Live data from Hacker News

DOJ will push Google to sell off Chrome

bloomberg.com

271–280 of 1001 posts

Re: DOJ will push Google to sell off Chrome

#271
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were met with widespread opposition, but eventually they made their way into Chrome; WEI, on the other hand, was withdrawn due to backlash, but make no mistake, it will come back at some point.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.

Re: DOJ will push Google to sell off Chrome

#272

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were met with widespread opposition, but eventually they made their way into Chrome; WEI, on the other hand, was withdrawn due to…

The incoming administration has a bone to pick with these tech companies, so I expect these endeavors to continue to fruition.

Re: DOJ will push Google to sell off Chrome

#273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

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.

Re: DOJ will push Google to sell off Chrome

#274

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…

> 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.

Re: DOJ will push Google to sell off Chrome

#275
post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Can anyone think of a hero to save us?

Ladybird Web Browser becomes a non-profit with $1M from GitHub Founder

20240701 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40856791

Re: DOJ will push Google to sell off Chrome

#276
post #23

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…

Isn’t Google refusing to make changes that boost online privacy because it’ll tank their ad revenue?

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...

Re: DOJ will push Google to sell off Chrome

#278
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.

Re: DOJ will push Google to sell off Chrome

#279

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?

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.

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

Re: DOJ will push Google to sell off Chrome

#280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There was an article from Android Authority today that said it's being rebased on Android.

https://www.androidauthority.com/chrome-os-becoming-android-... this is it ... chromeOS is dead

And heralding the year of the Linux Desktop!
Post reply on HN