41–50 of 354 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How would chrome survive as a business?
As the window 70% of people access the Internet through globally , Chrome has nearly limitless options for monetization. Arguably, being part of Google hurts it, because it has to fit into Google's ideal business strategy.
The only solution that would actually work is better regulation of the advertising space, but all advertisers (Google included) actively fight this. For example, ban governments from purchasing personal information without a warrant. Ban the sale of any/all personal information between companies - any personal information transferred should be gratis with at most nominal costs for the cost of the transfer itself. But then you might have to actually start paying for some services rather than everything being totally ad supported. Not to mention that governments, despite all their outcries about “privacy” and “evil corporations” love the status quo because of how easy it makes to invade your privacy without a warrant.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
By auctioning the default search engine slot.
Wouldn't that make them entirely beholden to search engines that rely on ad revenue to pay Chrome? It doesn't seem to change the underlying incentives very much.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Perhaps it's time to recognize that the company simply need not exist in it's present form. If Google was required to spin off Chrome as an independent company, there would be no antitrust issue, and privacy protections Chrome made would not also include anti-privacy features designed to feed Google's ad business. The reality is, Google needs to be broken up. Every fine they get makes that clear.
How would chrome survive as a business?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Perhaps it's time to recognize that the company simply need not exist in it's present form. If Google was required to spin off Chrome as an independent company, there would be no antitrust issue, and privacy protections Chrome made would not also include anti-privacy features designed to feed Google's ad business. The reality is, Google needs to be broken up. Every fine they get makes that clear.
Yup, when there is nothing a company can do in a situation to avoid anti-trust regulation, that is a pretty good indication anti-trust regulation should have already happened.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
By auctioning the default search engine slot.
Wouldn't that make them entirely beholden to search engines that rely on ad revenue to pay Chrome? It doesn't seem to change the underlying incentives very much.
Plus, there's no rule that says a browser has to get most of its revenue from selling Google Search placement. That just happens to be the case for the single independent browser that exists right now, one which isn't exactly renowned for great business leadership. I think if the Chrome team had a reason to explore self sustaining revenue models there's a good chance they would come up with some solid innovations.
So if I understand this correctly, then killing off 3rd party cookies is anti-competitive, leaving them in is anti-privacy, and putting out a privacy-enhancing alternative is also anti-competitive. Is there anything that can be done that would satisfy all regulations? Also, this reminds me of a story I heard years ago, that a California oil change location needed to store oil above ground due to EPA regulations, but…
In a word, no. Google and other corporate monoliths like it depend on data, as much as they can get, as personal as it can be, and pervasive as the air we breathe. Consumers want privacy, control over their data, and the power to say no. The only sensible middle ground is for Google and others to be up front about the data, what they do with it, where it goes, etc. and the consumer having the ability to say no. Unfor…
The majority of normal people probably don't care as much about "privacy" as some of the vocal folks here do.
I'm not making a value judgement on that, it's simply how it is.
People want to use services like Facebook, Snapchat, Instagram or Google search/Gmail/Google Maps that have the functionality they enjoy.
If those companies can show them targeted ads vs random useless ads, the majority of people seem to be fine with that tradeoff.
I want it to be the year of the Linus desktop for a long while but I've made peace with the fact that's not the majority view. Most people are happy with a proprietary desktop that just works.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
By auctioning the default search engine slot.
Wouldn't that make them entirely beholden to search engines that rely on ad revenue to pay Chrome? It doesn't seem to change the underlying incentives very much.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How would chrome survive as a business?
As the window 70% of people access the Internet through globally , Chrome has nearly limitless options for monetization. Arguably, being part of Google hurts it, because it has to fit into Google's ideal business strategy.