Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

DOJ will push Google to sell off Chrome

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

341–350 of 1001 posts

Re: DOJ will push Google to sell off Chrome

#341

Post by Drakim »

dataflow wrote: post #325
wesselbindt wrote: post #306

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.

> 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…

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.

Re: DOJ will push Google to sell off Chrome

#342

Post by pwdisswordfishz »

wesselbindt wrote: post #306

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.

This very site is an advertising arm of a venture capital fund. What did you expect? That capitalists condemn capitalism?

Re: DOJ will push Google to sell off Chrome

#343

Post by cambaceres »

jrflowers wrote: post #317
legitster wrote: post #153

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. >…

> 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.

> 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?

Re: DOJ will push Google to sell off Chrome

#344

Post by whiplash451 »

curiouscat321 wrote: post #5

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.

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.

Re: DOJ will push Google to sell off Chrome

#345

Post by sjamaan »

dataflow wrote: post #325
wesselbindt wrote: post #306

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.

> 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…

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.

Re: DOJ will push Google to sell off Chrome

#346

Post by lodovic »

st3fan wrote: post #225
legitster wrote: post #153

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 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 app…

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.

Re: DOJ will push Google to sell off Chrome

#347

Post by jdub »

MichaelCharles wrote: post #323
wesselbindt wrote: post #306

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.

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…

Sounds like a Google problem.

The web existed before Chrome, and will continue to exist afterward.

Re: DOJ will push Google to sell off Chrome

#348

Post by whiplash451 »

JoshTriplett wrote: post #127
bityard wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the most chaotic alternate reality possible: Mozilla

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".

This is wishful thinking. Non-profits that don’t turn into for-profit turn into a shitshow of incompetence instead.

Re: DOJ will push Google to sell off Chrome

#349

Post by melodyogonna »

typeofhuman wrote: post #281
legitster wrote: post #153

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. >…

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.

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.

Re: DOJ will push Google to sell off Chrome

#350

Post by draluy »

dataflow wrote: post #325
wesselbindt wrote: post #306

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.

> 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…

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.
Post reply on HN