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…
Forcing Google to sell their ad business would be the death of that company. After all, it's mostly an ad company...
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…
> 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
Nah, it was faster, lighter and better.
I say this as someone who has been back on Firefox for years at this point.
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.
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.
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.
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…
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.
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.
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.
If they're "burning" money how is that a loss for the economy? They're spending the money on something; effectively stimulating the economy.
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.
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.
Chrome is not run badly at all. But in its current state it gives Google the ability to singlehandedly dictate webstandards. Thats an issue.
How would they even sell it, chrome is based off of chromium. What is there to sell exactly? You can already fork chromium
> What is there to sell exactly? The user base
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.
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…
I think the real issue is Google is able to use Chrome to push web standards in any direction they want.
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…
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.
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.