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

351–360 of 1001 posts

Re: DOJ will push Google to sell off Chrome

#351

Post by lucideer »

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.

Seeing for years the views expressed here about Meta & TikTok, I think at least some of this must come down to a gap in understanding of web technologies.

Meta & TikTok decidedly don't have monopolies, yet still come under fierce scrutiny for their pervasive handling of consumer behaviour & data. What seems to be less evident to people is that Google's monopolies give them far greater reach in these areas than either of the other two. The majority of that reach is entirely invisible to most: I think if this negative impact was more visible it might drive home the downside of these particular monopolies.

Re: DOJ will push Google to sell off Chrome

#352

Post by wesselbindt »

eru wrote: post #308
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.

How is Chrome or Google a monopoly?

I'm not claiming they are. But given their current market share and its trajectory, they're marching towards one. Furthermore, it's a clear mechanism for further monopolizing the search engine market (I'm more comfortable calling google a monopoly on this front). I'm a staunch capitalist and believe in the innovative power of competition, and monopolies ground that whole machine to a halt.

Re: DOJ will push Google to sell off Chrome

#353

Post by dataflow »

Drakim wrote: post #341
dataflow wrote: post #325

Earlier 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…

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…

> 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!

> You are being very naive if you think that Google having this sort of monopolistic power over the web does not hurt consumers.

No, I think you're being incredibly naive if you think the outcome you imagine would necessarily come to fruition without Google being a "monopoly" (however you define it). It didn't happen for Microsoft (Chrome is an angel compared to Edge), and nobody has managed to create comparable solutions for so many other products Google offers that have nothing to do with the browser or search.

Re: DOJ will push Google to sell off Chrome

#354

Post by fifticon »

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…

They are not paying $0. They are manipulated into believing they are paying $0. If people were offered the google suite for 'free','you just have to let us siphon 4 liters of blood from you every year', would people still claim the price was 'zero dollars'. Just because you extract the price from your users in a different denomination/method than ordinary dollars, doesn't mean it's 'free'. Precisely because they are not asking for dollars, indicates they are actually extracting value from their users. They are not giving, they are taking, and it is also clear they are taking more than they are giving, given their revenue and profits.

I could see a similar argument being made by plantation owners in the past "we are lodging these guests from africa for FREE", they don't even have to PAY to live in the houses we offer them! There is only the small detail of the activities they will have to do in OUR fields, which will kill them off in 10-15 years, but that is another matter which should not be confused".

"Deals" of the kind google and facebook offer are not to the consumer's advantage. Insisting on not having a facebook account is akin to choosing not to use the paved asphalt roads the society makes available to you. I could "choose" not to have a facebook account, but it would lock me out of effectively both my friends group and my family's daily communication.

Re: DOJ will push Google to sell off Chrome

#355

Post by nextlevelwizard »

dijit wrote: post #338
MichaelCharles wrote: post #323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 wit…

How much of Mozilla’s budget actually goes to Firefox? Last I checked making a browser wasn’t even on the road map

Re: DOJ will push Google to sell off Chrome

#356

Post by lucideer »

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…

There's an implicit assumption embedded in this comment that the Chromium project is indispensable, whereas I'm unconvinced it's even a net positive at all.

Anyone who follows standards discourse would probably appreciate the prospect of this open source codebase having independent stewards much more than any fears over maintenance resources.

Re: DOJ will push Google to sell off Chrome

#357

Post by MichaelCharles »

littlestymaar wrote: post #339
MichaelCharles wrote: post #323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

I guess that's a fair point.

Re: DOJ will push Google to sell off Chrome

#358

Post by MichaelCharles »

dijit wrote: post #338
MichaelCharles wrote: post #323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 wit…

All very good points.

Re: DOJ will push Google to sell off Chrome

#359

Post by fifticon »

junon wrote: post #337
eru wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 th…

It is not just 'a lot of work'. It is on the level where microsoft gave up..

Re: DOJ will push Google to sell off Chrome

#360

Post by hatefulmoron »

cambaceres wrote: post #343
jrflowers wrote: post #317

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

I would assume they're being facetious.
Post reply on HN