but the trend was clear and that's why action
| should have been taken).
| MichaelCharles wrote:
| I guess that's a fair point.
| jdub wrote:
| Sounds like a Google problem.
|
| The web existed before Chrome, and will continue to exist
| afterward.
| leetnewb wrote:
| Yes and no. The web may exist, but there is a viable
| digital alternative to it today, which didn't exist before
| Chrome - the mobile and app ecosystem. Virtually everybody
| who uses the web also uses mobile apps, but there are
| people who only ever use Android or iOS on a handheld
| device. It is also possible that in losing Chrome, Google
| will neglect its web properties and focus exclusively on
| access to services through mobile apps.
| jdub wrote:
| (I don't think your analysis makes sense, but...) Hey, if
| Google loses its advertising cash cow and vacates the web
| for apps, that'll really open up the web search market
| too! Great news!
| pjmlp wrote:
| Likewise we used the Internet before someone CERN came up
| with HTML render application.
| Talinx wrote:
| In the broadest sense Android and IOS are similar to
| browsers: All are platforms that execute code given in a
| certain format and have APIs for interacting with the
| device.
|
| (The browser is different in that it doesn't need a
| separate download to acquire the code and makes partial
| code downloads easy. And from search to opening an app is
| a single click and very quick.)
| leetnewb wrote:
| Just thinking through this now, but the ease of authoring
| content on the web started very early on, whereas
| publishing new mobile apps on the dominant platforms is
| highly technical and exclusionary many years in.
|
| Web - available in 1993, content authoring/hosting become
| available through blogger, wordpress, etc, in about 7-10
| years. Authoring tools Frontpage and ColdFusion were
| available in 1995, Netscape Composer in 1997. In other
| words, one could build a basic website with a bare
| minimum of technical knowledge with the help of widely
| available tools within 5 years of the web becoming
| available (it would take many more years for the web to
| become pervasive).
|
| Mobile - It has been 17 years since the iphone was
| launched, 19 years since Google acquired Android. To my
| knowledge, there are no easy ways for a non-technical
| person to author a basic app, let alone one that runs on
| both platforms.
| lucideer wrote:
| There's an implicit assumption embedded in this comment that
| the Chromium project is indispensable, whereas I'm
| unconvinced it's even a net positive at all.
|
| Anyone who follows standards discourse would probably
| appreciate the prospect of this open source codebase having
| independent stewards much more than any fears over
| maintenance resources.
| Certhas wrote:
| Firefox is massively profitable at a fraction of Chrome's
| marketshare.
| professor_v wrote:
| With 81% [1] of their revenue in 2022 provided by Google...
|
| ---
|
| [1] https://assets.mozilla.net/annualreport/2022/mozilla-
| fdn-202...
| Bombthecat wrote:
| And Google will pull out of the deal when they are forced
| to split off chrome
| iamacyborg wrote:
| Why would they? They still want people to use Google
| Search vs other alternatives.
| sumedh wrote:
| The only reason they pay firefox is to make sure its not
| killed and they can tell the regulators that look there
| some competition.
| iamacyborg wrote:
| That and the captive audience for their search ads...
| nolist_policy wrote:
| Google's payment to Mozilla was ruled anti-competitive
| and is forced to stop paying them.
|
| https://fortune.com/2024/08/05/mozilla-firefox-biggest-
| poten...
| Certhas wrote:
| Interesting, I hadn't heard about this. Let's see where
| this goes...
| Certhas wrote:
| Yes, but they have successfully been shrinking that down
| from 94% in 2016.
|
| Long road towards independence, but moving in the right
| direction at least.
|
| And the default spot in the search bar is valuable to
| people outside of Google. Even if we assume that Google
| is overpaying, Mozilla could keep operating as is with
| another entity paying significantly less...
| whywhywhywhy wrote:
| How much of that money is from Google?
| xp84 wrote:
| > If they do, what incentive does Google have to keep
| maintaining Chromium?
|
| I agree, this is a problem, but there _should_ be a trivial
| solution: Users of the browser should pay a small amount of
| "money" for the product they use all day every day. This
| money should go into paying to maintain it.
|
| Anything else is perpetuating the Trash Web as it's come to
| be.
|
| The only reason a "web browser" is "free" (as in beer) is
| because Microsoft in the 90s was (belatedly) very worried
| about a world where Netscape held a lot of power, and
| realized making and giving away a slightly better browser
| would neutralize this upstart. Everything flowed from that
| one tactical decision by a couple of execs at MS.
|
| I'd argue that a browser should be a part of the OS or be a
| paid product, but funding it with ad money from under the
| same corporate umbrella is a gross practice which promotes
| things like... Google nerfing adblocker plugins, and Google
| trying to kill cookies in favor of something only they
| control. (Although on that last one, by some miracle their
| hand was stayed and they backed down.)
|
| Of course the DOJ can't ban the idea of a browser funded by
| ad money (and most are) but separating it from the other side
| of the business which should have zero say in how it's
| implemented, that's common sense to me.
| DaiPlusPlus wrote:
| Netscape was free for non-business users before Internet
| Explorer existed. Netscape was competing with Mosaic, which
| was free, what with being a product of the NCSA (hence
| "Mozilla = Mosaic Killer").
| anon-3988 wrote:
| > Anything else is perpetuating the Trash Web as it's come
| to be.
|
| unless you ban "Free" products, this is going to keep
| happening. People seems to think that just because
| something is "Free" it must therefore cost nothing to make.
| I mean, downloading Chrome takes 2 minutes max and seems
| trivial to me? Whats the problem?
|
| People think Youtube should just allow them to watch videos
| without any ads nor paying any money. Clearly, the consumer
| is not rational.
| portaouflop wrote:
| Right but companies are perfectly rational actors /s
| throwinothrside wrote:
| Android shares my location more than 14 times a day IIRC.
| They snoop through every single thing in my life. I can
| list a bizillion no. Of things. Zero damn given when they
| are horrible. Let them stop with dark patterns. Then I
| will start caring.
|
| I pay for all my games, all good services which ainuse. I
| try and donate to open source project wherever and when I
| can. But I couldnt care less about FAANG like companies.
| If they want us to be good to them, let them be good
| first.
|
| Hell, its just the other day we were talking about
| Youtube showing ads to paying customers. I really dont
| care whether a company is big or small. When companies
| are bad, they just are. That is it. I dont lose sleep
| over using FreeTube for watching youtube videos for free.
| _Paying will solve issues_ , yeah right!
|
| Edit: Language
| graemep wrote:
| > The only reason a "web browser" is "free" (as in beer) is
| because Microsoft in the 90s was (belatedly) very worried
| about a world where Netscape held a lot of power, and
| realized making and giving away a slightly better browser
| would neutralize this upstart. Everything flowed from that
| one tactical decision by a couple of execs at MS.
|
| There were free as in beer browsers before IE (although
| many were free for non-commercial use only).
|
| Chromium is a fork (well, a fork of a fork) of a FOSS
| browser specifically developed to be a FOSS browser for
| FOSS OSes (primarily Linux).
| Numerlor wrote:
| > Users of the browser should pay a small amount of "money"
| for the product they use all day every day
|
| How do you do this for something that's a basic necessity
| at this point? There must be a free browser because so many
| services depend on their user having access to them through
| one, and browsers aren't in the category of product where
| you can provide users a basic browser without features and
| then selling them a better version. If it's not Chrome
| that's free, any other free issue would inevitably run into
| the same issue. If not bankrolled by a company, browsers
| would need to be government funded
| hk__2 wrote:
| > How do you do this for something that's a basic
| necessity at this point?
|
| The response is further in OP's comment:
|
| > I'd argue that a browser should be a part of the OS or
| be a paid product
| Numerlor wrote:
| Part of the OS is basically free and the same situation
| as Chrome, and you can't do paid because basic
| necessities are done through the browser
| creesch wrote:
| > I'd argue that a browser should be a part of the OS or
| be a paid product
|
| I am getting Microsoft flashbacks now. There is no way
| that bundling browsers with OSes and making all the
| others paid will have negative side effects! Oh wait...
| The 90s just called, it is Netscape and they would like
| to have a stern word.
| a2800276 wrote:
| > How do you do this for something that's a basic
| necessity at this point? ... If not bankrolled by a
| company, browsers would need to be government funded
|
| You mean like government funded food, housing, health
| care and other basic necessities?
| creesch wrote:
| Exactly, many of which now need to be requested through
| online portals. I know that the US is oddly a bit
| backwards in that regard (even though it houses Silicon
| Valley) but in many other countries in the world they
| have moved many if not all of these services online.
|
| Making browsers paid would create all sorts of problems
| for people with lower incomes if not properly considered.
| Note the last part of the sentence, thank you.
| a2800276 wrote:
| I didn't make my point clear: that something is a
| necessity typically doesn't have the consequence that
| "government" has to provide it. In the general case,
| people are expected to buy food, pay rent, etc. These
| things are typically not provided for free or exchange
| for exposing your personal data. Only in exceptional
| cases does society step in to cover these expenses.
|
| The argument that browsers somehow "need" to be free
| because they are a necessity makes little sense. Compare
| that phone or laptop the browser is running on is not
| provided free of charge either. A working automobile is
| arguably a necessity in large parts of the US and I don't
| see anyone handing out cars.
| creesch wrote:
| Yeah, I was afraid it would be replied to through a US
| pov. A lot of these essentials are actually "handed out"
| or at least subsidized to some degree for people with
| lower incomes in many countries.
|
| Of course this could also be done for browser but still
| would leave people vulnerable.
|
| To get back to the US. So you think it is a good idea to
| add yet another expense to vulnerable incomes in a
| country where there is much less of a safety net?
| a2800276 wrote:
| Maybe you could be a little more concrete. So you're not
| taking a United States point of view, which point of view
| are you taking? I'm not aware of any country which
| provides "necessities" such as food and housing as the
| general case. Not anywhere in the EU, not in "communist"
| countries and outside of famines, certainly not in the
| third world. Of course there are food stamps and social
| housing projects for poor and elderly people, but I'm
| referring to the general case. Where do you see any
| significant necessities being provided to the general
| populace by the state? Which necessities?
|
| Of course you can define "subsidies of some degree" to
| prove your point, but that doesn't change the fact that
| most people in the world generally have to pay for
| things, even necessities. The major exception being basic
| education which seems to be universally provided for
| free.
|
| I have no idea what sort of a burden paying $5 for
| browser software would place on poor people, but I am
| sure that society would find a way, much like it does
| with other necessities. I also disagree that a browser
| financed by advertising is less of a burden to the
| vulnerable. The advertising revenue comes from the
| products they purchase.
| account42 wrote:
| Sounds like the government should be funding a browser,
| at least a basic one.
| runeks wrote:
| > I agree, this is a problem, but there should be a trivial
| solution: Users of the browser should pay a small amount of
| "money" for the product they use all day every day.
|
| If getting people to pay for stuff they use were trivial
| then advertising wouldn't be as big as it is.
| HeavyStorm wrote:
| Yeah, OP is naive. Nobody ever paid for browsers, even
| before IE was a thing (well, nobody I know...).
|
| We also don't pay for open TV which is ad supported.
|
| This isn't a single decision that someone madennn it's
| actually very natural.
|
| We don't pay for most of the web, not only browsers.
| Indirect monetization is great because making a consumer
| open his/her wallet takes a lot, no matter the price.
| paulryanrogers wrote:
| Netscape was sold at Babbages in my local mall. Plenty of
| people bought it. Just like my father bought Telix and
| Laplink and earlier communication software.
|
| Not knowing anyone who admits to having done something,
| doesn't mean that thing never happens.
| Buttons840 wrote:
| Could Chromium be made close source?
|
| It's easy to just say "well, a company should charge money
| for a browser", but a company is free to write their own
| browser and charge for it right now. Chromium though, is
| bound by its open-source license and its copyright is owned
| by thousands of different contributors.
| pbmonster wrote:
| > Could Chromium be made close source?
|
| Sure, it's BSD licensed, all future development could be
| done closed-source. Note that the name "Chromium" would
| need to stay with the open source side of the project, so
| it would be more like a closed fork than a re-licencing.
|
| 99% sure you could just keep using the name "Chrome",
| though, and stop releasing code into chromium instead.
| Buttons840 wrote:
| So all companies can, right now, make a private fork and
| start selling it. There's no reason to pay for that
| right, everyone already has that right.
|
| (I'm, of course, speaking in the context of xp84's
| suggestion that the browser should cost money. It's a
| fine idea, but I don't see how it applies here.)
| pbmonster wrote:
| You're essentially paying for control over the currently
| dominant web browser. You're paying for the existing
| Chrome installation base and to skip an absolute hell of
| a hiring process. Because forking Chromium and continuing
| development on your own needs over 100 of extremely
| narrowly specialized experts.
|
| If you want your project to remain the currently dominant
| web browser, you better keep developing APIs people love,
| you better keep doing it faster than your competition can
| keep up with implementing them, and you better keep
| dominating the web standards committees.
|
| Doing this from a position of a Chromium fork is orders
| of magnitude more difficult than just buying Chrome (and
| then keeping up pumping money into it at the rate Google
| has been doing).
| whywhywhywhy wrote:
| Would Google still be allowed to fund Mozilla if ad funded
| browsers are an issue.
| chipdart wrote:
| > I agree, this is a problem, but there should be a trivial
| solution: Users of the browser should pay a small amount of
| "money" for the product they use all day every day.
|
| What a brain-dead idea. Having to pay for something does
| not affect the openness of a platform. You just create a
| de-facto tax that benefits no one at all.
| maeln wrote:
| > What company has the resources to maintain Chrome's massive
| codebase? What profit incentive is there in maintaining
| Chrome without Google's ad business?
|
| As an aside, maybe this is part of the issue. We have been
| privileged to enjoy some of the most advanced and complex
| software created for free since basically their inception.
| Nobody every paid for a web browser.
|
| But then look around the software industry and every software
| of even remotely similar complexity need to be paid for, or
| are a kept free due to a convergence of interest of people
| who can make money out of it (most notably: Linux).
|
| Now, a web browser could be seen exactly the same way Linux
| is: Many, many, (many!) company makes ton of profit from
| people have access to a web browser, therefor, they should be
| fine with paying people to develop it. And in some way,
| considering that chromium and firefox are open-source, this
| is what could happen. But it does not really happen. Google
| is bankrolling both FF and Chromium, and they have basically
| total control over Chromium development. Who else is even
| giving remotely even money for 1 FTE for FF or Chromium ?
| Thing is, no company would do it for Chromium because it is
| seen as a Google product, so why pay them for something they
| will do in any case. Company could have financed Firefox, but
| now that it is the underdog (and that the Mozilla Foundation
| makes questionable decision), it doesn't seem like a very
| good investment.
|
| This is in many way crazy to me that almost every tech
| company heavily really on people having free access to a web
| browser, yet nobody is really trying to finance one. But I do
| think it is a political issue, and that, maybe just maybe,
| separating Chromium from Google would actually give incentive
| to the rest of the industry to finance the development of a
| browser that is not directly own by neither of them. Again,
| some what just like Linux.
| Propelloni wrote:
| Without engaging the broader argument...
|
| > Nobody every paid for a web browser.
|
| Sure we did! Back in the day when the choices were Internet
| Explorer, Netscape Navigator, and Opera, many people -- me
| included -- paid for Opera. I continued to do so up to
| version 5 in 2004 or 2006, can't remember, when I noticed
| that Phoenix aka. Firebird aka. Firefox were good enough
| for me. Have been a Firefox (and derivatives) user ever
| since.
| zelphirkalt wrote:
| If no one can maintain Chromium, well, that's a pity. On the
| other hand other projects can catch up then, and maybe the
| web as a whole can take a breather, without Google pushing
| more and more "standards". That's actually a good reason to
| do this. I really couldn't care less about Google's ad
| business. It is a burden on society.
|
| I think it cannot get much worse than it currently is, with
| one company dictating the web's future and raking in the
| money from that. So while there are significant unknowns,
| probably the result will be something at least a little bit
| better. I am a little worried about Chrome being only fake
| sold, to some company that is indirectly controlled by Google
| again.
| regularfry wrote:
| The question of who would likely buy it is just as important.
| I can't help but think that MS would _love_ to have the
| dominant browser again.
| wanderingbit wrote:
| I use Brave which is based off of Chromium just like Chrome,
| and the experience is great. I'd say I've had to go to chrome
| maybe 3 times in the last year, and it was always for some
| super complicated SPA.
|
| Whatever decrease we see to our browsing experience will be
| worth the gains I expect to see from dealing a blow to a
| monopoly like Google.
| Xelbair wrote:
| If there's no market for that it will die, simple as.
|
| keeping chrome alive isn't the goal, keeping the web not
| being at whims of a single company is.
| dataflow wrote:
| > I'm very surprised by the number of people in this thread who
| don't seem to understand that monopolies are _very_ bad for
| consumers.
|
| Bad for _consumers_ , how? Financially? How does that translate
| to the current situation? The average "consumer" here is paying
| $0.00 for Google, Chrome, Gmail, Maps, Flights, Docs, Sheets,
| Chat, Meet, Books, Scholar, Shopping, YouTube, News, Groups,
| Voice... how are you going to argue that this "monopoly" (?) is
| bad for consumers? Do you imagine Microsoft or Apple would've
| created better search, email, news, etc., or that the mom & pop
| shop down the store would've done that?
|
| I can think of so many other arguments you could use to suggest
| the current situation is bad, but _monopolies are bad for
| consumers_ seems like a really tough argument to apply here.
|
| Edit: You need to argue more than "the current situation is
| bad". Because that in itself does not imply "removing the
| 'monopoly' would necessarily lead to the better outcome in my
| imagination." Exhibit A is all the behemoths trying to compete
| against Google and still offering objectively worse products.
| Dalewyn wrote:
| The most obvious example is malvertising.
|
| Chrome is pushing ManifestV3 with extreme prejudice and
| Youtube pushes ever more malvertising by the day. Why can
| Google do this?
|
| Because there is no competition.
| dataflow wrote:
| > The most obvious example is malvertising. Chrome is
| pushing ManifestV3 with extreme prejudice and Youtube
| pushes ever more malvertising by the day. Why can Google do
| this? Because there is no competition.
|
| _Malvertising_? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malvertising
|
| Also, have you missed how terrible e.g. Edge is for user
| privacy? It's trying hard as heck to compete, and even
| playing dirty to get there. What happened to competition
| making things better?
| OccamsMirror wrote:
| I'm reading this in Firefox.
| dataflow wrote:
| > I'm reading this in Firefox.
|
| There are so many things I could say in response to this,
| and at the risk of getting off topic: is it your belief
| that if you put the average user (not _you_ , but _the
| average user_ ) in front of a default install of all the
| major browsers and had them use the browsers for a while
| on _completely unaffiliated websites_ , they would find
| Firefox better than the others based on its merits?
|
| Even as a privacy-conscious techie (and former Firefox
| user) who has repeatedly tried to switch back, I've found
| Firefox to be objectively worse in general, regardless of
| the website.
| pitkali wrote:
| You see? There _is_ choice.
| Dalewyn wrote:
| >Malvertising?
|
| Yes, malvertising. There is no such thing as non-
| malicious advertising in this day and age.
|
| >Also, have you missed how terrible e.g. Edge is for user
| privacy?
|
| I mean, Edge is Chrome.
|
| The only saving grace is that it all goes to Microsoft
| instead of Google, which probably isn't as damaging
| because if you're using Edge you're probably using
| Windows already anyway.
| Drakim wrote:
| This has the same energy as arguing that gathering your
| private data to give you more accurate ads does not hurt
| consumers, it's in fact helping them!
|
| Google has been the one pushing for getting rid of the v2
| manifest for browsers extensions, which just so happens to
| seriously nerf ad blockers. Because so many browsers are
| forks of Chromium v2 will disappear from a majority of
| browsers. Meanwhile if you try to use a non-Chrome browser
| like Firefox a lot of websites are buggy and outright don't
| work. Opening images in issues broke in GitHub for firefox a
| year ago and they still haven't fixed it.
|
| You are being *very* naive if you think that Google having
| this sort of monopolistic power over the web does not hurt
| consumers.
| dataflow wrote:
| > This has the same energy as arguing that gathering your
| private data to give you more accurate ads does not hurt
| consumers, it's in fact helping them!
|
| > You are being _very_ naive if you think that Google
| having this sort of monopolistic power over the web does
| not hurt consumers.
|
| No, I think you're being incredibly naive if you think the
| outcome you imagine would necessarily come to fruition
| without Google being a "monopoly" (however you define it).
| It didn't happen for Microsoft (Chrome is an angel compared
| to Edge), and nobody has managed to create comparable
| solutions for so many other products Google offers that
| have nothing to do with the browser or search.
| Drakim wrote:
| gmail works really badly in firefox, it doesn't show new
| emails unless you force a refresh while it seamlessly
| loads them in chrome. There is also a popup whenever you
| use gmail, youtube or google search telling you to switch
| to chrome because it's "safer and faster".
|
| Google was also caught giving special treatment to
| google-related domains in chrome, and had to revert the
| advantages around cookies that they gave to themselves.
| pitkali wrote:
| > Because so many browsers are forks of Chromium v2 will
| disappear from a majority of browsers.
|
| It rather sounds like a great marketing opportunity for
| anyone trying to compete with Chrome, whether they keep the
| v2 or just implement ad-blocking themselves.
| Drakim wrote:
| That's a counter argument that can be used against _any_
| monopoly that abuses their position to extract value from
| the market. It 's just a market opportunity for somebody
| else to topple them!
|
| But in reality it just doesn't work out that way, the
| negatives from abusing their monopoly can be overshadowed
| by the power of the monopoly itself, for example Google
| promoting Chrome every time you you gmail, google search,
| or youtube. Or making their services not work well in
| non-Chrome browsers.
|
| Or in the case of microsoft, their monopolistic behavior
| is overshadowed by the fact that too much important
| software only works on Windows. It's a tale as old as
| tech.
| pitkali wrote:
| I don't think you appreciate how easy it is for the
| chromium forks to add their own ad blocking. This is
| simply not a good example of monopoly abuse on Google's
| part.
| nfw2 wrote:
| Accurate ads does in fact help consumers. Ads facilitate
| free stuff. Better ads = less ads. When I was a kid every
| TV show timeslot was like 25% ads. Do you not remember
| those days? Do you want to go back to that?
| sjamaan wrote:
| It's very similar to the situation in the nineties where
| Microsoft used their OS monopoly to push Internet Explorer
| "for free". You could make the same argument there "now
| consumers have free access to an internet browser, how is
| that bad?".
|
| It was bad because it effectively ended innovation in the
| browser space for decades by pushing Netscape out of business
| (and discouraging others from entering that space).
|
| Similarly, many consumers are unaware of alternative search
| engines, if Chrome pushes Google as the default. This kills
| innovation and puts more power in Google's hands as to what
| parts of the web get promoted.
|
| Many a business owner can tell you that when Google changes
| their search ranking it can have an effect on the bottom
| line. This is also bad for consumers, as only bigger
| businesses which have the dough to pay for many Google ads
| get returned in a search.
| draluy wrote:
| Your implication that google services are free is untrue. You
| are paying with your privacy and data. And the price is such
| that, if I ever made a better mail service than gmail that
| openly asked to sell and privately use all your data, nobody
| would subscribe. You are paying by seeing ads. You are paying
| by being coerced into a certain ecosystem. You are paying by
| having one company chose what standards are the de facto web
| standards of tomorrow. And their main business is selling
| your data. You are paying by losing access to your data if a
| company feels like it. etc.
| fifticon wrote:
| They are not paying $0. They are manipulated into believing
| they are paying $0. If people were offered the google suite
| for 'free','you just have to let us siphon 4 liters of blood
| from you every year', would people still claim the price was
| 'zero dollars'. Just because you extract the price from your
| users in a different denomination/method than ordinary
| dollars, doesn't mean it's 'free'. Precisely because they are
| not asking for dollars, indicates they are actually
| extracting value from their users. They are not giving, they
| are taking, and it is also clear they are taking more than
| they are giving, given their revenue and profits.
|
| I could see a similar argument being made by plantation
| owners in the past "we are lodging these guests from africa
| for FREE", they don't even have to PAY to live in the houses
| we offer them! There is only the small detail of the
| activities they will have to do in OUR fields, which will
| kill them off in 10-15 years, but that is another matter
| which should not be confused".
|
| "Deals" of the kind google and facebook offer are not to the
| consumer's advantage. Insisting on not having a facebook
| account is akin to choosing not to use the paved asphalt
| roads the society makes available to you. I could "choose"
| not to have a facebook account, but it would lock me out of
| effectively both my friends group and my family's daily
| communication.
| dataflow wrote:
| > I could see a similar argument being made by plantation
| owners in the past "we are lodging these guests from africa
| for FREE", they don't even have to PAY to live in the
| houses we offer them! There is only the small detail of the
| activities they will have to do in OUR fields, which will
| kill them off in 10-15 years, but that is another matter
| which should not be confused".
|
| Seriously?
|
| > "Deals" of the kind google and facebook offer are not to
| the consumer's advantage.
|
| Again -- explain how "splitting up" the "monopoly" _would
| realistically get you out of this situation_? Pointing to
| something and saying it 's bad doesn't imply your solution
| would solve the problem.
| xp84 wrote:
| Not OP, but the idea is that when split from their
| massive parents, these products would be much more
| vulnerable to competition in a way they are _very_ safe
| from it today. It 's not an insurmountable task to
| create, say, a video-sharing site, or a chat program.
| Better versions of YouTube and MS Teams could be made
| with 20 developers in 18 months. However, those would be
| suicidal uses of capital today, since who's going to
| actually buy "CorpChat" when Microsoft bundles Teams, and
| Salesforce bundles Slack? Who's going to want to host
| their content on a new video sharing site if Google can
| easily make sure YouTube will always outrank it in
| Search, and could even ensure the videos don't play right
| in Chrome?
|
| All products which lose money and are propped up by money
| firehoses from other parts of their dominant owners, are
| products that enjoy an unfair advantage in the market
| leaving less marketshare (often strikingly less) for
| anyone who might be better.
| dataflow wrote:
| > All products which lose money and are propped up by
| money firehoses from other parts of their dominant
| owners, are products that enjoy an unfair advantage in
| the market leaving less marketshare (often strikingly
| less) for anyone who might be better.
|
| Is it your opinion that every product is monetizable, and
| should be if that would make it self-sufficient? Do you
| not feel some would just get killed entirely if they
| couldn't be subsidized through other products?
| bigstrat2003 wrote:
| > Just because you extract the price from your users in a
| different denomination/method than ordinary dollars,
| doesn't mean it's 'free'
|
| That is, in fact, what it means. "Free" (in the transaction
| sense) means you didn't pay money for it. Just because
| Krispy Kreme hopes you buy some donuts while you're in the
| store doesn't make the loss leader donut not free. Just
| because Google gets something other than money from the
| deal doesn't mean that the product isn't free.
| error_logic wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gratis_versus_libre
|
| I know you specified in the transaction sense but it's
| almost never a one-off interaction. The ecosystem and
| repeated interactions shape things.
| sabbaticaldev wrote:
| you seems too afraid to lose your big tech salary
| dataflow wrote:
| If you think I'm saying these out of some personal
| incentive you're sorely mistaken. I've hated so much of
| what the tech companies have been doing (very much
| including Google, like various competition things related
| to the Play Store). What I _don 't_ want to see happen are
| (a) the world getting worse as a result of a misguided
| belief that things would necessarily get better if X was
| done, and (b) regulators pursing a break-up _and then
| losing_ and thus cementing the behemoths in place even more
| thus making it even harder to address other problems.
| davemp wrote:
| > Do you imagine Microsoft or Apple would've created better
| search, email, news, etc., or that the mom & pop shop down
| the store would've done that?
|
| Yes, enthusiastically yes. With the exception of maybe
| search, products like gmail, docs, and sheets are basic
| projects tossed out into the ecosystem for free to suck up
| all the oxygen for minimal dev cost. How is an upstart
| supposed to compete with a better mail/doc/spreadsheet app if
| the basic use case is covered for free by some loss leader
| funded from a different vertical?
|
| Most of these classes of apps have been stagnant for decades.
| pwdisswordfishz wrote:
| This very site is an advertising arm of a venture capital fund.
| What did you expect? That capitalists condemn capitalism?
| lucideer wrote:
| Seeing for years the views expressed here about Meta & TikTok,
| I think at least some of this must come down to a gap in
| understanding of web technologies.
|
| Meta & TikTok decidedly don't have monopolies, yet still come
| under fierce scrutiny for their pervasive handling of consumer
| behaviour & data. What seems to be less evident to people is
| that Google's monopolies give them far greater reach in these
| areas than either of the other two. The majority of that reach
| is entirely invisible to most: I think if this negative impact
| was more visible it might drive home the downside of these
| particular monopolies.
| matwood wrote:
| Splitting off Chrome doesn't make any sense as a stand alone
| business. Anyone who could buy Chrome would immediately cause
| other anti-trust issues. _This_ solution for Google is probably
| bad for consumers.
|
| What the DoJ should be pursuing is having Google divest
| YouTube. Now we're talking real change.
| forgotoldacc wrote:
| And if they sold off Youtube, we'd have 500 comments saying,
| "This is a bad idea. They can't make a profit. They should
| divest from Chrome."
|
| Splitting Google, Microsoft, Apple, Amazon, etc up all at
| once and into multiple separate pieces each would be great
| for consumers. But that's a huge undertaking, and the bigger
| the changes required, the less likely they are to happen.
| Taking it one step at a time, with the first step being
| Chrome and Google search (two products that strongly push
| users of one to use the other) being split up, is better than
| no progress at all.
|
| At the very least, the biggest force in killing adblockers
| (Google gradually gutting them in Chrome) will have fewer
| means to kill them in browsers. That's a win for consumers.
| matwood wrote:
| Not sell YT to another company, but split off likely in an
| IPO. The big difference is that YT is a stand alone
| business that could function on it's own.
| sofixa wrote:
| > The big difference is that YT is a stand alone business
| that could function on it's own.
|
| We (public) don't know that. Google never splits
| YouTube's costs out, only revenue, and the only reason I
| can think of is that it's losing money. IMO it's highly
| likely that YouTube costs _a lot_ to run (just imagine
| the costs of storing zettabytes of videos, 99.9% of which
| will get watched less than 10 times ever, in 4K, and be
| ready to quickly stream them anywhere in the world) and
| Google lose money on it, but compensate with user data
| they use for their wider ad business. People complain
| about YouTube ads today, and how expensive Premium is;
| maybe a future independent YouTube can cut costs, shed
| some old /unwatched content, and become profitable.
| dataviz1000 wrote:
| Splitting these companies would also be good for people
| like Bezos and Gates as splitting Standard Oil was good for
| Rockefeller. They don't lose their interest in the
| companies and the newly formed companies likely will
| benefit from the competition creating much more aggregated
| wealth. In the end, the breakup of Standard Oil made
| Rockefeller wealthier. He gained from owning shares in the
| spinoff companies, their rising market value because
| competition, diversified investments, and the growing
| demand for oil.
| Certhas wrote:
| Firefox is massively profitable. Why couldn't Chrome be?
|
| Goggle would compete with other search engines for being the
| default search. So this would have knock on effects on search
| as well.
| sofixa wrote:
| Firefox is profitable thanks to Google's money, and Google
| are probably so generous with them to ensure they have some
| competition. In the EU, OSes and browsers have to ask the
| user which browser and search engine they want to use, and
| an independent Chrome might be forced to follow the same
| logic. Then Google would have little incentive to splash as
| much money.
| Certhas wrote:
| Google has to provide a choice screen. It's not an
| automatic given that independent Chrome would have to.
| sofixa wrote:
| Google Chrome is explicitly one of the things Alphabet
| are listed as a gatekeeper on, with an explicit decision:
| https://digital-markets-act-
| cases.ec.europa.eu/cases/DMA.100...
|
| So I don't see how an independent Chrome would be much
| different.
| Certhas wrote:
| Chrome is designated a Core Platform Service, Alphabet is
| the gatekeeper. If Chrome is independent, it could only
| be designated a gatekeeper if it has an annual turnover
| of 7.5 billion Eur in the EU. In which case it is
| definitely economically viable.
| dtquad wrote:
| >monopolies are _very_ bad for consumers
|
| Why? "Big companies bad" are one of those fundamental
| truthiness we are all supposed to believe for some reason but
| as a European I wish we had more US/Chinese-style megacorps who
| have dominant positions in some fields that allows them to
| innovate or provide free/cost-cutting products in other niches.
|
| Maybe we should reconsider what we consider monopolies in the
| 21st century. I'm already using ChatGPT and Perplexity more
| than Google.
| idle_zealot wrote:
| It follows from a few premises. The point of
| creating/allowing private companies to compete in a market
| and profit from doing so is to encourage them to innovate via
| competitive pressure. If you just wanted to produce well-
| understood goods or infrastructure then the most efficient
| way to do that is to pool resources and have the State do it,
| because they don't need to make a profit and, if not totally
| dysfunctional, are accountable to the people. If you let
| private companies consolidate power and influence then they
| largely escape competitive pressure and can streamline
| operations to maximize profits. That is, they benefit from
| the same efficiency the State does, but capture more of the
| value and remain unaccountable to the people, existing only
| to enrich their owners.
| yakcyll wrote:
| Many thanks for this level-headed response, I'll save that
| if you don't mind.
| ropejumper wrote:
| Yep. The issue with megacorps (and more generally
| monopolies) is that they want to have their cake and eat it
| too. You want capitalism but you also want to be the only
| one on the market. Pick a side.
| antonvs wrote:
| They do pick a side: success at capitalism implies
| outcompeting your peers. Without regulation, there will
| be winners, and they will tend to be monopolies. Marx
| pointed this out in his book "Capital" (Das Kapital) in
| the late 1800s.
|
| Capitalism without regulation can't reach a stable
| equilibrium.
| arsenico wrote:
| Free products are not the consequence of megacorps existence.
| Free products exist, because you are the product. Big
| companies also doesn't necessarily mean monopolies.
| Ekaros wrote:
| Splitting monopolies is good.
|
| On other hand splitting "free" product is somewhat
| questionable. When the competitor don't have exactly viable
| business model. Pushing for something that will clearly in not
| too distant future kill the split product is not helpful.
| m463 wrote:
| What if this browser killed lots of other viable browsers
| because it was "free" (yet supported by and supporting a
| monopoly)?
|
| You never get to compare the products that never got to
| exist.
|
| related, I think google supported firefox to have a "viable"
| competitor to chrome and prevent monopoly scrutiny.
| stuaxo wrote:
| Same as Microsoft keeping Apple alive back in their own
| antichrist days.
| ayewo wrote:
| > Same as Microsoft keeping Apple alive back in their own
| _antichrist_ days.
|
| Antichrist seems like a typo here. Perhaps you meant
| antitrust?
| dustypotato wrote:
| Maybe it isn't ? MS was the antichrist in Open source
| circles before Satya Nadella
| teddyh wrote:
| No past tense or qualifier necessary.
| account42 wrote:
| Still is, even if some have let themselves be tempted by
| the devil.
| eterevsky wrote:
| It sounds like you want to artificially make the dominant
| product worse (i.e. non-free) just to make the life of
| competitors easier.
| roenxi wrote:
| And noting that Chrome doesn't have anything close to a
| monopoly - people can use any browser they like. Having
| >90% of the market doesn't make it a monopoly, it just
| makes it good. It is the last sort of product people
| should be attacking, Chrome is a free market success
| story and Google's strategy is an exemplar of good
| corporate citizenship.
| croes wrote:
| Didn't Google change YouTube to hinder Edge?
|
| At first it was a free market success story, now it's not
| xdennis wrote:
| Why are you saying that like it's a bad thing? That's
| what antitrust means. Chrome is free because it's
| unfairly subsidized by Google Search. Standard Oil was
| also cheaper because it was a monopoly.
| renanoliveira0 wrote:
| so, we will all pay for browsers for google don't be a
| monopoly anymore, that is the plan?
| infotainment wrote:
| This exactly. An independent Chrome's best path toward
| financial sustainability is closing down the source code and
| selling everyone's browsing data to the highest bidder.
|
| We all like to have a high minded ideal of some kind of
| wonderful fully independent for-the-good-of-society entity
| stewarding Chrome, but history has shown us that's not what
| will happen.
| rusk wrote:
| hopefully the fines you get from some of the worlds
| wealthiest nations wouldn't eclipse the profit you'd make
| arcticbull wrote:
| But they sell everyone's browsing data to the highest
| bidder already, how would this be different? That's
| their... entire... business model...
| flanked-evergl wrote:
| cite?
| Y_Y wrote:
| Chrome is already closed-source. The chromium project can't
| be closed because it's already free and released.
|
| The new Chrome company could stop contributing back to
| Chromium if they wanted, but it would mean they'd diverge
| from the other browsers backed by the OSS project which is
| one of their big advantages.
|
| I'm not saying they wouldn't do that or it wouldn't work
| out, but it's not an obvious win.
| hamilyon2 wrote:
| Selling user data to highest bidder wouldn't fly in Europe.
| niutech wrote:
| There are examples of good stewardship in open source
| projects: Epiphany, Servo, Ladybird.
| idle_zealot wrote:
| Most of Google is "free" products that feed into its
| surveillance advertising platform. That's the problem. How
| are you supposed to break that sort of thing up without
| destroying most of the products? They were never designed to
| work independently from the network.
| Sparkyte wrote:
| Chrome is like a service not a product it is effectively
| Google installing a window so you can see it's fresh baked
| goods. It isn't something they should break up because it
| isn't something that inherently makes money and nor should
| it.
| rusk wrote:
| That's a _"half baked"_ analogy if ever I heard one. With
| you on the service but the rest of it is just stupid. To
| align with your analogy Google would have to restrict
| chrome to accessing only their sites and services, which
| would be useless, compared to other browsers.
|
| Google could do this if they wanted very very easily but
| they wouldn't make any money because as you know they sell
| advertising, for things they don't provide.
| Sparkyte wrote:
| You can walk into the store and see the store across the
| street. Chrome is akin to a loss leader like hotdogs
| CostCo.
|
| The problem isn't the Browser it is the other services it
| has that makes it a monopoly.
|
| Don't let, "Oh we sell off our loss leader so we are not
| a monopoly." fool you. It has YouTube, office solutions
| and even every other software under the sun.
|
| Without Chrome being managed or maintain it becomes
| vulnerable exposing customers to viruses or attacks. It
| is a service because it stores passwords and manages
| bookmarks in a secure location for Google products. It is
| ingrained.
|
| To me this sound like Edge wants to be king, but oh wait
| Edge is also part of a monopoly. So should not Microsoft
| experience this too?
|
| Monopolistic practices are not necessarily monopolies,
| but rather require regulation to encourage fairness.
| rusk wrote:
| Didn't dispute it was a service. What I was saying that
| Google run everything at a loss, and it's all paid for by
| advertising. They don't sell themselves advertising. No
| advertising no money.
| Someone wrote:
| > Pushing for something that will clearly in not too distant
| future kill the split product is not helpful.
|
| They're not considering this because of Chrome's market
| share, but because of Google's power in the search engine
| market. Indirectly killing Chrome may be acceptable if it
| makes the market for search engines more competitive.
|
| Having said that, I don't think it will matter much as long
| as Apple and, in particular (because they also have a search
| engine) Microsoft can ship browsers with preconfigured search
| engines with their OSes, but we will see.
| arcticbull wrote:
| The product is never free, it's just you're not the one
| paying for it. This setup prevents new entrants from
| competing just the same.
|
| [edit] the same way zero rating certain data traffic is still
| a net neutrality violation.
| vsl wrote:
| > This setup prevents new entrants from competing just the
| same.
|
| Look at the new entrant browsers out there: _all_ of them
| are based on Chromium. The existence of Chrome as an OSS
| project _enabled_ competition in practice - the cost of
| entry is orders of magnitude lower when you have a mature
| browser engine at your disposal.
| niutech wrote:
| Not all of them, see: Floorp, Zen Browser, Epiphany,
| Ladybird, Servo.
| hamilyon2 wrote:
| Three hours a year of nagging window in rich countries will
| provide all the financing chrome, the web browser, will ever
| need.
|
| We are talking about the most advertised, most installed most
| used program. Asking users to pay will do more good than harm
| zelphirkalt wrote:
| I think there are 2 products. Google Chrome and Chromium. For
| one of them: Good riddance! For the other: Well, actually you
| cannot really kill that, because anyone can fork it or
| contribute patches, so if the world thinks some change is
| needed, the world can make it happen. There is no need to be
| worried about the project. We could also put it under a
| copyleft license that obligates anyone to contribute
| modifications and we will be fine, if some company decides to
| fork it.
| croes wrote:
| So you're saying Chrome can only survive because it feeds
| Alpahabet's ad service?
|
| Seems like a good reason for a product to die.
| bigs wrote:
| Google has a lot of employees and suppliers who have vested
| interest in their market dominance
| TrackerFF wrote:
| There's a very vocal subset of people here that believe
| monopolistic entities arise due to how much better they are
| than their competition, and thus deserve to be monopolies.
|
| The very same users believe that such companies aren't "bad"
| yet, but in some kind of intermediate stage between successful
| startup and evil MEGAcorp.
|
| I don't know. I think it's the mix of nostalgia, and being too
| invested in their ecosystem/products. Fanboying, basically.
|
| When Microsoft did it 25 years ago, it was bad. When Google
| does it now, it's not bad.
| nfw2 wrote:
| The vast majority of people just like their free stuff and
| don't go on hacker news to discuss it
| afh1 wrote:
| There is no monopoly.
|
| There are a lot of other browsers.
|
| A lot of people use them.
|
| Most people use one of them.
|
| They chose to do it. If you ask them, they think it's good.
|
| But no.
|
| There is a monopoly.
|
| It is bad for you.
|
| Only we the State can save you from it.
|
| A lie repeated a thousand times becomes truth.
| wiz21c wrote:
| No, most user don't choose. Android doesn't provide a
| menaingful way to choose to the users, it pushes you to
| choose Google. That's a big difference. It would be a choice
| if, when you start android for the first time, it asks you
| which browser you want to use, in a list where all browsers
| are shown equal; not "hey you'll use chrome and you can
| change later any time you want". Ideally, it would provide an
| explnanation of each browser. That would be a better way to
| propose a choice.
|
| Would it make users smarter about their choice ? Probably
| not. But at least, they could smell there is an actual
| choice.
|
| Monopolies tends to maintain users in ignorance. This way,
| although they can look elsewhere, they won't feel the urge to
| do so.
|
| Users must be helped to make _their own_ choice, not guided
| to make the monopoly 's choice. And that must be done before
| the choice is made.
|
| As long as there will be monoplies, this tension will exist
| and people like me will continue to explain that the State is
| the best way to push the balance in favor of those who don't
| get the importance of the choice.
|
| The problem is not that there is a dominant player. The
| problem is the dominant player uses ignorance and subtle
| strategies to make sure users saty with it.
| hk__2 wrote:
| > There is no monopoly. There are a lot of other browsers. A
| lot of people use them.
|
| There is market dominance: Chrome has 65%, Safari has 18% but
| that's because of iOS, and the few others have the rest. It's
| false to say there are "a lot" of other browsers when nobody
| can enter the space anymore.
|
| > They chose to do it. If you ask them, they think it's good.
|
| Most people don't choose their browser, they just take
| whatever comes preinstalled. Even then, Google pushes you to
| use their browser every time you use their services: I know a
| lot of non-tech people who use Chrome on iOS not because they
| chose to, but because they got a pop-in on Google that told
| them to do so.
|
| > It is bad for you.
|
| The current situation is indeed bad for the consumer, even if
| it's not a monopoly per se.
| FergusArgyll wrote:
| Edge comes pre-installed on Windows and it _sucks_ so no
| one uses it.
|
| In fact, windows keeps on making it the default for many
| file extensions _and still no one uses it_
| huijzer wrote:
| It's a balance. If you would dissolve anything that slightly
| looks like a monopoly, then there would be lower incentive for
| innovation. Even though there are many things wrong with
| venture capital, they do occasionally produce useful companies.
| Also let's not forget that Bell Labs was sponsored by a
| monopoly too. So I'm not saying monopolies are great. I'm
| saying that it's important to find a balance.
| solidninja wrote:
| It's a balance but IMO there should be no realistic concept
| of "winning the market". If it gets to that point then sure
| the company is probably making a lot of money but they also
| have the power to squeeze as much as they can. The irony of
| posting this on a forum originating from VC culture does not
| escape me.
| whywhywhywhy wrote:
| I'm not surprised at all, because I've used AirPods and AirDrop
| on an iPhone and MacBook.
|
| You have to have a much deeper understanding of tech to
| understand why they're bad, yet the examples of why they're
| good are obvious when a consumer stays within one ecosystem.
| charlieyu1 wrote:
| Splitting up is good except when it is bad.
|
| In UK you have to subscribe to so many channels just to watch
| football. Because apparently this would stop monopolies.
| amusingimpala75 wrote:
| Monopolies are not inherently bad. They are only bad when they
| abuse that position to retain a monopoly or allow a decline in
| product quality.
| nfw2 wrote:
| oh no, please don't give me any more free stuff, Google!
| yowayb wrote:
| I haven't read the article but I immediately see a few comments
| about benefitting consumers. I don't think that's the DOJ's
| charter. I think when you consider all the things that Google is
| to the government and to the people, this decision makes sense.
| It's weird that it becomes a discussion about what consumers
| want.
| whiplash451 wrote:
| True, but that might be the way for the DOJ to win legally.
| yonisto wrote:
| Serious question: sell it to who? how the new owner will make
| money out of it?
| niutech wrote:
| Maybe Opera? They have profit from providing a web browser:
| https://investor.opera.com/news-releases/news-release-detail...
| AlienRobot wrote:
| If it's sold to Opera I'll stop using it. Old Opera was good,
| and the people who made it are now making Vivaldi. New Opera
| promotes cryptocurrencies. :-(
| jeswin wrote:
| I'm totally fine with this, but I wish they would do the same
| thing with Apple. Google's platform, at the very least is open
| and I can run my own apps.
|
| One could ask, "How is Apple a Monopoly, and do they abuse that
| position?". In my view it is, since you can't have a business or
| build connected hardware without an iOS app. And as for abusing
| that position for gaining market share, there are just too many
| examples starting with say, watches.
| hsbauauvhabzb wrote:
| The App Store is one consideration, and the hardware ecosystem
| another. I personally think both are problems. The ability to
| cast audio from my device to another is less supported now than
| they were back when things had audio auxiliary jacks.
| pcl wrote:
| How so? Because you need to buy a converter cable?
|
| That sounds like "marginally more expensive", and certainly
| not a monopoly-abusing position.
| hsbauauvhabzb wrote:
| Apple today discontinued the lightning to 3.5mm converters,
| but I'm more referring to things like the apple exclusive
| airplay, proprietary Bluetooth codecs, etc
| bigs wrote:
| Google abuses privacy in every product they own via their
| monopoly over the ad ecosystem. Very different to Apple.
| ThePhysicist wrote:
| Apple doesn't have a similar position in any space though, or
| do they? In terms of market share they're not even the biggest
| player in the smartphone market, they sit below 20 % (the most
| profitable 20 % though).
|
| Google, in comparison, absolutely dominates the search and ad
| markets and sucks all oxygen out of them to keep any
| competition from springing up by controlling distribution and
| limiting choice. They e.g. paid vast amounts of money to Apple
| to make sure users don't get a free choice of search engine.
|
| If you wanted to compare the Apple Watch with this it would
| mean that Apple would make exclusive deals with all stores
| (online and IRL) selling watches so that consumers would only
| see Apple watches everywhere they go and would need to look in
| the basement or on an obscure subpage to find any watches from
| a different manufacturer. Clearly that's not the case.
|
| That said I'm not a fan of Apples walled garden either, I think
| this should be addressed (and in the EU it is being addressed).
| It's ridiculous to have this super powerful hardware and I can
| only run sanctioned apps on them instead of being able to
| install any kind of software I like.
| moffkalast wrote:
| > they're not even the biggest player in the smartphone
| market
|
| I think worldwide numbers are skewing your data there, for
| antitrust only the US numbers matter and those are 59% for
| Apple on mobile.
| InsomniacL wrote:
| > Apple doesn't have a similar position in any space though,
| or do they?
|
| Apple has exclusive control over a market (AppStore), which
| has almost 2 million different products (Apps), 820,000
| suppliers (app publishers) and over 1.3 billion customers
| (active iPhone users) which conducts more trade ($1.1
| trillion) than the entire GDP of Luxemburg.
|
| If that's not a monopoly i don't know what is.
| joha4270 wrote:
| Yes, Apple has exclusive control over the Apple ecosystem.
| I'm sure a lot of Apple users would like greater control
| over their devices.
|
| But the choice isn't between Apple and not having a phone.
| Android exists, and as long as its a viable choice, Apple
| isn't a monopoly.
| InsomniacL wrote:
| > Android exists, and as long as its a viable choice,
| Apple isn't a monopoly.
|
| Not only is Apple a monopoly, they become one, and
| maintain it illegally. US Justice
| Department Sues Apple for Monopolizing Smartphone
| Markets[1] The European Commission has fined
| Apple over EUR1.8 billion for abusing its dominant
| position on the market[2]
|
| [1] https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-
| sues-apple... [2] https://ec.europa.eu/commission/pressco
| rner/detail/en/ip_24_...
| nodamage wrote:
| Just to be clear, the Justice Department has _filed_ a
| lawsuit but they have not actually won it. Until a judge
| or jury rules in their favor (and appeals are exhausted)
| you cannot cite the mere existence of a lawsuit as proof
| of anything. Keep in mind that Epic also filed a lawsuit
| claiming Apple was a monopoly but could not prove it in
| court.
| ThePhysicist wrote:
| The relevant market for them is smartphones and smartphone
| apps, and again, Apple doesn't have a monopoly there. Most
| markets have concentration effects and players that
| dominate the market to a certain degree, that doesn't
| automatically make them a monopolist, it depends on how
| they got there and what exactly they do to keep or build
| out their position in the market. By your definition Valve
| is a monopolist in the gaming market due to their size and
| dominance, but that's likely not true either.
|
| Anticompetitive behavior would be if they used their power
| to make it more difficult for people to buy Android phones
| e.g. by entering into exclusivity deals with cell service
| providers or electronics stores so that you could only find
| Apple products there (i.e. T-Mobile would only sell iPhones
| with their contracts and you wouldn't find any Android
| phones except in some small speciality shops out of town).
| That's what Google is doing in its markets among other
| things, i.e. pay tons of money to ensure all virtual store
| fronts are only stocked with Google products and everything
| else is hidden behind.
|
| Apple does of course show anti-competitive behavior to a
| degree, i.e. they purchase the entire production capacity
| of the most advanced semiconductor fabs to have exclusivity
| and preserve their edge, but again there are still other
| players in that market and competition still seems
| possible. If you want to compare that to what Google is
| doing in the search and ad space it would translate to them
| locking up almost all semiconductor suppliers in
| exclusivity contracts for 10 years so that no other company
| could ever build any advanced chips in large numbers.
| InsomniacL wrote:
| > The relevant market for them is smartphones and
| smartphone apps
|
| The relevant markets includes, but is not limited to
| that.
|
| > Anticompetitive behavior would be if they used their
| power to make it more difficult for people to buy Android
| phones
|
| Anti-competitive behaviour includes, but is not limited
| to that.
|
| Either way regulators are taking action.
| US Justice Department Sues Apple for Monopolizing
| Smartphone Markets[1] The European
| Commission has fined Apple over EUR1.8 billion for
| abusing its dominant position on the market[2]
|
| [1] https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-
| sues-apple... [2] https://ec.europa.eu/commission/pressco
| rner/detail/en/ip_24_...
| wavemode wrote:
| > By your definition Valve is a monopolist in the gaming
| market due to their size and dominance
|
| Well, no. You can install games on your computer however
| you want.
|
| If Steam was the only possible way to do so, then yeah I
| would say Valve had a monopoly.
|
| (It's worth noting that Apple has already gotten in
| trouble for this - the EU has fined them billions and
| forced them to allow alternative app stores. Hopefully US
| regulators take inspiration and force them to do the same
| domestically.)
| lolinder wrote:
| > Apple has exclusive control over a market (AppStore)
|
| Epic tried to make this case already, but the judge ruled
| that the App Store is not a market that Apple can have a
| monopoly over.
| bee_rider wrote:
| The argument as to whether smartphones or the Apple App
| Store is the better definition of a market has been done to
| death at this point, right? IMO it would be more good faith
| to just reference the fact that this is a currently
| entrenched and impossible to reconcile matter of...
| opinion? Definition?
|
| > If that's not a monopoly i don't know what is.
|
| This level of certainty is not warranted.
| InsomniacL wrote:
| > definition of a market
|
| They are both markets in and of themselves, Apple
| themselves refer to it as a market place and it's a place
| where trade in particular goods occurs.
|
| You can argue it shouldn't be a market subject to anti-
| trust laws but US and EU regulators would disagree.
|
| > > If that's not a monopoly i don't know what is. > This
| level of certainty is not warranted.
|
| Again, you can argue that it's a 'legal' monopoly, but
| 'legal' or 'illegal', it is a monopoly.
|
| Monopolies are not illegal, but creating or maintaining a
| monopoly through anti-competitive means is and regulators
| in the US and EU are acting.
|
| Steve Jobs wrote that "Apple would "force" developers to
| use its payment system to lock in both developers and
| users on its platform."
| https://www.justice.gov/opa/media/1344546/dl?inline
| madeofpalk wrote:
| This is why regulators prefer talking about _dominant
| position_ rather than just market share.
| kube-system wrote:
| I think a lot of people aren't aware that monopolies are
| not illegal in the US. It is completely legal to run a
| business that is a monopoly.
|
| What _is_ illegal are anti-competitive practices that a
| business might employ in an attempt to create or maintain a
| monopoly. A business that violates these laws might already
| be a monopoly, or it might not be one.
| nl wrote:
| Apple has 57% of the US phone market:
| https://www.oberlo.com/statistics/us-smartphone-market-share
| briandear wrote:
| > It's ridiculous to have this super powerful hardware and I
| can only run sanctioned apps on them instead of being able to
| install any kind of software I like.
|
| Buy different hardware then. You know these things when you
| buy the device. It isn't a secret. If the device doesn't meet
| your needs, there are alternatives that do. The fact that
| there are adequately substitutable products available other
| than iPhone destroys any concept of "monopoly." Saying Apple
| has a monopoly on iOS is ridiculous -- they _are_ iOS.
| fransje26 wrote:
| > One could ask, "How is Apple a Monopoly, and do they abuse
| that position?"
|
| I opened my local configurator to buy a 13" M3 MacBook Air.
| Memory, update from 16GB to 24GB -> +230EUR SSD,
| update from 256GB to 2TB -> +920EUR
|
| Textbook monopolistic price gouging.
| crazygringo wrote:
| No, that's textbook price discrimination, aka standard
| pricing everywhere. Have you looked at the prices for add-ons
| for cars? Or even for pizza toppings?
|
| There's no world in which you can tell me Apple has a
| monopoly on _laptops_. C 'mon.
| PapaPalpatine wrote:
| > Textbook monopolistic price gouging
|
| So they're a monopoly because you can only buy Apple laptops
| from them?
| Saline9515 wrote:
| Yes they are a monopoly on the MacOS hardware market, which
| explains this kind of extractive behavior.
| baggy_trough wrote:
| That's not a monopoly.
| Saline9515 wrote:
| Yes it is, they are the only supplier on the market for
| MacOS hardware. In the market for Linux or Windows,
| hardware is priced at a competitive level.
|
| You may argue that the relevant market is for "computers"
| as a whole, however it can be argued that bundling
| hardware and software to charge high prices is a classic
| monopoly behavior nonetheless.
| DrBenCarson wrote:
| Companies cannot be forced to sell their operating
| systems distinct from hardware if they choose not to.
| That's a ridiculous expectation. There is no market for
| macOS, only Macs, and that market is the broader PC
| market, which Apple is nowhere near monopoly power
|
| Saying Apple has a "macOS hardware" monopoly is like
| saying Dyson has a "Dyson motor monopoly"
|
| Companies get to choose what their products are, full
| stop
| consteval wrote:
| It is, for that particular market. In the market of MacOS
| computers, there is only one manufacturer.
| meursault wrote:
| MacOS is a brand that Apple owns, so that makes sense?
| It's like saying in the market of Tesla cars there is
| only one manufacturer.
| consteval wrote:
| MacOS is also an operating system or a platform. Tesla
| isn't really a platform.
|
| But... funny you brought up Tesla, because Tesla also had
| this exact problem! Tesla had the supercharging network,
| which they own and manufacture. But superchargers aren't
| just a product, they're a platform.
|
| Tesla had a monopoly on superchargers, until they pre-
| emptively opened up the network and open sourced the
| connector. If they hadn't, IMO it was extremely likely
| they would've been forced, eventually.
| DrBenCarson wrote:
| "WHY ISN'T TOYOTA MAKING CIVICS?!"
|
| This is ridiculous
| consteval wrote:
| More like, "why does the software I'm required to use
| mean there's only one hardware manufacturer I can buy
| from?" Or, "why does the part I need to repair my tractor
| only get provided by one manufacturer?"
| hightrix wrote:
| By this logic, Ferrari is a monopoly.
| paulddraper wrote:
| Apple makes Apple hardware, yes.
|
| I also have some information about the wetness of water.
| iosjunkie wrote:
| Aston Martin charges $1000 to add a six CD changer in the
| trunk of Vanquish.
|
| Clearly textbook price gouging from the monopolistic auto
| manufacturer, Aston Martin.
| bee_rider wrote:
| Aston Martin doesn't sell enough cars to be a problem for
| society. Apple has pretty high market share. I don't really
| think they are a monopoly (because I can't see the point of
| view that takes a single Apple Store as "the market"), but
| I think it is obvious that they have more impact than Aston
| Martin.
| hu3 wrote:
| Apple monitor stand: $999
|
| https://www.apple.com/shop/product/MWUG2LL/A/pro-stand
| sdh9 wrote:
| You're free to purchase a Dell, then.
| briankelly wrote:
| Apple has a monopoly on usable trackpads.
| ncruces wrote:
| Not if you work for a local council or whatever, and need
| to develop an iOS app for some reason.
|
| Then you pay, because they basically force you to use their
| hardware, software, connectors, formats, billing services,
| etc every step of the way.
| fsflover wrote:
| Related discussion:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42057758
| japhib wrote:
| There's a similar antitrust lawsuit against Apple:
| https://www.npr.org/2024/09/20/nx-s1-5119948/a-look-at-the-d...
|
| These things take a long time, though. I think the Apple one is
| just not as far along.
| melodyogonna wrote:
| Why does Google have to sell Chrome? Any potential acquirer could
| build their own browser with Chromium.
| kernal wrote:
| The DOJ is technically illiterate if they think Google selling
| Chrome is the solution. If Google was forced to divest itself
| from Chrome, I see no need for Google to keep Chromium open
| source.
| dbg31415 wrote:
| Maybe they are just totally incompetent.
| doc_manhat wrote:
| ITT: panicked Google employees try to convince you this is a very
| bad thing
| meindnoch wrote:
| Google needs to be punished for what they did to the web.
| tobyhinloopen wrote:
| ChatGPT / OpenAI is next in line to revolutionize and ruin the
| web.
| seydor wrote:
| Arguably the web is still in better position than the app store
| and the android store. Google's effect on the web is mixed at
| best, positive overall.
| seydor wrote:
| Antimonopoly action is good for the market, but let's be honest
| nobody will make a better chrome, at best they will inject ads or
| turn it to a walled garden. It will be a bad thing in the end for
| us web developers , and we will lose the last open platform.
|
| Why is this considered a good move anyway? The obvious way to
| split google is to separate the buy side from the sell side of
| ads market
| Tepix wrote:
| I haven't been using Chrome for a while because of the
| unacceptable privacy issues.
|
| " _We will lose the last open platform_ " - umm, have you heard
| about Mozilla Firefox? It works really well.
| devnullbrain wrote:
| In recent years, otherwise proud nerds have become absurdly
| hostile to the idea that Firefox could function as a daily
| browser.
|
| Yet I often forget which one I'm using until I look at the
| shape of the tabs.
| cue_the_strings wrote:
| In this thread:
|
| Chrome and Chrome-related employees of Google worrying about
| their future compensation under a smaller company.
|
| Don't worry, I'm sure that Chrome / Chromium will be picked up by
| several big players together, Microsoft is involved via Edge, ...
| I don't see much changing.
|
| I think that government should limit its interference in the
| market as much as possible, but Chrome is just so monopoly-
| oriented from the get go, it's no wonder it will deservedly get
| split off.
|
| Also, look from the bright side, multiple large players have it
| in their interest to keep Chrome / Chromium alive, so it will
| survive the death of Google and it's main ads business.
| kernal wrote:
| The sale wouldn't involve Chromium nor the Google employees
| that work on Chromium or Chrome. But good luck to whoever buys
| it to keep funding it and acquire the talent to work on it at
| the speed Google does. Meanwhile, Chromium will go closed
| source as there's no incentive to keep it open and Google will
| develop a new closed sourced browser to reclaim its market
| share.
| rqtwteye wrote:
| I bet the Trump people will stop such an effort immediately
| Sparkyte wrote:
| This is too complicated Chrome couldn't survive on its own
| without Google. Chrome is fundamentally a way for users to
| interface with their products. However it would be better to give
| regulation to Goolge about information handling.
| jfoster wrote:
| I wonder what the bounds of this would be. Most people still
| think of Chrome as just a browser, but there is quite a bit of
| other stuff:
|
| Chrome Web Store
|
| ChromeOS
|
| Chromebook (somewhat intertwined with Android)
|
| Chromecast (discontinued, sort of; succeeded by Google TV
| Streamer)
|
| Web.dev (not Chrome branded, but probably wouldn't exist if
| Google didn't start Chrome)
|
| Also, I have to wonder, if breaking off Chrome makes sense to the
| DOJ, does breaking off Android also make sense? Is that the next
| piece that they will propose?
| SpEd3Y wrote:
| Arguably out of the big 4 (Google, Microsoft, Apple, Amazon)
| Google gave the most back to humanity: Android, Chromium,
| Kubernetes, Google Office suite, the Go programming language,
| Tensor Flow, Alpha Fold (and Google DeepMind), donating to Linux,
| etc. All these are things everyone has access to precisely
| because Google is such a big player and can afford to lose money
| on innovation that fails. What did Microsoft and Apple gave us?
| Yet Google gets targeted while Microsoft, Apple and Amazon are
| left alone. Why is that?
| sebstefan wrote:
| "Your honor, I made a bunch of cool stuff, anti-trust should
| apply to me last!"
|
| That's obviously not how it works
| SpEd3Y wrote:
| You're missing my point. In a perfect competition environment
| all profits go to 0. This is great for customers horrible for
| innovation. Innovation happens when there's enough capital to
| take huge risks and lose. Google had a ton of innovation
| attempts that flopped really hard and lost ton of money.
| Without the extra capital none of the attempts would have
| happened.
| shakna wrote:
| I'm not sure I agree with you on innovation. One of the
| largest drivers of innovation, historically, has been war
| and desperation. In those circumstances, you generally
| can't afford to lose. So the idea of innovation needing the
| comfort of a soft landing doesn't really seem to fit
| reality.
| SpEd3Y wrote:
| I agree that war pushes innovation the most, but I assume
| you don't want humanity to be in constant state of war.
| So how do you get innovation in peace time? I would argue
| if you're in a very competitive market and you're margins
| are 1-2% you cannot afford to go for innovation. Bell
| Labs which arguably is one of the most innovative places
| in peace time was the result of the AT&T monopoly. Most
| innovation comes out of monopolies or excess capital in
| peace time.
| consteval wrote:
| Personally, I think you have it backwards, hard
| competition breeds innovation. Large companies don't have
| to innovate so they don't. They coast, sometimes going
| many decades between major innovations.
|
| For example, Google doesn't have to change Chrome in any
| meaningful way to maintain (or even grow) it's market
| share. So, they don't. Browsers haven't changed much in a
| good decade and a half. That money is much better spent
| on marketing.
| mulmen wrote:
| War is an extreme form of competition. It's possible to
| have competition without violence.
| sebstefan wrote:
| I'm still missing it
|
| We're not in a perfect competition environment ; profits
| are not to 0. There is an incentive for innovation.
|
| Monopolies stifle innovation just the same. Imagine having
| an "amazon basics" product as your competitor. Or competing
| with something that embeds well in a closed off ecosystem
| like Apple's or Google's when 90% of your target
| demographic will value that integration.
|
| Innovation breeds from a middle ground
|
| The goldilocks is closer to 0 than not
| mulmen wrote:
| > In a perfect competition environment all profits go to 0.
|
| Competition drives prices down to the lowest sustainable
| point but not to zero. If one company drives prices below a
| sustainable (profitable) point that's market failure
| because it starves the competition. It's the thing Google
| did and the reason we have anti-trust law.
|
| Google created a situation where they had no competition.
| Necessity being the mother of invention suggests that they
| innovate less in the absence of competition. Monopolies are
| poison to innovation.
| Tepix wrote:
| All of these companies provide values, that's why they are so
| successful.
|
| In particular (as opposed to Google), Apple is giving us
| products where the user isn't just an entity that you try to
| get as much data from as you can.
|
| Without Apple we'd be stuck with tiny initiative such as
| GrapheneOS on mobile, limited to a small subset of apps and
| phones.
|
| With AI, Apple is also being privacy conscious, i think they
| are doing interesting work with their private cloud compute
| setup.
|
| But does it mean that Apple and Google should get a free pass?
| Hell no!
| felixarba wrote:
| I know it's not comparable to Google, but Microsoft did
| significantly invest in open source, they also open sourced
| .NET, made TypeScript, VS Code
| SpEd3Y wrote:
| Fair. These are good examples of open source that Microsoft
| did! I love all 3 of those.
| dhruvrajvanshi wrote:
| It also made Linux viable on desktop :P
|
| WSL is my favourite Linux distro...well favourite is too
| strong. It's the one I hate the least.
| rty32 wrote:
| Curious, do run into any network/IO performance issues?
| Last time I checked, networking is horrible, I mean `npm
| install ` would time out when it works on the host without
| issues, and this was a well known issue. Haven't touched
| WSL for a while because of this.
| zamalek wrote:
| Were you using WSL1? It did have some areas that needed
| improvement (which is what prompted to Microsoft to
| replace it).
| rty32 wrote:
| No, WSL 2
|
| https://github.com/microsoft/WSL/issues/4901
| lofaszvanitt wrote:
| The average joe can't do shit with open source. The average
| coder cannot sell the fruits of the progession, because of
| open source. And most individuals can't do anything with open
| source, since they lack funding. Who profit from open source?
| Big companies.
|
| Don't you get it? The whole initiative is a trojan horse.
| sho_hn wrote:
| Google Office suite isn't open source, is it?
| SpEd3Y wrote:
| It's not but it is free to use.
| sneak wrote:
| No it's not. You have to give up your civil right to a jury
| trial via agreeing to a contract with Google. Just because
| something costs zero dollars doesn't mean it's free.
|
| You also give up your identity; you cannot make a Google
| account from a VPN without providing a non-voip mobile
| number. Privacy has value too.
| SpEd3Y wrote:
| I'm sorry, I should have used more explicit terms: "free
| of monetary charge" is what I meant. Nothing can be free
| in this world. For some people not paying money for
| something but getting their privacy invaded is an
| acceptable tradeoff.
|
| Google should allow this free tier where your privacy is
| invaded and monetized or a paid tier where your privacy
| is intact but you pay money for that.
| tredre3 wrote:
| But the Microsoft's online office also has a free tier,
| so how do you count that as a win for Google?
| attendant3446 wrote:
| Because Google was first. Microsoft online office came a
| lot later and was crap in the beginning (not sure what is
| the state of it now).
| hnfong wrote:
| > Nothing can be free in this world.
|
| All the permissively licensed works posted on the
| Internet, especially those in the public domain, speaks
| otherwise.
|
| It's up to you to decide whether you want to trade your
| legal rights to "free of monetary charge" services, but
| please don't paint all the other "free with no strings
| attached" things with the same brush.
| kome wrote:
| "You have to give up your civil right to a jury trial"
|
| this is absolutely illegal in europe... and probably in
| the US as well.
| nulbyte wrote:
| Arbitration clauses have been upheld regularly in the
| United States.
| kome wrote:
| this is shameful. no private contract should be superior
| to the law.
| sho_hn wrote:
| See also being able to sell your copyright to your boss,
| which in Europe is generally inalienable and can merely
| be licensed.
| iosjunkie wrote:
| I must have missed this and I'm genuinely curious how
| this works.
|
| How does it work with, say, a SaaS company? Does every
| employee and contractor retain a perpetual license to
| each line of code they wrote? If that company ever looks
| to sell, what intellectual property does the company
| actually have?
| sneak wrote:
| Quite the opposite. No government should be able to
| overrule your own consensual interactions by threatening
| to use violence against you to countermand your own
| choices.
| devnullbrain wrote:
| https://workspace.google.com/pricing
| nkrisc wrote:
| Yes, target them all.
| tadfisher wrote:
| Yes, they provide those things. They also have an illegal
| monopoly on search, and use those free offerings to entrench
| their monopoly.
| russli1993 wrote:
| Microsoft has the most monopoly. Bundle azure with office365,
| bundle teams with office365, bundle windows with azure,
| pushing bing, edge, OneDrive on windows. Why no one
| investigate them? Because they stay under off consumer minds,
| and has good lobby
| mulmen wrote:
| Microsoft famously lost an antitrust case two decades ago.
| They're also currently under investigation for Azure:
| https://www.seattletimes.com/business/microsoft/ftc-to-
| probe...
| dustypotato wrote:
| > illegal monopoly on search Just by being better than bing
| soraminazuki wrote:
| By that logic, people should still be at the mercy of AT&T
| because Bell Labs gave so much back to humanity. Not to mention
| that multiple items on your list were _bought_ by Google.
|
| The world's biggest ad and surveillance company having control
| over the most widely used browser on the planet is a recipe for
| disaster. That's the only thing that matters in this
| discussion.
| SpEd3Y wrote:
| > By that logic, people should still be at the mercy of AT&T
| because Bell Labs gave so much back to humanity.
|
| So your argument is that Bell Labs should have never happened
| since it's the result of a monopoly?
|
| My argument is that Monopolies are trade offs. In a world
| without monopolies you have very little innovation in peace
| time. Monopolies are bad for consumers but the trade off is
| that they can afford to innovate and push the world forward.
| It's not as black and white as people like to think.
|
| Getting rid of all monopolies and having a market in perfect
| competition will make Bell Labs impossible and all the
| innovation that came from there. A ballance is required.
| "There are no solutions only tradeoffs" - TS
|
| Edit: Clarify my question about Bell Labs happening.
| Woeps wrote:
| > So your argument is that Bell Labs should have never
| happened? It was a bad thing for humanity?
|
| Yes! next question please. ;) No in all seriousness. that's
| not what they said.
|
| > My argument is that Monopolies are trade offs. In a world
| without monopolies you have very little innovation in peace
| time. Monopolies are bad for consumers but the trade off is
| that they can afford to innovate and push the world
| forward. It's not as black and white as people like to
| think.
|
| I find this argument funny, as it states: "not as black and
| white as people think" to then paint a black and white
| argument... Yes monopolies are not always bad. But one
| can't be serious and not acknowledge that for the most part
| they stifle innovation.
|
| Also, I would say some of humanities best inventions and
| innovations where before monopolies. But hey, that's just
| my "black and white" view on history ;)
| SpEd3Y wrote:
| > then paint a black and white argument
|
| I fail to see how my argument was black and white when I
| say there's a trade off. Can you please tell me how my
| argument is black and white? Maybe we have different
| understanding of what a black and white argument means.
| appletrotter wrote:
| I feel like this rhetorical question of yours was
| reductive enough to constitute B&W thinking
|
| > So your argument is that Bell Labs should have never
| happened? It was a bad thing for humanity?
|
| A person can appreciate the contributions of Bell Labs
| while still agreeing with the decision to ultimately have
| broken up the company.
| soraminazuki wrote:
| In case I wasn't clear enough, my argument is this:
|
| > The world's biggest ad and surveillance company having
| control over the most widely used browser on the planet is
| a recipe for disaster. That's the only thing that matters
| in this discussion.
|
| And no, I don't buy that innovation can only happen through
| monopolies with a savior complex. That absurd amount of
| money those monopolies acquired through questionable means?
| It's going to lawyers, lobbyists, investors, and C-suites.
| It's being used to stifle innovation and uphold the status
| quo. Without the breakup of AT&T, the internet as we know
| it might not have even existed.
| cturner wrote:
| You have made the argument that monopolies are trade-offs
| only to the extent of muddying the waters about the matter.
| You have not demonstrated that the innovation benefit of
| monopolies offsets opportunity cost of the monopoly. If you
| want to make that case, you need to evidence it. You have
| not evidenced your claim that there is less innovation in
| low-monopoly situations than in high-monopoly situations.
| That which can be asserted without evidence can be
| dismissed without evidence.
|
| (I agree with your earlier sentiment that Google has a
| history of giving out more than other companies you
| listed.)
| SpEd3Y wrote:
| > That which can be asserted without evidence can be
| dismissed without evidence.
|
| Fair enough :) That's one way to think about it ^^ If
| this would have been a debate I would agree. But I don't
| have time for a debate so I threw an idea out there and
| expected people to do their own research and figure out
| if my idea has any teeth or not.
|
| I initially encountered the idea in Zero to One by Peter
| Thiel. Feel free to dismiss it or research it further. I
| do not have time to provide statistical evidence :)
| zanellato19 wrote:
| >so I threw an idea out there and expected people to do
| their own research and figure out if my idea has any
| teeth or not.
|
| So noise? Ideas like this are exceptionally cheap and you
| didn't present any convincing arguments for doing any
| research. This is like _the_ problem with online
| discussions.
| golol wrote:
| Why? What disaster? There can be no disaster when the product
| is free and there are many free alternatives with equal
| capability except for small conveniences. If you don't like
| Chrome because Google is being shady you can immediately
| seitch at zero cost. There is no disaster.
| madeforhnyo wrote:
| The disaster of global surveillance? Just because you don't
| pay with money doesn't mean the product is free. Expecting
| users beyond the HN crowd to have an informed opinion about
| the browser war is not realistic, especially given the
| substantial amount of dollars that Alphabet spent to market
| "Chrome == Internet". Which antitrust laws are supposed to
| prevent.
| addicted wrote:
| Google isn't "getting targeted".
|
| But to answer your question.
|
| 1. Microsoft gets left alone - Really? You may want to ask the
| closest adult near you about this.
|
| 2. Amazon - The government has looked into Amazon multiple
| times. It's hard to see where Amazon does anything to illegally
| use its monopoly (they don't use their shopping advantage to
| cross sell AWS in any way, or Vice versa). Amazon is genuinely
| not a bad monopoly (they have pushed down prices), but they are
| a terrible monopsony (basically destroying retailers that are
| not Chinese knockoffs), but monopsony protection laws are weak
| to non-existent world wide.
|
| 3. Apple - Apple is not a monopoly in nearly anything, which
| makes antitrust action against them very difficult. The EU has
| better laws around this, which has allowed them to force Apple
| to do the right thing in many cases (USB-C, opening up the App
| Store, although Apple complies in the worst ways possible, even
| though compliance has often been beneficial for them, like in
| the case of USB-C connectivity), but US laws are far too rigid
| to be able to really do much with them, as long as they are not
| monopolies.
| guerrilla wrote:
| > You may want to ask the closest adult near you about this.
|
| This doesn't belong on this site. Find another way to say it.
| niutech wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Co
| r....
| wepple wrote:
| We know the MS antitrust case. I believe the point was
| that suggesting someone isn't an adult is not productive.
|
| They could've simply referenced the case directly.
| guerrilla wrote:
| Correct.
| tbrownaw wrote:
| I'm not sure that misunderestimating the amount of time
| that's passed invalidates the point that it was pretty
| widely known before apparently being lost to the mists of
| time.
| lopis wrote:
| > hey don't use their shopping advantage to cross sell AWS in
| any way, or Vice versa
|
| Isn't AWS directly sponsoring Amazon by essentially letting
| them run the biggest online retailer for free, which other
| retailers can't? And Amazon in itself is a terrible monopoly
| because it has unfair access to all user purchase data, while
| also selling their own amazon products on their platform.
| scarface_74 wrote:
| AWS charges Amazon to use their servers as it does any
| other big business. If your department can't be profitable
| taking into account your AWS bill, questions will be asked.
|
| It happened to something related to an internal game studio
| (???)
|
| When I was there, our department's use of the internal
| system for creating sandbox accounts (Isengard) was charged
| against our profit and loss.
|
| If you are a big enough customer, you can get rates similar
| to what AWS charges Amazon.
| lesuorac wrote:
| > It's hard to see where Amazon does anything to illegally
| use its monopoly
|
| Amazon literally uses the marketplace data to determine which
| products to make Amazon Basic versions of.
|
| I think the better argument of "Google isn't getting
| targeted" is that literally all of those companies have been
| sued in the past (and will be in the future and probably
| currently have cases being worked against them).
| burnte wrote:
| > Amazon literally uses the marketplace data to determine
| which products to make Amazon Basic versions of.
|
| So does BestBuy, Kroger, WalMart, drug manufacturers, and
| literally ever single other industry where there are
| generics, private brands, and copycat products/services of
| all types.
| klabb3 wrote:
| Which is a problem there as well. The way I see it, just
| empirically, is that the marketplace needs separation
| from an actor on said marketplace, on a strict no-
| collusion basis. It's two naturally opposing roles with a
| conflict of interest (by design - it can be a force for
| good). Every time I see this inbreeding, sure enough
| there's corruption, laziness, perverse incentives, and at
| the end of it, high prices and poor consumer experience.
|
| It can be train operators and rail, fiber owners and
| ISPs, insurance companies and pharma, or an App Store and
| apps, social media and ad delivery.
|
| US antitrust law doesn't cover this, but I believe in EU
| there's stricter pro-competition enforcement (I don't
| know enough to pinpoint the exact laws behind, but some
| markets _really_ work here. Writing this post from a
| 10GBit symmetric residential line for EUR24 /mo). At
| least you don't see as much of this kind of false choice
| and nefarious market makers.
|
| Sorry I can't explain it better.
| burnte wrote:
| You're explaining it ok, it's just not a workable idea.
| You're talking about taking away a fundamental aspect of
| economics, which if even if it were possible would be a
| huge blow to efficiency of markets. It's like saying you
| don't like that people die at different ages so you're
| going to legally mandate everyone gets to live for 1000
| years. It can't be done, and the ramifications if you
| could are earth shattering.
|
| First, it's not possible because to do this you'd have to
| outlaw sales analytics. You'd have to ban companies from
| making decision on what to sell and what to price things
| at based on what is happening in the market. Even if you
| pass a law that says that, you'll never be able to prove
| a company did or didn't make a decision based on sales
| data. Imagine going to a grocery store in November in the
| USA and seeing 18,000 cases of sardines but no
| breadcrumbs or stuffing boxes because the ordering guy
| isn't allowed to know what is selling well and what is
| selling poorly. That's insanity.
|
| Second, market efficiency. The cornerstone of the
| economics of trade is that goods should be produced by
| the most efficient producer and sold by the most
| efficient seller to a market where they get a good
| return. By blocking companies from doing this, you're
| saying pricing should be made blindly, and you can't
| change based on what other actors do, what the market
| does, what customer want, because that would be "unfair".
| In the 90s I was part of a small business that built and
| sold PCs. Dell's volume ability absolutely destroyed the
| small-business PC maker industry, including mine. That
| wasn't unfair, that's economics.
| written-beyond wrote:
| But how many Googles, Apples, Bells, and Enron's does
| Europe have? Not many...
| tbrownaw wrote:
| > _Microsoft gets left alone - Really? You may want to ask
| the closest adult near you about this._
|
| I've got some bad news for you: 2001 was 23 years ago. It's
| possible to not just be a legal adult (18) but also old
| enough to drink (21) and _still_ not have been born yet when
| that was going down.
| msabalau wrote:
| Or run for Congress in the midterms if they are 25 by the
| time of the next election two years from now.
| tootie wrote:
| I look back and I honestly wonder if that lawsuit actually
| had the effect they intended.
| tremon wrote:
| Who are the "they" in your question? Clinton's
| administration that started the enforcement action
| against Microsoft, or Bush' administration that
| ultimately presided over the conclusion of the case?
|
| Similar thing will happen now: none of these actions will
| be pursued nor enforced by the new government.
| mattferderer wrote:
| Thank you for making us all feel very old.
|
| Slight aside on the original post:
|
| * Microsoft did just fight off a huge government battle on
| Activision. I believe they lost a battle on Teams bundling.
| Last week the FTC announced they were looking into Azure.
|
| * Apple, their store & mobile browser has been a topic of
| monopoly discussions for years.
|
| * Amazon wasn't allowed to buy Roomba just this past year.
| They've had tons of inquires over the past decade.
| lukas099 wrote:
| > they are a terrible monopsony (basically destroying
| retailers that are not Chinese knockoffs)
|
| Wondering if you or someone could explain this. I looked up
| monopsonies but still confused.
| McDyver wrote:
| "What have the Romans ever done for us?"
|
| Monopolies are bad, and it's not because some players were not
| punished that others shouldn't be (they all should).
|
| Maybe this sets a precedent, and they are all targeted.
| edelbitter wrote:
| > Android [..] everyone has access
|
| One of the key issues. Google has not given me a phone OS. They
| have taken away my ability to chose a viable competitor, one
| that does not run on selling my data.
| nolist_policy wrote:
| But you can buy a pine phone or a Purism Librem phone.
| shark1 wrote:
| They "gave away" to make more profits. It's strategic.
| sebstefan wrote:
| It tickled me how much power they have over the web. Do web
| standards even matter when Chromium's implementation is all
| that matters for 90% of users?
|
| I never got over that one either:
| https://www.tomshardware.com/news/youtube-responds-to-delaye...
| pitkali wrote:
| Yeah, that kind of sucks. I liked a sibling suggestion that
| splitting off YouTube would make more sense because at least
| it could be a self-sustaining product.
| SpEd3Y wrote:
| Thing is Google lost money for many years in YouTube.
| Nowadays I think it's profitable but it seems unfair to ask
| a company to take loses for a decade or more and then force
| to sell it when it's making profit. If we set that
| precedent nobody will take risks with the next YouTube like
| company that loses money initially.
| zanellato19 wrote:
| They decided to lose money. Youtube could have been
| profitable much sooner.
| msabalau wrote:
| So you believe that companies ought to get immunity from
| antitrust regulation simply because they made investments
| in the hopes that they'd be able to profit from their
| ability to dominate the competition?
|
| Regardless, if the shareholders receiving stock in the a
| spun off company, so is not like their investment
| disappears. No one (should) care about some personified
| "Google" as if a particular corporate structure that
| happened to exist was actually a human being.
|
| Also, Youtube prints an absurd amount of money, it isn't
| like this is some sort of change that is happening just
| at the moment that it finally making some money.
| elAhmo wrote:
| Giving back doesn't mean you should be allowed to be a
| monopoly. Other companies you listed are or have been targeted
| by DOJ as well.
| radicalbyte wrote:
| I agree regards Google (just beware I'm a massive Google
| fanboy) but I think that Microsoft do deserve at least a little
| bit of credit.
|
| Microsoft gave us (counting only OSS and things they
| effectively gave away):
|
| 1. Microsoft Basic, the first language of a large number of
| developers in the 35+ age group. This was effectively given
| away which is part of why it was so popular (it was a small,
| fixed-price fee instead of the per-unit licensing)
|
| 2. TypeScript
|
| 3. C# and the CLR
|
| 4. Visual Studio Code
|
| 5. Since 2010 they've made large contributions to Open Source.
|
| Commercially they've also been strong competition to enterprise
| players like Oracle and IBM and of course have done a huge
| amount for gaming.
|
| Apple are narcissists, they're all take take take. They do,
| however, provide very strong competition which pushes other
| players to improve.
| SpEd3Y wrote:
| I agree. Love C#, VS Code and TypeScript. Microsoft changed a
| bit lately. But there's a lot of history with Microsoft and
| the recent CoPilot ripping off OSS code and blocking C#
| support in VS Code are still mudding the waters.
| high_na_euv wrote:
| >What did Microsoft and Apple gave us?
|
| Windows, Office (Excel), .NET / C#, Vs Code, Visual Studio,
| free GitHub and more?
| SpEd3Y wrote:
| I meant OSS or free products. Windows / Office / Visual
| Studio are for profit products? GitHub was free before
| Microsoft bought it, they just made the private repos free as
| well. But arguably GitHub was better before.
|
| But I do agree C#, VS Code and TypeScript are nice Microsoft
| OSS/Free gifts to the world.
| tredre3 wrote:
| Online office is free, just like Google's.
|
| Visual Studio has a free version.
|
| Windows can be used for free (unactivated) if you're okay
| with the limitations.
| batmansmk wrote:
| None of them are good players for humanity. "Don't be evil" is
| long gone. They don't pay taxes, pollute, give means to
| manipulate billions of humans, concentrate wealth in a few
| hands. They all give with ulterior motives, never from the
| goodness of their heart.
| sneak wrote:
| While I don't disagree with your argument, it is bad form to
| claim that companies like these don't pay massive amounts of
| taxes, specifically payroll taxes. They do and it's a huge
| amount.
| batmansmk wrote:
| I' m European. Apple got charged by the European Union for
| $14.4 billions of unpaid taxes between 2019 and 2021. Back
| of the mapkin they employ 22k people in EU (data Apple),
| average salary $80k (Apple), taxes at 30% per employee (my
| own understanding). Thats $550M. So their payroll taxes is
| about 15% of their tax package. If you have any
| contradictory data, I would love it, but your point is moot
| for 95% of the world outside California.
| Abfrage wrote:
| Do you mean the tax dispute for the years 2004 to 2014,
| or is there another one for 2019 to 2021? One thing about
| this is that the Irish government made a deal with Apple
| and various courts have ruled in favour and against Apple
| in this matter.
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple's_EU_tax_dispute
| sneak wrote:
| The assertion was that they "don't pay taxes", which is
| false.
| golol wrote:
| >pollute Seriously? You can't blame Google for its emissions.
| runeks wrote:
| Also: Google Project Zero.
|
| Doing Apple's work for free.
| pzo wrote:
| > What did Microsoft and Apple gave us?
|
| Microsoft: VSCode, Typescript, ONNX/ONNXRuntime (TensorFlow is
| pretty much dead), Github, npm (they bought it but so did
| Google with Android - m$ still paying repo/packages hosting
| bill)
|
| Also worth to mention Meta: Pytorch, LLama, React, React
| Native, Segment-Anything
| finnthehuman wrote:
| I find selling product for money more honorable than buying
| indulgences with open source.
| teeray wrote:
| > What did Microsoft and Apple gave us?
|
| "A computer on every desk and in every home"
| iterance wrote:
| Even if you assume the situations are comparable and equitable,
| which most commenters are focusing on, there is still a
| problem:
|
| There is no reason to expect the DOJ to pursue antitrust suits
| against all potentially relevant companies at the same time for
| analogous reasons. These are complex, labor-intensive cases
| that frequently play off precedent established by other earlier
| cases. The idea that Google is being "targeted," by implication
| unfairly so, is out of line with how complex antitrust law can
| be, and the simple fact that such cases are typically
| serialized rather than prosecuted in bulk.
| placardloop wrote:
| Google didn't "give back" any of those things to humanity.
| Those are all products that Google is selling to you in
| exchange for your privacy so that they can make a profit. Don't
| mistake Google for some benevolent entity that deserves special
| treatment for being "good".
|
| If you want to go that path, then Apple also "gave" iPhones to
| humanity, as well as AirPods, iCloud, iTunes, and is a primary
| reason that mouse-based graphical interfaces exist. Microsoft
| "gave" humanity the largest home operating system, the dot net
| programming languages, Microsoft Office, Xbox, and more. Should
| we give them all a "get out of jail free" card for their good
| deeds?
| enbugger wrote:
| leave-the-multibillion-dollar-company-alone.jpg, literally
| japhib wrote:
| Microsoft had significant antitrust penalties back in the early
| 2000s due to windows/IE.
|
| The other 3 all have antitrust lawsuits currently going.
| Google's is just the furthest along.
| hyperpape wrote:
| > Chromium
|
| > What did Microsoft and Apple gave us
|
| Chromium was in the wild for five years running on WebKit, and
| the Blink engine they use today is an evolution of that
| codebase, not a rewrite. Of course, Apple did not create WebKit
| from scratch, it was based on KHTML/KJS, but it was WebKit that
| Google Chrome was built on top of, not the previous project.
| titzer wrote:
| As if Google didn't take anything from us. Google makes money
| selling your attention and brainpower to the highest bidder.
| Hands down. They are the biggest entity in the attention
| economy and their real customers are advertisers.
|
| Google has two billion lines of code that determine the course
| of your daily life. It processes incredibly sensitive
| information, like every interaction you have with another
| person in a digital medium, and has a rootkit on basically
| every phone that collects "anonymous usage data" that is
| processed in a completely opaque manner and is subject to
| information "requests" from illiberal and sometimes even
| totalitarian governments, and a few open source contributions
| aren't going to change that.
|
| Open source at Google is driven by engineers and contributors,
| not by executives or strategy. It's a fig leaf over one of the
| world's largest, most valuable, and well-guarded code bases
| that absolutely will not be made open.
| pphysch wrote:
| How is that different from any other big tech company? Show
| me a single large company that doesn't comply with NSLs.
| niutech wrote:
| There are good examples: https://www.eff.org/wp/who-has-
| your-back-2019
| DrBenCarson wrote:
| "Monopoly" is a technical definition, not another way of saying
| "has a lot of money."
|
| Google has been proved to be a monopoly precisely BECAUSE it
| gives away so much. By entrenching themselves with free
| products that outcompete just about anyone, they get access to
| a massive firehose of data that they then monetize with no
| competition in sight
|
| Long story short: Giving away free stuff to cripple competition
| who don't have scale is anti-competitive (see: Microsoft IE
| case)
| briandear wrote:
| * The Apple I arguably changed the course of computer history.
| [0] * The Laserwriter and the Mac inspired desktop publishing
| -- the Mac was the first computers with a font library.[1] *
| The iPod literally changed culture. [2] * The iTunes Store made
| piracy less desirable changed the music industry forever. It
| also led the way with digital video streaming -- while Netflix
| was still mailing out DVDs. [3]
|
| And iPhone? Changed the world. [4] People have a hard time
| remembering pre-iPhone days. Samsung literally copied the
| iPhone. A judge in South Korea, in Samsung's home jurisdiction
| even ruled that Samsung copied iPhone. Android would still be a
| failed camera operating system if it were for iPhone leading
| the way.
|
| * Kubernetes -- we lived just fine without it. * Chromium? Who
| cares. My life isn't any different with or without it. * Google
| Office? Aa cloud-based productivity suite? Nothing
| groundbreaking there, another competitor could have (and have)
| built the same thing. * Go programming language? Apple gave us
| Swift and Objective C -- languages that are used for software
| running on over a billion devices. Go is a niche language. If
| Go didn't exist, humanity wouldn't notice.
|
| We can have a difference of opinion on the relative merit of
| these details, but the idea that Google gave the _most_ to
| humanity is absolute nonsense. Amazon for example, empowered
| many small sellers around the world -- giving them access to a
| logistics network that would be impossible for a small business
| to recreate. Instead of selling on Main Street, sellers now can
| sell to literally any street in the world. I'm not the biggest
| fan an Amazon, however that being said, their contribution to
| humanity is enormous, especially in logistics. It has also
| changed publishing forever in ways that provide a significant
| benefit to independent authors -- many of whom have made
| careers out of self-publishing because of Amazon.
|
| I'm not a fan of Microsoft, but their contribution to humanity
| is undeniable. Excel is probably the most important piece of
| software ever written. I'm sure others can expand on
| Microsoft's contributions to humanity.
|
| By the way, I'm not saying all of these companies are "good" or
| altruistic, I'm only rating them on "contribution to humanity."
|
| [0]
| https://americanhistory.si.edu/collections/object/nmah_16921...
| [1] https://multimediaman.blog/tag/apple-laserwriter/ [2]
| https://www.futureplatforms.com/blog/death-of-the-ipod-and-w...
| [3] https://www.billboard.com/music/music-news/seven-ways-
| itunes... [4] https://www.vox.com/2017/6/26/15821652/iphone-
| apple-10-year-...
| pphysch wrote:
| You're comparing Golang and Kubernetes to products that
| happen to have big market share. There are loads of
| spreadsheet apps and smartphones out there. They are
| replaceable. The iPhone definitely advanced the field, but it
| wasn't a sacrifice on Apple's part. They made boatloads of
| money from it. How much money did Google make from selling
| Golang and K8s? A large negative sum. Yet those techs have
| contributed enormously to economic efficiency.
| slightwinder wrote:
| > Google gave the most back to humanity: Android, Chromium,
| Kubernetes, Google Office suite, the Go programming language,
| Tensor Flow, Alpha Fold (and Google DeepMind), donating to
| Linux, etc.
|
| Most of them are tools for making money for Google. Some others
| are on similar level that others are contributing to open
| source and the world. I mean you get Microsoft Office for free
| too, and even with more services than Google. And, most of
| Googles contributions started out one or two decades ago, but
| are just now moving into more harmful directions. Which is a
| relevant point with Google. The company today, is not the same
| it was 10-15 years ago when they were still heavily gaining
| goodwill.
|
| > Yet Google gets targeted while Microsoft, Apple and Amazon
| are left alone.
|
| They are also getting targeted all the time. Microsoft had a
| long, deep anti-trust-process around two decades ago, which
| still sees some restriction imposed onto them. Apple and Amazon
| do see some targeting, but more outside the USA or by
| competitors, which means there is less demand for official
| influence on them, at the moment. Additionally, their specific
| influence is simply not as big and harmful as Google has it on
| some parts.
| vivzkestrel wrote:
| microsoft gave us VSCode from the top of my head, I could
| probably list 50 other things
| crvst wrote:
| "Leave the multibillion dollar company alone!"
| djent wrote:
| you might need to go outside if you think Kubernetes is "giving
| back to humanity"
| jfoster wrote:
| It feels odd to me that this was the first proposal from the DOJ,
| considering that the case initially seemed quite focused on the
| advertising side of Google's business:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States_v._...
| jsnell wrote:
| That is a different case, this is
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Google_LLC_(2...
| adamtaylor_13 wrote:
| This is exactly the blunt, hammer-based solution I would expect
| from a bunch of crusty bureaucrats.
|
| It seems none of them bothered to read Kagi's outstanding
| suggestions on the topic. [1]
|
| 1: https://blog.kagi.com/dawn-new-era-search
| tr3ntg wrote:
| Decided to give this a read.
|
| Kagi's argument is simple: Google should give public access to
| their Search Index so that any company can take advantage of
| the core machine directly, under some terms of agreement. Like
| an API.
| ulrikrasmussen wrote:
| Finally! My only concern is that this should have been done much
| sooner, in particular before the recent anti-trust ruling that
| basically forced Google's hands to pull the rug under Mozilla.
|
| Google's sole business is to make people look at content they
| don't want to look at (ads), and I find it deeply problematic
| that they not only control the operating system and software
| distribution platform for a large fraction of devices, but now
| also the browser and by extension the standards of what used to
| be the open web.
| Havoc wrote:
| They all seem to have gotten rather cozy.
|
| eg Just spent a fair bit of time trying to figure out why links
| in outlook open in edge even if browser is set to chrome.
| Microsoft chose to just ignore what browser you select (in their
| OS). It's just so blatantly monopolistic behaviour
| foxbee wrote:
| I believe they'll settle on splitting out Youtube - which I
| believe makes perfect sense and from a rev/valuation perspective,
| would be a top 20 company.
| pjmlp wrote:
| And thus confirming the whole point about Chrome being the new IE
| discussion from yesterday.
| nzach wrote:
| If your goal is to reduce the influence Google has on the browser
| market is this really the best move? From a practical standpoint
| I find it hard to believe.
|
| While I agree that monopolies era bad for consumers and that the
| position Chrome currently have is pretty much a monopoly I don't
| think this particular move would be good for consumers in the
| short and mid time-frame. Maybe in the long run this is the
| correct decision, but this will cause quite a lot of pain for
| quite a lot of time.
|
| I think one of the ways this could backfire against the users is
| that removing Chrome from Google will create a 'power vacuum' in
| the web standards. Currently Chrome is this de facto standard,
| for better of for worse. Removing that can create a situation
| where we have a couple of competing standards.
|
| In my opinion the problem with this kind of competition is that
| making browsers will become significantly harder, because now
| instead of just copying Chrome you will have to implement several
| standards. And this is why I expect the web experience to become
| significantly worse in the short term.
|
| And you know what will happen when the web experience degrades?
| Every company will push their own app. And even more
| experiences/services will be locked behind an android/ios app
| with the excuse "we want to deliver a great experience to our
| users". And this is WAY worse for users than the monopoly Google
| has in the browser.
|
| Maybe a better solution would be for the US government to
| create/adopt a web standard and create a rule that says "if you
| want to sell to the US government you need to be fully compliant
| with standard XYZ". This way you create a goal that everyone can
| work towards.
|
| As far as I know this is how the government handle this situation
| in the medical sector, where they have HL7 to create the relevant
| standards. And I'm fully aware that this brings a lot of problems
| to the table. The first one is that definition of standards for
| the web will become a political topic, and this is never a good
| sign. However, I think this is really the only option if we want
| the web to be a place with fair competition.
| gigatexal wrote:
| I thought Trump could be bought off to make this go away like he
| flipped on the til too forced sale of ban. But this whole thing
| began under his last administration (sic):
|
| "If Mehta accepts the proposals, they have the potential to
| reshape the online search market and the burgeoning AI industry.
| The case was filed under the first Trump administration and
| continued under President Joe Biden. It marks the most aggressive
| effort to rein in a technology company since Washington
| unsuccessfully sought to break up Microsoft Corp. two decades
| ago."
|
| The thing is chrome isn't as sticky or important as the ads
| marketplace. Google would be wise to let chrome go and hold on to
| the cash cow that is the ads marketplace where they make most of
| their money.
| gigatexal wrote:
| s/til too/tiktok
| rkharsan64 wrote:
| People here seem to be underestimating the advantages that Google
| gets just because of Chrome:
|
| - When you sign in to Google, you sign in browser-wide. Google
| now gets all of your browsing data, perfect for advertising. (If
| you ever doubt it, go check out Google Takeout. You'll be shocked
| at the amount of data you see there.)
|
| - They have special APIs and features that they get to use, and
| nobody else. Only because they own Chrome. [1]
|
| - They get to move forward with enabling and pushing features
| that allow for more advertising: see Manifest v3, FLoC.
|
| - Google specifically serves a worse version of Search on Firefox
| for Mobile. You have to get an extension to get the full
| experience.
|
| This isn't an isolated attempt. You can see more of the same
| thing with Android.
|
| - AOSP (the open source counterpart of Android) is now unusable.
| It doesn't ship with most essential apps, including a Phone app.
| In previous versions of Android, all of these were a part of
| AOSP.
|
| - Most third party launchers/stores struggle to implement
| features because they are only available for Google themselves.
|
| - The signing in with Google thing from above continues here too:
| you sign in to Google system-wide.
|
| [1]: https://x.com/lcasdev/status/1810696257137959018
| jansan wrote:
| I sincerely doubt that forcing Google to spin off Chrome is the
| only or best solution for this.
| simiones wrote:
| What other solution do you have in mind? Legislation about
| architecture decisions taken in software products seems
| preferable?
|
| In principle there is nothing wrong for example with a shared
| account for multiple products from the same company, many
| even prefer it. The problem only appears when this gets
| concentrated into too much power and can be leveraged in ways
| that distort the market and hurt consumers.
| nzach wrote:
| > Legislation about architecture decisions taken in
| software products seems preferable?
|
| To me this option seems more practical. And we already have
| some precedence for this kind of solution.
|
| For aviation we have entities like EASA issuing standards
| like ED-109 and for healthcare we have the HL7 organization
| issuing the HL7 standard. Another example in the healthcare
| industry is the DICOM standard created by the NEMA
| organization. This is not a new idea.
|
| I'm not arguing this approach is without problems. But we
| are already doing this for some pretty important topics,
| and I don't see why we couldn't use the same strategy for
| an "open web standard" that all browsers have to implement.
| dartos wrote:
| The UNIX standard was made in part because the government
| wanted an operating system standard, right?
|
| Seems reasonable they'd push for a browser standard as
| well.... Even though we kind of have one.
| nzach wrote:
| Yes, Chrome is the de facto standard for the open web.
| And everyone agrees this is too much power for a single
| company to have.
|
| But most people seem to think that just removing Chrome
| from Google would fix this issue. People seem to forget
| that Chrome isn't the only tool Google can use to steer
| the web standard in a particular way.
|
| The Google crawler is probably an even more effective
| tool in shaping the web standard. "To be indexed by
| Google your page needs to comply with these requirements"
| puts A LOT of pressure in everyone working in the web.
|
| This is why I think creating and enforcing a web standard
| is the only practical solution to this problem.
| dboreham wrote:
| > The UNIX standard was made in part because the
| government > wanted an operating system standard, right?
|
| Wrong? Or at least where's the citation to back this up?
|
| "UNIX Standard" presumably means POSIX which was a work
| of the IEEE, not a government body. If some government
| had something to do with making it happen, I'm not aware
| of that. At the time (1988) UNIX wasn't used much outside
| of academia and niche industries.
| kmeisthax wrote:
| There was a point in time where the US government was
| considering mandating POSIX compatibility in everything.
| It's why Windows NT shipped with a comically barebones
| POSIX subsystem and why A/UX (an Apple port of Unix to
| the Macintosh, years before they bought NeXT) existed.
| dartos wrote:
| I just read about it in chapter 2 of "Advanced
| programming in the UNIX environment"
|
| It didn't sound like the US government made it, just
| pushed for it and probably contributed to the initial
| versions
| jajko wrote:
| How far can one go from 'don't be evil', right.
|
| And that's one aspect of one product. Company-wide list would
| be probably impressive in the worst way possible
| ENGNR wrote:
| Don't be evil was only the wifi password
| water9 wrote:
| They changed it to make it longer.its now "Dont Forget To
| Be Evil"
| IX-103 wrote:
| No, they just corrected the punctuation. It's now "Don't.
| Be evil!" Reflecting their inability to do almost
| anything, and their lack of morals when they do.
| whiplash451 wrote:
| It is still missing a special character
| rfoo wrote:
| > If you ever doubt it, go check out Google Takeout. You'll be
| shocked at the amount of data you see there.
|
| I sign in browser-wide and I do takeouts regularly. I don't see
| my browsing data.
|
| > It doesn't ship with most essential apps, including a Phone
| app. In previous versions of Android, all of these were a part
| of AOSP.
|
| And back when they were part of AOSP I never saw these example
| apps in the wild. Every vendor ships their own phone app. Every
| single one.
|
| There's some "hey we compile a extremely old and vulnerable
| version of AOSP"-style Android distributions, mainly advertised
| for builtin su/Magisk or "degoogle", which did use these
| example apps, though.
|
| I agree with other critics, they are toxic.
| atahanacar wrote:
| You've disabled the option to see it. Your data is still
| being collected.
| rfoo wrote:
| Yeah, I really wish there is a working option to make me
| see it, then.
|
| I always enable every data collection option in my privacy
| page, because even if I don't they get the data anyway, so
| why bother?
|
| I do see my entire Google Search history since 2006.
| didntcheck wrote:
| That's unfalsifiable conjecture. I could just as easily
| assert that dang is building secret dossiers on all of us
| from our IP-request logs - we just can't see it
| pjc50 wrote:
| The problem is this:
|
| - the browser is undeniably critical as everyone's window
| through which they view the online world;
|
| - the user gains a huge amount of value by a browser being
| integrated into the OS, webviews in other applications, etc
|
| - browsers aren't really a self funding product
|
| - having a single for-profit US advertising company control
| everyone's view of the online world, however slightly (e.g. by
| obstructing adblockers), is Not Good
|
| Splitting it off solves the latter problem but immediately
| raises the question of how to pay for it. A very artificial
| arrangement where Google pay "arms length browserco" to
| maintain Chrome?
| niutech wrote:
| How does splitting off Chrome as a separate company solve
| anything? They would still rely on Google for funding (like
| Mozilla) and being close friends they would do whatever
| Alphabet tells them to do.
|
| A better solution is to implement a bill like DMA in the EU
| to enforce competition among web browser vendors and fight
| monopolies.
| PittleyDunkin wrote:
| Frankly, who cares. The important part is that google
| doesn't own a browser.
| scarface_74 wrote:
| Is the justice department then going to stop Google from
| using the open source Chromium project to create a new
| browser?
| efitz wrote:
| Almost certainly that would be part of a consent decree,
| which would prohibit Google from creating or controlling
| a browser for some period of time, and would include
| court supervision.
| scarface_74 wrote:
| So Google could also not ship a browser with Android
| devices? Chromebooks?
| placardloop wrote:
| Selling devices with a browser installed or available for
| installation is completely tangential to creating and/or
| controlling the development of said browser.
| scarface_74 wrote:
| Would Google not be allowed to make any changes to the
| open source Chromium browser before installing it on its
| own hardware?
| kernal wrote:
| I find it hard to believe that any court could legally
| stop Google from developing a new browser if they were
| forced to sell Chrome.
| vundercind wrote:
| Any court today? Maybe. Similar arrangements have been
| pretty common, though.
| asadotzler wrote:
| then you don't understand how any of this works
| scarface_74 wrote:
| Yes because government regulation of tech has been so
| successful in the past. Just look at how well the anti
| trust lawsuit against IBM went - that they later just
| dropped because it wasn't relevant anymore - or the
| Microsoft lawsuit in 2000.
|
| No there was never a browser choice mandate in the US
| kolinko wrote:
| Yes.
| PittleyDunkin wrote:
| If they want to do their job? Yes.
|
| I expect there will be some material constraints that
| emerge in what browser features they're actually allowed
| to ship as shipping without a browser also seems to be
| anti-consumer.
| stavros wrote:
| Yes, in the sense that me putting a gun to your head and
| ordering you to stay still isn't the same as me
| handcuffing you, because you can still physically move.
| verve_rat wrote:
| But now Bing would have a chance of becoming the default
| search engine of the most used browser in the world.
|
| That's the difference.
| crazygringo wrote:
| Bing is already the default search engine on the default
| browser of the most used OS in the world.
|
| If they're not competing well, then that's entirely their
| fault. _Microsoft_ is not at any kind of disadvantage
| here.
| bee_rider wrote:
| I don't think Bing is the default search engine for
| Android's browser. I could be wrong though. Is it? That
| would be a surprisingly fair-minded move of Google.
| EasyMark wrote:
| By context I'm pretty sure they mean Windows OS and not
| android, sometimes you have to take things in context.
| Depending on context one could easily argue that linux is
| the most common operating system depending on where you
| draw the line on operating system
| bee_rider wrote:
| I am pointing out that Windows is not the most common OS,
| and Android is.
|
| The original comment was saying that Google is able to
| perform anti-competitively because they control the most
| popular browser.
|
| The followup (which I responded to) is saying that the
| existence of Windows as the most popular OS, and
| Microsoft's control over the default browser there,
| mitigates this anti-competitive potential.
|
| The fact that Windows is not the most popular OS (and
| that, in fact, the most popular OS is controlled by
| Google) undermines that argument.
|
| Linux is not the most popular OS in any context that
| includes doing searches with the thing, unless you
| include Android, but Android just uses Linux for the
| kernel mostly, and an OS is more than a kernel.
| nightski wrote:
| It's the most common desktop OS. No one was confused by
| what the parent meant since Windows is not a mobile
| operating system and doesn't compete in that market.
| bee_rider wrote:
| Bing and Google are competing in the market of search
| engines, not some device specific search engine market.
| lukas099 wrote:
| I think it's fair for them to point out (however
| snarkily) that Windows is not the most popular OS. In the
| context of the discussion, I think it matters that there
| is another OS, Android, that is more popular.
| ranger_danger wrote:
| I think their point is that you can't just say "most
| popular" without more context because not only is it
| often subjective, but it can also be interpreted in
| different ways. Most popular by type of device? number of
| total users worldwide? etc.
| echoangle wrote:
| Every Linux distro just uses Linux for the kernel, right?
| What else is there? Init system and user space stuff
| isn't Linux in any Linux distro either, because Linux is
| a kernel. The real thing that might make Android not a
| normal Linux distro is the heavy modification of the
| Kernel.
| bee_rider wrote:
| A Linux distro uses the Linux kernel by definition, I
| guess, so I think you are right about that. We could talk
| about distros in general, maybe Homebrew and Cygwin, if
| we didn't want to define a distro as being a Linux
| distro. But I'm not sure what the point is.
|
| I'm not clear on what they meant by Linux. But if we use
| a definition of "Linux OS" that includes Android and is
| restricted to devices which people typically use to
| perform searches (aka consumer devices) (since that was
| the original topic), then Linux is mostly Android and it
| is a kind of pointless distinction to make.
|
| If we want to use some definition of Linux that precludes
| Android, and covers all devices that use the Linux
| kernel, then we have a bunch of servers, streaming boxes,
| smart lightbulbs, whatever.
|
| If we want to use a definition which is, like, what I
| think everyone means when they say Linux in the context
| of market share: GNU/Linux or BusyBox/other/Linux (I was
| hoping to avoid the GNU/Linux meme, but here we are),
| then that doesn't have much market share.
| niutech wrote:
| Even with Android, Linux is not the most popular OS, it's
| MINIX: https://www.networkworld.com/article/964650/minix-
| the-most-p...
| Ugohcet wrote:
| There is much more Android phones, tablets, TVs, Linux
| routers and other gear sold every year than Intel-based
| PCs with ME, so the articles' claim may need narrowing to
| "OS used in PCs" and even that has a chance of being
| wrong, given how AMD is doing these years.
| niutech wrote:
| Not Linux, but MINIX is the most common OS:
| https://medium.com/@RealWorldCyberSecurity/ever-heard-of-
| min...
| lcnPylGDnU4H9OF wrote:
| > A better solution is to implement a bill
|
| Not that I disagree with the overall point, but this is
| something the DOJ does not do. They would just look at the
| current laws and decide who to prosecute based on their
| interpretation of events.
| scarface_74 wrote:
| Unless you own a Chromebook, if you have Chrome on your
| computer, you made a choice to download it. How would a
| browser choice screen help?
| bonzini wrote:
| Probably it would forbid "Download Chrome" on Google and
| "Download Edge" on Bing.
| lofaszvanitt wrote:
| Browsers should be developed by an intercountry nonprofit.
| Funded by all the countries' governments.
| dartos wrote:
| It works out so well for the UN!
| water9 wrote:
| Profit seems to be the biggest factor for efficiency
| cyborgx7 wrote:
| Why is efficiency the guiding metric of our decision
| making?
| madeofpalk wrote:
| In what way? Google seems like the perfect example of
| profit obscuring inefficiency.
| PittleyDunkin wrote:
| Profit is, by definition, inefficiency.
| robertlagrant wrote:
| At the end of the day every employee is the most granular
| bit of profit-making - I trade my time and zero money for
| money. 100% profit.
|
| If you removed the money you paid me could say you're
| being more efficient, but I don't know if that's a useful
| definition of efficient. Just as you could steal some raw
| materials and say you're being efficient.
| PittleyDunkin wrote:
| Well yes, if you find a way to generate value with no
| input costs, anything you charge people will be pure
| inefficiency and you'll be put out of "business" by the
| first person who gives this idea away for free. I'm not
| sure what sort of insight you can glean from this.
| thayne wrote:
| Only in a highly competitive environment.
|
| But the browser market is not currently highly
| competitive.
| homebrewer wrote:
| You might have missed recent news about Linux maintainers
| being kicked off for reasons having nothing to do with
| Linux. This will not work across "political borders"
| because psychologically we're all still cavemen in need of
| a tribe to stick to, and a group of "them" to hate on.
| lofaszvanitt wrote:
| That is your assumption.
| NoGravitas wrote:
| > psychologically we're all still cavemen in need of a
| tribe to stick to, and a group of "them" to hate on.
|
| I'm not sure this is fundamentally true, but regardless
| of whether it is or not, our political systems have
| followed an historical path of development such that it
| behooves political leaders to think like this, and
| encourage their followers to.
| kube-system wrote:
| We can't even get the world's governments to agree on what
| basic human rights are.
| marcosdumay wrote:
| You can have country-specific nonprofits that cooperate;
| you can have consumer-rights nonprofits or free-speech
| nonprofits cooperating...
|
| The best thing about open source is that cooperating on it
| is very easy.
| ranger_danger wrote:
| That is your assumption.
| DeusExMachina wrote:
| They could sell a lot of the data that Google now gets for
| free and uses for its ranking algorithms, like Clickstream
| sells data to SEO tools like AHrefs and SemRush.
| IX-103 wrote:
| Google doesn't use Chrome data for Ads or Search. They're
| not allowed to based on the TOS, and also they have
| government regulators watching carefully to make sure they
| don't make a mistake like that.
| placardloop wrote:
| The regulators in question are pushing for divestiture of
| Chrome because they don't believe that the current
| structure prevents using Chrome data, so it seems that
| Google did "make a mistake like that".
| DeusExMachina wrote:
| A data leak from earlier this year suggested that they
| do, although there is no definitive proof.
|
| https://www.theverge.com/2024/5/31/24167119/google-
| search-al...
| mmh0000 wrote:
| And what legal enforcement of the TOS is there? None. And
| what are the consequences of Google ignoring their own
| TOS? None.
| asadotzler wrote:
| We have actual Google documentation leaked that proves
| you wrong and that they absolutely do use Chrome data for
| ads. Catch up please.
| binkHN wrote:
| > A very artificial arrangement where Google pay "arms length
| browserco" to maintain [a browser]?
|
| Sounds almost like Firefox.
| moffkalast wrote:
| Google to Mozilla: "I'm gonna pay you 400M a year for
| antitrust to fuck off"
|
| Seems like it didn't work though.
| binkHN wrote:
| Maybe it needed to be a cool billion.
| marcosdumay wrote:
| It worked until they decided to unfairly compete with
| Firefox and get all the market share.
| wongarsu wrote:
| Firefox lost too much market share. And while some of
| that is due to bad leadership at Mozilla, Chrome running
| big advertising campaigns and Google advertising Chrome
| on their own properties (hints to download Chrome on
| Google Search, Drive, etc. when you visit with other
| browsers) were also a big driver. Google flew too close
| to the sun.
| BeefySwain wrote:
| > browsers aren't really a self funding product
|
| Yeah... Because massive companies use them anti-competitively
| as a moat against other companies, and as a loss leader to
| enable massive data collection and vendor lock in.
|
| "browsers aren't really a self funding product" is a symptom
| of dysfunction, not the inevitable conclusion of a fair
| market.
| pjc50 wrote:
| I'm not sure that software entirely obeys normal market
| theory. So much of it is zero-cost free.
|
| The synergistic effects are so strong that most users would
| prefer there to be The System, in which everything works
| together and there's no risk of incompatible choices. They
| don't necessarily care _which_ system.
|
| The market in things like, say, file explorers is _tiny_.
| There 's a few shell replacements (free), Midnight
| Commander and clones, and maybe over in the corner someone
| making a few thousand dollars a year from an Explorer
| replacement.
| marcosdumay wrote:
| Well, things with open source alternatives tend to fare
| badly when sold.
| eastbound wrote:
| Like Jira vs Mantis?
|
| There are probably plenty of such examples.
| lolinder wrote:
| Any potential buyer will have to be looking to use Chrome to
| accomplish the same kinds of synergies that Google is using
| it for, to get ahead in _some_ adjacent market. Depending on
| the buyer that could be good for competition, at least in the
| short term, but it 's not clear that it will be better for us
| as users.
| nfw2 wrote:
| Hypothetically, why would some buyer using Chrome's
| monopoly to establish a market advantage in an adjacent
| domain be different than Google using Chrome's monopoly to
| establish a market advantage in an adjacent domain?
| throwaway2037 wrote:
| You raise some very important points.
|
| Specifically, this one: > browsers aren't
| really a self funding product
|
| I feel the same. I also feel the same about a modern C
| library and C compiler (and C++, if you like). They are
| essential to build any modern system and applications. Yet,
| those are also (mostly) no longer self-funding products.
|
| What do you think will happen if Google is forced to divest
| Chrome?
| criddell wrote:
| > What do you think will happen if Google is forced to
| divest Chrome?
|
| The new Chrome company will struggle for a year or two then
| Apple will try to buy it but lose out after Oracle submits
| a higher bid.
| polishTar wrote:
| Oracle Chrome, Ha! I wouldn't even be surprised if that's
| exactly how it plays out.
| docmars wrote:
| God help us, haha!
| fragmede wrote:
| I'm sure Meta is doing some math on what they can afford.
| Suppafly wrote:
| >The new Chrome company will struggle for a year or two
| then Apple will try to buy it but lose out after Oracle
| submits a higher bid.
|
| We're in the worst timeline, so I could see that
| happening.
| gambiting wrote:
| Elon buys it to "preserve free speech everywhere" then
| turns it into the same swamp twitter is. So you know,
| could be worse.
| wongarsu wrote:
| Oracle Chrome would remain free at first, but one year
| down the road all new versions would become free for home
| use but $50 per seat yearly for commercial use, with a
| clause that allows Oracle to enter your offices to audit
| your compliance at any time
| lenerdenator wrote:
| If the choice is no internet, forever, or giving Oracle
| money, I'm gonna live in 1990 from here on out.
| hypercube33 wrote:
| Return to Konqueror Browser from KDE - the grandfather
| webkit browser.
|
| In all seriousness, I kind of wish that someone could
| build a sustained non profit like apache to take over
| chromium - if Google or Microsoft or others want to
| custom roll their own flavor fine, but Google being for-
| profit has been making decisions against the best for
| everyone browsing the web (such as the new plugin stuff
| around adblocks) (conflict of interest)
| boppo1 wrote:
| What did Oracle do?
| quickthrowman wrote:
| The Chief Legal Officer is probably the most powerful
| person at Oracle after Larry the Lawnmower.
| wongarsu wrote:
| Netscape used to cost the equivalent of $100 inflation-
| adjusted dollars and was only forced to go free to compete
| with Internet Explorer. Now the genie can't be put back in
| the bottle, and anyone trying to sell you a browser would
| become irrelevant the same way Delphi's paid compiler lost
| out to free C compilers.
|
| Maybe you could carve out a niche that's willing to pay,
| the same way C# did before dotnet core. But for a mass
| product the best-case scenario would be something similar
| to today's Opera.
|
| However what it would do is open up the market to
| competition. Right now Google is spending a lot on Chrome
| development and Chrome advertisement. Opera and Edge both
| have given up on their own engines because they couldn't
| keep pace with Chrome development, and Firefox kept its
| engine but can't compete with Chrome's ad spend. If Chrome
| had to compete on a more even playing field there would be
| more room for diversity and competition. That could be a
| net positive, even if it makes Chrome worse.
| scarface_74 wrote:
| There was never a time that you as individual couldn't
| use an ftp client back in the day and download a free
| version of Netscape.
|
| So who would buy "Chrome" when they can get Chromium for
| free and fork it?
| redblacktree wrote:
| I am confused by this comment too. I don't recall ever
| being asked to pay for Netscape. (not that I would have,
| at 12ish)
| askvictor wrote:
| Windows is a paid-for product; either enterprise licenses
| or via the manufacturer. Yet few people (mainly those who
| build PCs themselves) realise this.
|
| What if the browser had a similar model? The manufacturer
| pays a certain 'browser development fee' into escrow,
| then on first boot, the copmuter shows a browser ballot,
| which gets set as the default, and the fee goes to the
| chosen browser developer? There's probably a bunch of
| problems with this approach, and, at least initially,
| wouldn't break the monoculture, but it might be a good
| starting point for how to fund browser development.
| baq wrote:
| > They are essential to build any modern system and
| applications. Yet, those are also (mostly) no longer self-
| funding products.
|
| so, an utility.
|
| create a (partially?) state-owned steward with a legislated
| mandate to develop the browser, self-funded via extra tax
| on digital goods and services.
| changoplatanero wrote:
| Currently, talented engineers flock to google to
| contribute their skills to making the best web browser.
| My concern for a publicly owned utility is that the top
| talent won't want to work there.
| astrange wrote:
| Many of them have left Google (and competitors) and work
| for a consulting firm called Igalia that contributes to
| all browser engines.
|
| https://www.igalia.com/technology/browsers
| kergonath wrote:
| > Currently, talented engineers flock to google to
| contribute their skills to making the best web browser.
|
| I don't think these engineers have the right incentives,
| and their interest is not aligned with mine. I don't
| really care what they do to Chrome and their efforts
| benefit me only indirectly. I am also not convinced by
| the "best browser" thing, even using it every day on my
| office computer. So, meh. I don't care too much either
| way but I won't lose anything if Google has to spin it
| off.
| marcyb5st wrote:
| The way governments fuck up basically anything (with very
| few exceptions) IT related I would say no. Personal
| example: my name is Marcello and I had troubles applying
| for a permit online because names can't contain musical
| instruments (Cello in this case).
|
| Create a consortium or interested private entities but
| let's not give such an important piece of technology to
| governments where meritocracy is non-existent (also based
| on personal experiences).
| baq wrote:
| I generally agree, I don't want this to be government-
| owned but since it can't be funded privately and is of
| great public value an utility-like contract would be in
| order. I don't see it happening with at least initially a
| stake from the government (maybe I'm wrong, will gladly
| be!)
| RHSeeger wrote:
| My experience is that utilities don't innovate at all. In
| fact, the do their best to get the government to give
| them funding for innovation ("you know, because we love
| people") and then just... don't actually do what the
| money was for.
| lenerdenator wrote:
| > The way governments fuck up basically anything (with
| very few exceptions) IT related I would say no.
|
| Just wait until you have to justify IT expenditure to a
| for-profit corporation that isn't solely focused on
| technology.
|
| Government screws things up because it's (by design)
| slow. Business screws things up because f*ck your needs,
| we need to get a check to a retiree who never even worked
| here.
| scarface_74 wrote:
| You really trust the government to fund a browser without
| content interference?
| dboreham wrote:
| Quick note that the first browsers were government
| funded.
| niutech wrote:
| Browsers can be profitable, see Opera:
| https://investor.opera.com/news-releases/news-release-
| detail...
|
| But not everything must be for-profit. Free/Libre/Open
| Source Software is a prime example. Projects like GNU,
| Linux, GNOME, KDE, WebKitGTK, LibreOffice are sustainable
| for a long time.
| madeofpalk wrote:
| I guess its easy to be a profitable company when you're
| getting into predatory payday loans!
| https://www.cnet.com/tech/mobile/opera-defends-its-
| android-a...
| dismalaf wrote:
| Every browser also gets a significant amount of money
| from Google. Mozilla is profitable too. But when Google
| is forced to stop paying browsers to use their search,
| it'll put Apple and Microsoft at an even wider advantage
| since they're the ones that can afford to push their own
| browsers at a loss...
| niutech wrote:
| Not every web browser gets money from Google - Brave,
| Vivaldi, Pale Moon, Konqueror, Epiphany, Ladybird, Servo,
| to name a few.
| dismalaf wrote:
| Vivaldi's business model is primarily revenue from deals
| with search providers. they don't exclusively get money
| from Google, they get money from all their search
| partners, including Google.
|
| Brave is into crypto scams and advertising scams, so I
| guess you're right there. Their revenue is also tiny.
|
| The rest aren't what I'd call "real" browsers, most don't
| have the same level of functionality and compatibility as
| Chrome, Firefox, Safari, Edge... Servo for example is
| literally just the rendering engine Firefox gave up on.
| madeofpalk wrote:
| Do Brave and Vivaldi fund _actual_ browser (engine)
| development, or are they just using open source Chromium
| (as they 're able to)?
|
| Konqueror and Epiphany are Webkit based, so presumably
| benefit from Apple's funding of Webkit.
|
| Ladybird and Servo aren't real browsers yet, and have so
| far been funded by grants which doesn't seem to be long-
| term stable.
| ryho wrote:
| Brave is just Chrome in a trench coat. I am pretty sure
| all the others are based on something else or are not
| actually a fully robust browser.
| rileyphone wrote:
| Firefox has made Mozilla billions over its lifetime by
| selling the default search engine rights to Yahoo and
| Google. Chrome, having a much greater user base, would
| demand a correspondingly higher fee (probably around $10b a
| year). Now, the other problem is there is no other search
| engine to compete with Google at that level, but that might
| change with independence of Chrome.
| nolist_policy wrote:
| Google's payment to be the default search engine was
| ruled anti-competitive though.
|
| https://fortune.com/2024/08/05/mozilla-firefox-biggest-
| poten...
| rawgabbit wrote:
| The issue is who controls Chromium. I would create a non
| profit and staff it with a handful of maintainers. Their
| primary job would be to ensure safety and squash exploits.
| Their other job is to curate and approve pull requests from
| volunteers for enhancements. They should make it open source
| with the caveat if it is used for commercial purposes, there
| will be a licensing fee to pay for security enhancements, bug
| bounties, and the like.
| kernal wrote:
| Do you think Google will continue to invest money and
| resources into the development of Chromium if they were
| forced to sell Chrome? I don't. The first thing I would do
| is close source the Chromium project and work on a new
| closed source browser to compete with Chrome. I also don't
| see Chrome surviving when all of the Google/Chromium
| developers have left.
| rawgabbit wrote:
| I beg to differ. Google will go where the users are;
| their ad business depends on it.
| rollcat wrote:
| So more or less what Mozilla was supposed to be all along?
| rawgabbit wrote:
| Yes.
| fluidcruft wrote:
| Sort of sounds like you are one step short of suggesting a
| browser is critical infrastructure.
| maeil wrote:
| > browsers aren't really a self funding product
|
| They are, see how both Safari and Firefox, the 2nd and 3rd
| most popular browsers, have brought in tens of billions of
| revenue per year. Safari is immensely profitable, Firefox too
| would be if Mozilla wouldn't be run in an absurdly poor
| manner.
|
| > the user gains a huge amount of value by a browser being
| integrated into the OS, webviews in other applications, etc
|
| What is the huge value gain that e.g. Safari being integrated
| into MacOS is bringing me? Why couldn't webviews be backed by
| a browser of my choice?
| echoangle wrote:
| In what way is Safari profitable? How is that even
| measured? Has any consumer in the last 10 years ever
| specifically paid for safari? Or do you mean the payments
| by google to be the default search engine?
| LgWoodenBadger wrote:
| If Safari didn't exist, Google wouldn't be paying Apple
| ~$20-Billion a year to default Safari's search to Google
| echoangle wrote:
| Why not though? Apple could still install Firefox and set
| Bing as the default search engine. Or even just Chrome,
| without selecting google. They don't get the money for
| making a browser but configuring their browser in a
| specific way. That would work with any browser.
| lukas099 wrote:
| Can Apple force Mozilla to make Google the default
| browser in Firefox?
| echoangle wrote:
| No? But why does it matter? They can include Firefox in
| their OS and set the default search engine to anything
| they want.
|
| The point was that developing Safari isn't what makes
| apple the money, it's setting Google as the default
| search engine of the default browser. So if Apple would
| stop maintaining safari tomorrow and would switch to
| preinstalling Firefox, they would still get the Google
| money (for setting Google as the default search engine of
| their Firefox installation). So Safari isn't profitable
| for Apple, as was claimed before.
| astrange wrote:
| That search isn't only in Safari, it's in the rest of the
| OS too via Spotlight.
|
| Similar for Windows.
| dismalaf wrote:
| Mozilla literally gets paid by Google, and not sure how you
| can quantify Safari as being profitable on its own when
| it's the default for all Apple products and realistically,
| the only browser on iOS.
| samtheprogram wrote:
| Apple also literally gets paid by Google for the same
| thing, but a lot more money.
| dismalaf wrote:
| True but a standalone Safari not backed by Apple probably
| wouldn't command anywhere close to that.
| madeofpalk wrote:
| > Safari is immensely profitable
|
| The exact way Safari itself is immensely profitable is
| under scruity in this exact DOJ case!
| ranger_danger wrote:
| Please provide proof that Firefox has "brought in tens of
| billions of revenue per year".
| asadotzler wrote:
| hundreds of millions per year, perhaps approaching ten
| billion lifetime, is more accurate
| astrodust wrote:
| Firefox has made a mountain of money off of their tiny market
| share. Chrome as a company would instantly rake in billions.
| scarface_74 wrote:
| From making Google the default search engine...
| singleshot_ wrote:
| I'm consistently fascinated to look at Chrome/Google and
| think of all the things we lost when we broke IE/Microsoft.
|
| To what extent and I holding a stupid belief, and why? I
| think I might like to be talked out of this, if reasonable.
| Want to try?
| GoblinSlayer wrote:
| >browsers aren't really a self funding product
|
| You can use Firefox 3, programs don't rot.
| sebastiennight wrote:
| Not really true...
|
| In this specific case I'd be willing to bet that Firefox 3
| probably doesn't handle current HTTPS/TLS standards and
| might not be able to browser the modern Internet at all
| (let alone display modern webpages, HTML5 video players,
| single-page web apps, WebRTC live calls, etc.)
| Timber-6539 wrote:
| Everything here you accuse Google of doing, Apple is running
| circles on. Ultimately, if this case goes through Google are
| right about one thing. The UX on Chrome is going to take a
| steep nose dive.
| jimjambw wrote:
| In what way?
| Timber-6539 wrote:
| Who is going to provide a competitive browser for the price
| of $0 other than Google?
| water9 wrote:
| Microsoft could end up buying it
| Timber-6539 wrote:
| A far worse monopoly than Google is going to solve your
| monopoly problem?
| scarface_74 wrote:
| And do what with it? They already are using Chromium for
| Edge. They would still need to monetize it.
| kmeisthax wrote:
| Before Google, there were multiple competing browsers
| based on different technology, all of which were either
| offered for free or explicitly licensed as FOSS. Google
| used Chrome to put the web on an upgrade treadmill. The
| only way to keep your own code up-to-date with what
| websites expected was to either commit unending amounts
| of resources to the problem (Google), do the bare minimum
| to keep websites working as your resources are stretched
| thin (Safari, arguably Firefox), or just ship modified
| versions of Chrome so that it's easier to merge in new
| features (Edge, Opera, Brave, Vivaldi, etc).
| sunaookami wrote:
| Apple does not have a monopoly.
| Timber-6539 wrote:
| What do you call the Apple store then if it's not a
| monopolization of the iOS ecosystem?
|
| This article accurately captures all tech monopolies, Apple
| included.
|
| https://ia.net/topics/monopolies-apple-and-epic
| scarface_74 wrote:
| Well in the one legal case Epic vs Apple, the judge said
| it was nonsensical to say that Apple had a monopoly on
| its own product.
| Timber-6539 wrote:
| Judges get decisions wrong all the time.
| PittleyDunkin wrote:
| There's nothing inherently illegal about monopolies, just
| anti-competitive behavior. While Apple is engaging in clear
| anti-competitive behavior (eg shoving the app store down
| customers throats), they've reined in restrictions of
| competing browsers so that they're actually worth using
| now.
| tuetuopay wrote:
| Apple does not run the largest advertising network on the
| planet. As simple as that.
|
| Even for the matter of the browser, Apple does not have the
| same push as Google does. Yes, Safari is the default browser
| on a phone. But outside of the mobile world, Safari is a
| rounding error.
| yunwal wrote:
| In terms of controlling commerce (google's main line of
| business), non-mobile is on its way to becoming a rounding
| error.
| fsflover wrote:
| > Apple does not run the largest advertising network on the
| planet.
|
| No, but they're trying to:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42185080
| DanielVZ wrote:
| I know this is anecdotal and that I should look further into
| this but I recently had to switch to chromium because google
| suite products were slightly unusable in firefox: youtube used
| way more CPU than it should've (maybe this is due to codecs but
| I was not able to solve it), google sheets crashed constantly,
| google meet slowed my laptop to a halt and I couldn't even
| share my screen, and for some reason google calendar would
| suddenly start to hog CPU and RAM randomly. Since I switched to
| chromium everything is smoother and I just can't believe
| chromium per se is just this better than Firefox.
| bayindirh wrote:
| I'll ask what extensions you use on your Firefox, because I
| regularly use Google Meet on an 2014 MacBook Pro with latest
| Firefox, and it doesn't even make the fans spin, plus all the
| goodies like environmental noise cancellation is there. Meet
| team also recently ported some of the Chrome only features
| back to Firefox, due to some fear, I guess...
|
| The YouTube videos in higher bitrates (like 4K) is generally
| due to Firefox's ability to hardware accelerate things, and
| there's a bit of difference there, yes. But on Linux and
| macOS (moreso in sequoia), I see no extreme CPU use. Just
| testing it on Firefox 132.02 on Debian Testing with Radeon
| 550 with open drivers, While I see a spike in CPU load,
| there's definitely some GPU load is also being produced,
| pointing to at least some GPU acceleration.
|
| On the other hand, Intel N100 with on board graphics can
| visibly struggle at 4K as far as I can tell. That one runs
| Firefox ESR though, I need to retest.
|
| I don't use WASM based Google Workspace tools (docs, sheets,
| etc.) heavily, but they don't crash when we use it on other
| pepople's documents that we collaborate on.
| loloquwowndueo wrote:
| You can use chrome only for those google things where Firefox
| is crippled on purpose, and use Firefox for everything else.
| rgreekguy wrote:
| Teams was acting up on Firefox the other day, too. It
| wouldn't have Q&A and whatever button is to the left of it
| enabled. "Not supported in your browser", or something.
| attendant3446 wrote:
| I keep Chromium only for Google Meet, Datadog and Google
| Cloud Console. Opening these apps in Firefox makes fans on my
| laptop spin like crazy.
| mrkramer wrote:
| Google realized if they don't control the search distribution
| they gonna lose out sooner or later; which is kinda
| contradictory for them if they claim Google is the best search
| out there and that they are constantly improving it and that's
| why(they say), people choose it over other alternatives. But
| tbh distribution of your product/s is crucial.
|
| Just look at Microsoft and their internet strategy, they chose
| the other route; push their internet browser(IE) down their
| massive distribution pipe called Windows and then introducing
| their search engine to this massive userbase. Fortunately this
| didn't work out for them but unfortunately that worked out for
| Google. And now Google essentially controls the Web in the more
| than half of the world.
| Loic wrote:
| > Fortunately this didn't work out for them but unfortunately
| that worked out for Google.
|
| No, Google was better, then they used Chrome as an extremely
| powerful moat to protect their situation. Google at first was
| like magic compared to the Altavista of the time.
| mrkramer wrote:
| Yes but without Chrome, Google wouldn't have 90% search
| market share that they have today. They are completely
| dominating the WWW industry.
| jervant wrote:
| Surely making deals with companies like Apple and Mozilla
| to be the default search engine was a big part of
| building that market share. How many iPhone users bother
| to set a different search engine in Safari?
| attendant3446 wrote:
| How easy is it to set a different search engine in Safari
| (apart from a very few predefined options)? =)
| pjc50 wrote:
| I'm not convinced; early on they actually had a better
| product with better UI and better search results.
| bee_rider wrote:
| Yeah. I have no data but my gut says, if anything, they
| couldn't have gotten this _bad_ at search without Chrome.
| thereddaikon wrote:
| Google won the search market on merit but they've
| maintained it with Chrome. Google search has been garbage
| for a long time and in the last few years it's gotten bad
| enough that even laymen are noticing it.
| bee_rider wrote:
| Is that true? I seem to remember Google dominating search
| all the way back in 2010 (before Chrome really caught
| on).
| eastbound wrote:
| We all agree Google-the-search-engine is losing relevance
| (literally). So they should also lose their distribution
| channel, Chrome, because being nagged until you
| synchronize your Chrome profile and use their search
| engine is anti-competitive, on top of being pretentious
| from a less-relevant search engine.
| adestefan wrote:
| It wasn't just the search that was amazing. You would go to
| google.com and be presented with only a Google logo, 1 line
| input box, and 2 buttons.
|
| No portal, no news, no header, no login, no advertise with
| us, no punching monkeys.
|
| It was a refreshingly different take on the web at the
| time.
| sharpshadow wrote:
| That's how I feel about Yandex lately. When it's a struggle
| to find something on the common search engines, Yandex
| works like magic.
|
| It's not that Yandex is particularly better in any way, it
| just chooses to not filter the content one is looking for.
| stoperaticless wrote:
| According to wikipedia.
|
| Headquarters: Moscow, Russia
| marcosdumay wrote:
| TBH, when Google did that, Apple was already threatening
| making it impossible for IOS users to use Google's services.
| madeofpalk wrote:
| I don't disagree, but I'm also not sure what the alternative
| is.
|
| Who's going to buy Chrome that also doesn't suffer from the
| same anti-trust problems? Who would _want_ to buy Chrome? Who
| would want to fund Chrome?
|
| What browser would Android ship? In one view I kind of like the
| idea that Google would have to shop around and 'buy' a browser
| for its OS (competition good!), but also that seems ridiculous
| and easy to fall right back into the same trap.
| timeon wrote:
| > Who would want to buy Chrome? Who would want to fund
| Chrome?
|
| This is interesting question especially when companies are
| usually just use Chromium instead of creating new browser
| (not even making hard fork of Chromium).
| snapcaster wrote:
| Open source browsers already exist though
| PaulHoule wrote:
| Many forks of Chromium, yes. Most if the rest of them pass
| the "open source" test but would struggle on the "browser"
| side.
| niutech wrote:
| Zen Browser, Floorp, Mullvad Browser, Pale Moon, Epiphany
| aren't "browsers"?
| madeofpalk wrote:
| Who pays for the development? Is the linux model viable for
| a browser?
|
| Open source browsers are either bad and non-competitive, or
| they're Firefox and still get criticism for being in the
| pocket of Google.
| niutech wrote:
| Brave or Vivaldi aren't bad. They get money from
| partnerships, search deals and donations.
| whiplash451 wrote:
| How about this: sell the browser to the entreprise [1] and
| use the profit to offer the browser to the public for free,
| which in turns helps you secure a user base.
|
| [1] https://www.island.io/
| Thorrez wrote:
| Google already does sell Chrome to the enterprise at
| $6/user/month[1]. Disclosure: I work at Google.
|
| [1] https://chromeenterprise.google/products/chrome-
| enterprise-p...
| throwaway2037 wrote:
| You raise an interesting point. Every job that I worked
| in the last 10 years offers "real" Google Chrome on a
| Windows PC. I never considered that they would pay Google
| for it, but I guess Google could add a bunch of nice
| admin and security features that would be useful to mega-
| corps but retail normies don't care about. That is
| probably well-worth the 6 USD per month per user. In a
| modern corporate workplace, a huge amount of your day is
| spent using web apps... running in Google Chrome (or
| Electron!). It like a WebVM that runs inside of Microsoft
| Windows (from the perspective of corporate IT folks).
| whiplash451 wrote:
| Well, Island raised $3B for a reason [1]
|
| [1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-04-30/en
| terpris...
| a2800276 wrote:
| The article you linked to says they raise $175mio at a
| _valuation_ of $3b
| whiplash451 wrote:
| Oh my bad, thanks for catching this!
| coldpie wrote:
| > Who's going to buy Chrome that also doesn't suffer from the
| same anti-trust problems? Who would want to buy Chrome? Who
| would want to fund Chrome?
|
| Hmm. It's a good question, and I don't know the answer. I
| think there's a compelling argument that the problem is the
| _scale_ of the harm. That is, even if the new owner has the
| same problems, the new owner won 't also be the largest web
| company. So the problem still exists, yes, but becomes
| smaller. In particular having the #1 web browser strongly
| tied to the #1 web company has a lot of problematic dynamics
| that the #1 web browser being owned by the #25 web company
| doesn't. Maybe that company would be more open to forming
| beneficial relationships with the #2 and #3 web companies,
| for example.
| robertlagrant wrote:
| Google already funds Firefox and makes Chromium[0] as well,
| which seems like quite a lot of effort to go to as a single
| company in funding/enabling competition. Microsoft had to
| do far less to resolve their EU dispute: just give users
| other options for browsers on install of their OS.
|
| [0] Unless if today you take Chromium and make your own
| browser, and it still has all the stuff in about logins and
| tracking.
| madeofpalk wrote:
| When the DOJ asks to split off Chrome from Google, I
| presume that meant/included Chromium as well. They're
| _basically_ the same thing.
|
| Why would Google continue to fund Chromium development
| without Chrome?
| hodder wrote:
| There doesn't have to be a buyer. They can spin it off as an
| independent company. Surely it can be a profitable enterprise
| on its own.
| madeofpalk wrote:
| _Surely_? I can 't imagine Chrome by itself is a very
| profitable company. Who knows.
| devsda wrote:
| An independent Chrome company will start with an
| established & proven product, huge userbase and a
| marketplace for extensions. That's a huge advantage (and
| liability too).
|
| If FF can get millions for its default search option,
| Chrome can easily command more and if Mozilla can afford
| to venture into other product areas with their budget, it
| doesn't sound impossible to have a self-sustained chrome
| development once you eliminate all the non-essential
| feature work that helps only Google.
| dismalaf wrote:
| Most Android devices ship Samsung Internet.
|
| Chrome is only the default on Pixel devices...
| judge2020 wrote:
| > - When you sign in to Google, you sign in browser-wide.
| Google now gets all of your browsing data, perfect for
| advertising. (If you ever doubt it, go check out Google
| Takeout. You'll be shocked at the amount of data you see
| there.)
|
| I have yet to see evidence that Google uses browser sync data
| for advertising.
|
| Go do something in chrome (look for cruises maybe), then delete
| the activity from myactivity.google.com, then wipe and
| reinstall chrome. You will see that you aren't advertised based
| on that activity yet it's still in your chrome history.
| asadotzler wrote:
| >I have yet to see evidence that Google uses browser sync
| data for advertising.
|
| Then you probably don't get out much:
|
| https://www.theverge.com/2024/5/31/24167119/google-search-
| al...
|
| Another major point highlighted by Fishkin and King relates
| to how Google may use Chrome data in its search rankings.
| Google Search representatives have said that they don't use
| anything from Chrome for ranking, but the leaked documents
| suggest that may not be true. One section, for example, lists
| "chrome_trans_clicks" as informing which links from a domain
| appear below the main webpage in search results. Fishkin
| interprets it as meaning Google "uses the number of clicks on
| pages in Chrome browsers and uses that to determine the most
| popular/important URLs on a site, which go into the
| calculation of which to include in the sitelinks feature."
| blcArmadillo wrote:
| > - AOSP (the open source counterpart of Android) is now
| unusable. It doesn't ship with most essential apps, including a
| Phone app. In previous versions of Android, all of these were a
| part of AOSP.
|
| This particular example is a bit misleading as those apps are
| still available; they're just unbundled from the system image:
| https://source.android.com/docs/automotive/unbundled_apps/re...
| zinekeller wrote:
| Your comment unfortunately implies that Google still
| maintains them, which is farthest from the truth (as this
| document shows, it is only maintained for automotive use - it
| is not usable on a regular phone).
| esrauch wrote:
| > Google specifically serves a worse version of Search on
| Firefox for Mobile.
|
| I don't think Google owning Chrome is really a factor here, but
| just a raw traffic question where FF Mobile has basically zero
| uptake. The experience they serve on FF Mobile is just the "we
| arent subscribed to validating that all of our shiniest JS
| works with this version of this browser".
|
| The extension spoofs the user agent and arbitrary obscure
| features that only trigger on specific queries may be broken.
|
| Google does do the effort of validating on other browsers where
| the traffic threshold is higher, including Firefox on Desktop.
| If they didn't own Chrome nor Firefox they still wouldn't
| really have incentive to spend more time supporting the tiny
| fraction of users.
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| AOSP is so useless that I refuse to even call it an "operating
| system."
| evoke4908 wrote:
| Uploads to google drive from Firefox are throttled to 10% of
| the bandwidth I get using Chrome
| maeil wrote:
| You missed one:
|
| - They get to move forward with enabling and pushing features
| that allow for more hardware and software lockin to their
| platform: see unexportable passkeys
| vintermann wrote:
| > Google specifically serves a worse version of Search on
| Firefox for Mobile.
|
| Can't say I've noticed that, but YouTube definitively feels
| like it's getting an especially slow-loading version on
| Firefox.
| chaosharmonic wrote:
| > This isn't an isolated attempt. You can see more of the same
| thing with Android.
|
| Here are more:
|
| - (jumping off of your second point...) Play Services does more
| than just handle stuff you sign into as a user -- it's also a
| dependency for everything from push notifications to screen
| casting. This actively poses issues building competing
| platforms, in that in order to give developers a path to
| shipping in your ecosystem you have to provide functioning
| alternatives to all of those ancillary features. The
| compatibility issue also impacts user adoption, and then the
| user adoption and the barren marketplace impact _each other_...
| Even the combined resources of Amazon and Microsoft weren 't
| enough to overcome this. (Facebook did, but I'm also not sure
| forking the OS into a separate VR platform is necessarily the
| same thing.)
|
| - It also comes with integrity checking, so even if you _do_
| find a good third party image, _and_ sideload Google packages,
| numerous things won 't work unless you take part in a dumb arms
| race that ironically requires you to also root your device. By
| which I mean a feature that was originally built for banking
| applications is now used everywhere from streaming services (as
| an additional layer of DRM) to gacha games (for anti-cheat).
| This is actually the entire reason I dropped Pokemon Go,
| personally.
|
| Obligatory link to the _excellent_ Ars piece on this topic:
| https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2018/07/googles-iron-grip-on...
| niutech wrote:
| You can root your Android device and replace Google Play
| Services with microG (https://microg.org).
| ycombinatrix wrote:
| microG doesn't pass all the integrity / attestation checks
| chaosharmonic wrote:
| Also how much coverage of the Play APIs does it have in
| general? I'm aware of it but not really up to date on the
| state of the project
| 9cb14c1ec0 wrote:
| If we could just have a competing push notifications service,
| I would be over the moon.
| downrightmike wrote:
| Manifest V3 is just another nail in the coffin.
| xnx wrote:
| A browser with a huge userbase would be extremely lucrative for
| an unscrupulous owner. A new owner could sell full and
| identifiable clickstream data for all browser activity. A new
| owner could siphon information from the non-public web for AI
| training, corporate espionage, or any other purpose.
| beanjuiceII wrote:
| I'm happy to give all this to a cohesive experience google
| provides. There are competitors in this market too, but google
| was the first and best not sure why they deserve this blatant
| overstep in abuse of power
| askvictor wrote:
| > Google specifically serves a worse version of Search on
| Firefox for Mobile. You have to get an extension to get the
| full experience.
|
| What's the difference, and where can I find this extension?
| Rebelgecko wrote:
| On Firefox, the design of the search results page looks about
| a decade older. Some people would argue that's a good thing
| :)
| phito wrote:
| Also I can't get weather information on Google with Firefox
| iteratethis wrote:
| To add: Google uses Chrome's established user base to bundle
| other products in the same way Microsoft uses Office
| subscriptions to push Teams.
|
| The most recent example being Gemini now deeply integrated into
| Chrome. Had Gemini been a stand-alone product, it would have to
| fight for every user. Now billions of users have it at their
| fingertips.
| dingnuts wrote:
| > Google specifically serves a worse version of Search on
| Firefox for Mobile. You have to get an extension to get the
| full experience.
|
| Huh, I wonder if this is why I have perceived a drop in quality
| from Google Search. What a stupid move from them -- not only
| have I stopped using Google Search and now pay Kagi (yes I know
| money still flows from Kagi to Google but even still) and have
| been evangelizing Kagi as well as taking every opportunity to
| shit on Google Search.
|
| Great job G, you made the product worse and made me a customer
| of someone else
| postepowanieadm wrote:
| Taking into account all the noise the EU is making about
| Internet, privacy, digital laws it's mind-bending that there is
| no the EU WebBrowser. There is Opera, there are original
| KHTML/Webkit creators - just use them and make an engine that's
| not adverts powered.
| niutech wrote:
| There are many EU web browsers:
| https://fosstodon.org/@niutech/113285649386968003
| postepowanieadm wrote:
| Like sponsored and controlled by the EU, the organization.
| niutech wrote:
| The EU has funded UR Browser by AdaptiveBee:
| https://ec.europa.eu/info/funding-
| tenders/opportunities/port...
| postepowanieadm wrote:
| 7 years ago?
| niutech wrote:
| Anyone can apply for EU funds, there were no applications
| for this time.
| moody__ wrote:
| A lot of discussion in this thread is pointing out that chromium
| is a thing and that it would be hard for a company to properly
| fund a web browser without the backing of a tech giant whose more
| direct revenue stream is elsewhere. I think this showcases a
| larger issue with the web as it stands today. Why has building a
| browser for the "open web" become such a complex piece of
| software that it requires the graces of a tech giant to even keep
| pace? Can nothing be done to the web to lower the barrier to
| entry such that an independent group (a la OpenBSD or similar)
| can maintain their own? Right now it seems this is only possible
| if you accept that you'll only be able to build on top of
| chromium.
|
| I know the focus by the DOJ here seems to be more on search and
| less on the technical control that Google has over the web
| experience through implementation complexity, however I can only
| hope that by turning off the flow of free cash more "alternative"
| browsers are given some space to catch up. Things like manifest
| V3 show that Google is no stranger to tightening the leash if the
| innovation of web technologies impact their bottom line, I'd like
| to have a web where this type of control isn't possible.
| wruza wrote:
| That was the goal, not an accident. The length of the standard
| itself is comparable to medium-sized serious project kloc
| count.
|
| They driven these numbers up to ensure that no one except them
| and their leashed pets could repeat it.
|
| And here we are, you can have ten internet-enabled apps with
| texts, images and videos, basically the same functionality, but
| you can only copy nine of them.
|
| You can't even keep up with a simple fork.
| niutech wrote:
| > Can nothing be done to the web to lower the barrier to entry
| such that an independent group (a la OpenBSD or similar) can
| maintain their own?
|
| Of course it can and it is done: Linux Foundation Europe runs
| Servo, GNOME Foundation runs WebKitGTK and Epiphany, Ladybird
| Browser Initiative runs Ladybird.
| smallerize wrote:
| Only WebKitGTK is feature complete. Servo and especially
| Ladybird are still likely to run into missing features while
| browsing.
| niutech wrote:
| But they are in early development, they are making great
| progress every month.
| smallerize wrote:
| Despite existing since 2012, and getting funding from
| several companies, Servo development has been
| intermittent. It's now pretty usable, but it's not a
| success story in keeping pace with the tech giants.
| niutech wrote:
| No, Servo only recently has gained traction and it's
| doing really well in 2024:
| https://blogs.igalia.com/mrego/servo-revival-2023-2024/
| gman83 wrote:
| These guys think it can be done: https://ladybird.org
| lesuorac wrote:
| > A lot of discussion in this thread is pointing out that
| chromium is a thing and that it would be hard for a company to
| properly fund a web browser without the backing of a tech giant
| whose more direct revenue stream is elsewhere.
|
| This is not an issue though is it?
|
| Like all those magazine subscriptions make their money off ads.
| The idea that a business can't survive on its own is fine, no?
|
| If it's a singular tech giant then that's a problem but if
| chrome had contracts with like a dozen+ companies then it
| sounds really sustainable.
| moody__ wrote:
| > Like all those magazine subscriptions make their money off
| ads. The idea that a business can't survive on its own is
| fine, no?
|
| This is not quite the same, if a single magazine starts to
| become more ads than decent content it is not insurmountable
| for another company to start a competitor. It's not ad income
| itself that is bad, it's that in the case of a web browser it
| is insurmountable for a company to start up a competitor from
| scratch. It wasn't always the case, but because google has
| dumped so much engineering in to chrome they've effectively
| pulled up the ladder behind them.
| bradleyjg wrote:
| _Can nothing be done to the web to lower the barrier to entry
| such that an independent group (a la OpenBSD or similar) can
| maintain their own?_
|
| Sure, we can have the original web with text and the occasional
| embedded photo. But if you want what amounts to a full blown
| operating system, with a rock solid sandbox, plus an extremely
| performant virtual machine, that's going to be a high bar.
| throwinothrside wrote:
| I have a feeling this will get worse. I can think of these
| companies which have the resources to take over Chrome - Amazon,
| Microsoft, Oracle, Apple and Facebook.
|
| I can't see anybody else. They are all monopolies and is gonna
| screw it up big time for us consumers.
| resource_waste wrote:
| Same.
|
| This seems like a 'lets pretend to hurt google' thing.
|
| No one complained about Chrome.
| throwinothrside wrote:
| Am not saying no one complained about it. FLoC aand many many
| decisions by google proves they are horrible. But I dont
| think this will solve the problem. This will make it more
| worse.
| devnullbrain wrote:
| >I can think of these companies which have the resources to
| take over Chrome...
|
| Exactly, who on Earth could build a competitor? You're
| describing the problem!
|
| The ability to take stunning losses each year without worry,
| knowing that it pays dividends in the value to search, ensures
| competition can't flourish. So it is anti-competitive.
| openrisk wrote:
| If there is an auction for Chrome maybe the Onion could place a
| bid?
| Ameo wrote:
| My primary worry here is that this would hurt the open web -
| whether or not splitting out Chrome into a separate business
| would be good for consumers in and of itself.
|
| It's true that Google adds a lot of things to Chrome or their own
| benefit or even the potential detriment of others like Mozilla.
|
| That being said, they also do a tremendous amount of work to push
| the state of the web forward and, most importantly, they release
| Chromium 100% free and open source. That's not to mention the
| other incredibly impactful free projects that have stemmed from
| it like V8/NodeJS, Electron, Puppeteer, Chrome Devtools, etc.
|
| On the flip side, it's been argued that Google's control over web
| standards is too strong and they can essentially strong-arm other
| browser vendors into implementing whatever they want. It's also
| been argued that Google pushes too fast and makes it impossible
| for other vendors to keep up, leading people to use Chrome if
| they want the latest + greatest web features.
|
| But when we look at the other browser vendors, I personally feel
| like Google seems like a much better alternative. Mozilla feels
| like a dried up husk of the company it apparently once was and
| Apple pushes a buggy, closed-source, locked-down browser which
| has been purposely held back from critical features in the past
| (I think they did that to try to keep users off web apps and keep
| them paying Apple huge app store fees).
|
| ----
|
| Anyway, I certainly have very mixed feelings on this one. My main
| hope is that this doesn't spell the beginning of the end for
| Chromium because I truly believe it's a piece of software that
| has provided immense public benefit.
| JCharante wrote:
| Yeah selling chrome makes no sense, who would buy it? It
| doesn't make any money.
| chucke1992 wrote:
| Google has to be dismantled in parts one way or another - too
| much control over search and Youtube to the point where they
| are able to enforce Chrome standards that prevent adblocks from
| working.
| Timber-6539 wrote:
| This farce we call capitalism works really well.
| flanked-evergl wrote:
| The shakeup coming to the DOJ next year can't come soon enough.
| lakomen wrote:
| Ok good and who will then deliver the same or better vode
| quality, who could?
| lofaszvanitt wrote:
| Nope, browsers should be developed by countries, together, not by
| some faceless entity.
| nfw2 wrote:
| the government can't even build us a public toilet at this
| point
| lakomen wrote:
| State owned web browser might be a thing. If it's in the interest
| of many the state should pay for it. I know what you're thinking,
| "but that's communism". Well, you can't clench and fart, how they
| say. This of course adds new problems, like backdooring by 3
| letter agencies, corruption, abuse by politicians who exclude
| certain countries by agenda etc
| AlienRobot wrote:
| No, I'm thinking why would I, a Brazilian, use a U.S. web
| browser.
| yapyap wrote:
| "Push google"
|
| In what way
| Clubber wrote:
| This is an extremely weak remedy. They should force Google to
| sell YouTube and Android.
| oliwarner wrote:
| You could make all these arguments against Android, no? Perhaps
| moreso while they maintain the garden wall.
|
| It isn't wrong to point out how harmful to society monopolies
| are, and to identify them, but the development of Chrome,
| Android, etc, do also present genuine value to anybody who wants
| that code.
|
| Without Google making money from the search/targeting/advertising
| model, who is paying for Chrome, Firefox and Google Search? Who
| is paying for Android after third party marketplaces take off?
|
| I'm not making any recommendations here except that I think we
| need to be careful what we wish for. Tools we rely on might
| evaporate.
| devnullbrain wrote:
| You could, and I would.
|
| The toys we enjoy today are not worth sacrificing future
| developments. Nothing advances customer interests as much as
| competition.
| pmdr wrote:
| Good, Google's browser monopoly is a threat to the open web.
| coretx wrote:
| We went from hardware we could trust & control and gopher + plain
| html to hardware that spies on us and have limited control over
| and fully turing complete software with access to all hardware &
| DRM. - and no sensible way out.
|
| Maybe not only Google, but everyone needs to rethink the concept
| of a browser.
| LatteLazy wrote:
| Every time these cases come up, I ask the same question: what is
| this supposed to actually achieve and how will it work?
|
| Who will buy chrome? And how will they make a profit from doing
| so?
|
| Presumably they will charge google for good to remain the default
| search engine? But then we will just end up in the same place as
| now won't we? (Chrome being a popular but not the only browser;
| Google being the default but not only search engine).
|
| So how will this make the end user or the advertisers (don't
| forget, they are the consumer here, since they are paying, not
| the user) richer or happier or whatever else?
|
| People seem stuck on "monopoly bad" and that something has to be
| done. But are not clear on what the harm is here, or how to
| prevent that harm. Instead, this is something and something has
| to be done...
| fidotron wrote:
| One of the hidden costs of Chrome on society is it supports
| radically ramping up the complexity of web specifications in
| order to extend the moat around it. It is one of the most
| extraordinary software engineering projects ever done, with
| multiple components each of which are game changers. (ANGLE, v8
| and libwebrtc immediately come to mind). It is no accident Rust
| spun out of an effort to compete with this complexity explosion
| without having infinite financial resources.
|
| Personally I would prioritize spinning off Android though, and
| partly pragmatically since at least that would have a clear
| revenue stream. Maybe the Chrome App Store will experience a
| sudden surge in importance. A degoogled Chrome OS could almost
| start to look better than the direction Windows is going in.
| paxys wrote:
| How does one sell an open source project exactly?
| cmrdporcupine wrote:
| splitting Chrome and Android off from Google will do little to
| kneecap Google's monopoly power, and will just cause those two
| projects to fail, with no revenue source. There's no way to make
| money from Chrome that wouldn't just _suck_ for consumers.
|
| google's monopoly powers come from its ads business, and the data
| collection network that comes with search and other facilities.
|
| Split crawling/indexing (for search), search itself, and search
| ads/display ads out into separate businesses. Search has to pay
| for the index, and others could buy access into the same index.
| Ads has to pay search for data. etc etc.
|
| Then you'll see some changes.
| mihaic wrote:
| This feels like doing something just to do something. I hate the
| fact that Google owns Chrome just as much as the next person
| here, but what's going to happen next? Are you going to sell it
| to ByteDance since they have the biggest offer? Just having half
| a plan can be worse than having a full plan.
|
| At the same time, it might be just a thread from the DOJ to get
| Google to play ball on something else, but it's hard to assume
| competence and forethought for something like this.
| tannhaeuser wrote:
| Selling off Chrome might help, or it might just be the lesser
| evil/a pawn sacrifice in order to prevent split up of AdSense
| from Google Search (which is in obvious conflict of interest, as
| Google's ad business is already under scrutiny under alleged
| price fixing along with Meta), or of YouTube. Neither Google's
| acquisition of YouTube nor that of DoubleClick should've been
| allowed in the first place under any reasonable antitrust
| enforcement, the purpose of which is to prevent exactly this kind
| of monopoly.
| CivBase wrote:
| How exactly does Chrome make money _without_ leveraging the exact
| antitrust behaviors that are driving this decision?
|
| Do they become like Firefox and make themselves dependent on
| Google to pay top dollar for the default search engine? Wouldn't
| that just make them beholden to their original owner anyways?
| lenerdenator wrote:
| Good.
|
| I mean, it won't matter by mid-2025, but the thought is nice.
| CM30 wrote:
| Honestly, on a consumer/public interest level, this would be a
| great thing to see. Google would have to make sure their sites
| work well on all browsers, since they wouldn't maintain Chrome
| anymore (or have control over its functionality), Chrome wouldn't
| get an extra marketing, since Google wouldn't be able to market
| it to people using its products or services, and there would be
| far less of an incentive to do things like change addon APIs if
| it's not the parent company losing money from blocked ads.
|
| The two big questions however are:
|
| 1. Who would buy it?
|
| Because if it's someone like Microsoft, then we're back to square
| 1. It's another IE6/Chrome situation, with conflicting interests
| and unfair marketing efforts. Personally I can't see Apple, Meta
| or Microsoft buying Chrome though (or being allowed to under anti
| monopoly laws), so lord knows who'd end up with it. Mozilla or an
| open foundation of sorts would be the best option, but I somehow
| doubt it'll be those either
|
| 2. How is it going to be funded?
|
| You ideally don't want the Firefox 'solution' where Google
| basically pays them to exist, but you can't really sell a browser
| either. So how it could be standalone and remain a viable venture
| is anyone's guess.
| mattatobin wrote:
| I'd like to remind you all.. You were the ones who abandoned
| Firefox and pushed Chrome and clones ruining Firefox and Mozilla
| as a whole by market dumbassery in the process.
|
| NOW Microsoft is primed as they have defacto control of the
| windows chromium branch to go full force Internet Explorer with
| Edge .. i been seeing the features creep up toward that end. Re-
| interpretations of 25 year ideas that frankly would have been
| better then than now.
|
| GOOD WORK TECHIES you just handed the web back to Microsoft.
| Guess that counts as part of .. some sort of great reset huh?
|
| -Tobin, former Pale Moon Asshole
| erickf1 wrote:
| If it's not Google, it will be someone else that dominates the
| browser market.
| LinuxBender wrote:
| Would Google be stopped from _selling_ Chrome to a spin-off of a
| former Alphabet company?
| zusammen wrote:
| One 675 MB tab at a time, please.
| lanthissa wrote:
| Why is this a better solution than forcing chrome to have no
| defaults and select an option just like IE.
|
| Chrome google pulled the entire browser market forward by
| investing in chrome. A stand alone chrome is just going to make
| money by charging by default status or be bought by someone else
| trying to create push their defaults.
| catlikesshrimp wrote:
| _I will fix the internet for you_ :
|
| + No platform ever must include an Internet Brower by default.
| User must install one some way without anyone being suggested
| or hinted by platform. Platform can inform user an internet
| browser can be installed but not saying how. Platform owner can
| set a default anytime
|
| + No Internet Browser ever must default, or suggest or hint a
| search engine. The platform owner can always pick one himself.
|
| _Internet Browser is defined as any program with a User
| Interface which can acquire content from any public network_
|
| The devil is inthe defaults.
|
| Edit: I forgot to add how to finance it: Internet browser will
| now datamine the customer. Customer can pay for a privacy
| respecting browser, but we all know how that doesn't fly (yet)
| ghostpepper wrote:
| How would new users install a browser without having a
| browser? The browser is where 99% of users spend 99% of their
| time.
| asadotzler wrote:
| Get-AppxPackage works fine for me.
| albrewer wrote:
| I don't see my 80 year old grandmother learning how to
| use a terminal anytime soon.
| NickC25 wrote:
| Could Google just circumvent this entirely by making Chrome 100%
| open source?
|
| I realize Chrome is partially open source, but IIRC Google still
| has some special abilities that no fork has the ability to
| access.
| tantalor wrote:
| "Big tech companies aren't allowed to distribute their own web
| browser" is going to come as a big surprise to Microsoft and
| Apple.
| timbit42 wrote:
| Except that's not what they are saying.
| skizm wrote:
| Could someone make a new company with the sole purpose of buying
| Chrome, then just sell Google back the same data they were
| already collecting?
| fizlebit wrote:
| Am I alone in thinking that all the stuff I get for free (in
| exchange for some amount of targeted advertising) from Google is
| pretty cool and that these attempts to break up big tech are
| going to be very bad for consumers and the economy and is just
| punishing successful companies that produce products that
| customers want to use. You all can use mosaic/edge if you want
| to.
| laweijfmvo wrote:
| You are certainly not alone. I'd say you're in the vast vast
| majority, just not necessarily on our little corner of the
| Internet (hackernews), but realistically probably the majority
| here as well.
| devnullbrain wrote:
| You get nice stuff for free, right up until the moment Google
| decide that they've done enough. Then you get nothing. And the
| unfair funding and disparity in features means no competitors
| can ever provide a superior alternative.
|
| And then it might not be for free. It's very tempting to rent-
| seek when you have a captive user base. That's bad for
| consumers and bad for the economy.
|
| Focusing on what we get today is myopic and it's not by mistake
| that Google give them to us.
| tylerchilds wrote:
| selling off chrome seems like a terrible idea for this simple
| reason
|
| the new owner needs to recoup a
|
| twenty billion dollar investment
| nashashmi wrote:
| They can sell Chrome, keep Chromium, rebrand ChromeOS to
| nAndroidOS, and launch a new browser called Google DrEdge (based
| on Chromium).
|
| Full circle . Back to where we started.
| asadotzler wrote:
| That's not how this works. They'll sign a consent decree that
| forbids them from just that for a decade or three and the DOJ
| will have staff officed in Google campuses monitoring them for
| the entire time.
| flkenosad wrote:
| At this point, I feel like Chrome is more valuable than Search.
| fluidcruft wrote:
| Ultimately, how does Chrome _itself_ make any money? As far as
| I know it doesn 't, so the value to Google is ultimately
| control. The positives include not having to tolerate the whims
| of Microsoft or Apple or Mozilla or Amazon or beg any of these
| to implement features or endure microsabotage. The negatives
| are the temptation to subject everyone else to Google's whims
| and sabotage competitors.
| titzer wrote:
| The conflict of interest between _owning search_ , being a
| provider of _user identity /login_, and effectively owning _the
| entire internet ads marketplace_ , and being a provider of the
| "user agent" (remember when people thought of that way!?) is
| immense.
|
| This should have happened years ago.
|
| TBF, I worked in Chrome almost 7 years and I didn't see anything
| outright nefarious. I don't know how user-hostile decisions (like
| breaking ad blockers and serving advertisers better) get made,
| but they do get made, or defaulted into. Trust me, the leadership
| of Chrome knows exactly how to justify its $300 million+ budget
| to the rest of Google, revenue numbers and all.
| tantalor wrote:
| "Conflict of interest" has a precise ethical/legal definition.
| It doesn't mean "somebody is doing something I don't like".
| titzer wrote:
| From the Oxford dictionary:
|
| conflict of interest, n:
|
| a situation in which the concerns or aims of two different
| parties are incompatible.
|
| "the conflict of interest between elected officials and
| corporate lobbyists"
| tantalor wrote:
| Sure that's a colloquial sense, but we're talking about a
| legal sense here.
|
| The legal/ethical sense is where one party has an actual
| _obligation_ to multiple other parties whose interests are
| incompatible. For instance, a lawyer who represents both
| sides of a dispute has a conflict in interest; they cannot
| faithfully satisfy their obligations to all their clients.
|
| In your example you cited a few services,
|
| * provide a search engine
|
| * provide login
|
| * run ads business
|
| * provide a web browser
|
| But you haven't explained what the legal/ethical
| obligations are, and where the conflict arises, e.g., how
| one company cannot possibly fulfill all of those
| obligations.
| devnullbrain wrote:
| >but we're talking about a legal sense here.
|
| Yes, because you suddenly brought up the legal
| definition.
| asadotzler wrote:
| I'm guessing that budget is well over half a billion today. Got
| data?
| shadowgovt wrote:
| This will likely lead to a Safari hegemony. Possibly an Edge /
| Safari duopoly.
|
| Chrome doesn't have a business model to make money. If it gets
| calved off into its own thing, it'll either need to find another
| line of business to supplement the cost of building and
| maintaining a browser, or it'll go bankrupt. Close-to-nobody is
| willing to pay money for a browser alone, so it's unlikely
| they'll be able to float a business on selling the browser
| itself.
| lowbloodsugar wrote:
| No they won't.
| iamleppert wrote:
| Hopefully BlackRock buys it and runs it into the ground.
| freedomben wrote:
| > _They are also prepared to seek a requirement that Google share
| more information with advertisers and give them more control over
| where their ads appear._
|
| I don't think Google are fully clean in all this by any stretch,
| but for all the people saying that Google is just privacy-
| violating data junkies, did you catch that aspect of the DOJ
| statement?? The DOJ wants the advertisers to have _MORE_
| information (about us). That makes me sick.
| hightrix wrote:
| I definitely glossed over this line. This line of thinking
| makes me worried that someone in the upcoming government will
| get the "good" idea of trying to ban adblockers.
| wmf wrote:
| Antitrust leads to weird outcomes in markets where all the
| players are anti-consumer. (advertising, antivirus, car
| dealers, etc.)
| kernal wrote:
| If Google is forced to sell off Chrome why would any company buy
| it? They wouldn't get the developers that work on Chrome /
| Chromium. They wouldn't get access to the proprietary Google
| services that Chrome uses so they would be buying a copy of
| Chromium. Google could then close the Chromium source code and
| develop a new closed source browser. The Chrome browser would
| then slowly die due to lack of development resources, money, and
| innovation while the new Google browser would quickly gain the
| market share that was taken away from them.
| timbit42 wrote:
| They'll spin it off into its own company.
| mattmaroon wrote:
| Thats lovely but I think ultimately not going after the root
| problem. Going after the root problem would be pushing them to
| divorce the advertising business from the rest.
| TheMagicHorsey wrote:
| This seems unnecessary. Google's search business is being
| disrupted along different axes already ... LLMs, voice agents,
| Apple Intelligence, etc.
| cryptozeus wrote:
| I think chrome can become independent company and provide search
| and usage apis to all the companies like google, msft, apple etc.
| deburo wrote:
| Would this even survive the coming change of administration? Why
| attempt this now?
| ssalka wrote:
| https://archive.ph/bBDQt
| rkagerer wrote:
| _Google says the proposals would harm consumers and developers_
|
| Hey Google - I'm both, and your trend over the years of degrading
| products I used to love with increasingly user-hostile choices
| has already caused me more harm than I can imagine could arise
| out of fixing the incentives.
| diob wrote:
| Antitrust and antimonopoly would do so much for the economy over
| in the USA. We need smaller companies, and more of them. Leads to
| more innovation, better jobs / distributions of wealth.
| 1vuio0pswjnm7 wrote:
| No Javascript:
|
| https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/doj-will-push-goog...
|
| No SNI:
|
| https://web.archive.org/web/20241119090808if_/https://news.b...
| rnd0 wrote:
| How does this affect Chromium?
| AlienRobot wrote:
| DuckDuckGo has a web browser. Brave has a search engine. Kagi has
| a web browser.
|
| It seems weird to single Google for this. Wasn't the core issue
| behind this that these other search engines couldn't compete with
| Google?
|
| Vivaldi is a much better browser than their Chromium re-skins.
| Perhaps if their browsers were better people would use them
| instead of using Chrome. Additionally, perhaps if their search
| was better than Google, they would use it as well!
|
| Google shoves AI overviews in your face now, and if that sucks,
| the only reasonable alternative is to use Bing currently. I can't
| use Brave's search or Mojeek. Brave ignores underscores. Mojeek
| doesn't even have a business model so it stops anyone from
| actually using it as a search engine. Yandex is full of results
| in Russian.
|
| I wish someone would tell me what is this fabled competitor to
| Google that would benefit from crippling Google because so far I
| haven't been able to find one. I'd say the only engines better
| than Google are Wiby and Kiddle, because they focus on a specific
| niche instead of trying to compete on general web search.
| asadotzler wrote:
| Tell us you don't understand the first thing about centuries of
| anti-trust law without telling us you don't understand anti-
| trust law.
| AlienRobot wrote:
| Why don't you illuminate me if you're so knowledgeable?
| zombiwoof wrote:
| Elon and Trumo will buy it and rename it Gold
| DeathArrow wrote:
| They should split Chrome, search, ADS, Gmail, Youtube, Cloud and
| Android at least.
| tway223 wrote:
| Who will be the buyer? ORCL or IBM?
| timbit42 wrote:
| More likely Microsoft since they are using the Chrome engine in
| Edge.
| ingen0s wrote:
| Just open source it and call it a day - the world isn't all about
| money
| postalrat wrote:
| Lets hope Apple doesn't buy and Dark Sky it.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-11-19 23:01 UTC)