Why does Google have to sell Chrome? Any potential acquirer could build their own browser with Chromium.
DOJ will push Google to sell off Chrome
331–340 of 1001 posts
Re: DOJ will push Google to sell off Chrome
#332I'm very surprised by the number of people in this thread who don't seem to understand that monopolies are _very_ bad for consumers.
> 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…
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.
Re: DOJ will push Google to sell off Chrome
#333Earlier 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?
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.
Re: DOJ will push Google to sell off Chrome
#334Earlier quoted context omitted.
How is Chrome or Google a monopoly?
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…
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.
Re: DOJ will push Google to sell off Chrome
#335Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Is Meta or Microsoft buying Chrome a good outcome?
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.
Re: DOJ will push Google to sell off Chrome
#336I'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. >…
This is the government answer to doing something about privacy. It's what the people said they wanted when they voted. Right?
Re: DOJ will push Google to sell off Chrome
#337I'm very surprised by the number of people in this thread who don't seem to understand that monopolies are _very_ bad for consumers.
How is Chrome or Google a monopoly?
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.
Re: DOJ will push Google to sell off Chrome
#338I'm very surprised by the number of people in this thread who don't seem to understand that monopolies are _very_ bad for consumers.
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 co…
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.
Re: DOJ will push Google to sell off Chrome
#339I'm very surprised by the number of people in this thread who don't seem to understand that monopolies are _very_ bad for consumers.
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 co…
> 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).
Re: DOJ will push Google to sell off Chrome
#340Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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…
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.
> 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?