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

691–700 of 1001 posts

Re: DOJ will push Google to sell off Chrome

#691

Post by madeofpalk »

robertlagrant wrote: post #681
coldpie wrote: post #661

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Who's going to buy Chrome that also doesn't suffer from the same anti-trust problems? Who would want to buy Chrome? Who would want to fund Chrome? Hmm. It's a good question, and I don't know the answer. I think there's a compelling argument that the problem is the scale of the harm. That is, even if the new owner has the same problems, the new owner won't also be the largest web company. So the problem still exists…

Google already funds Firefox and makes Chromium[0] as well, which seems like quite a lot of effort to go to as a single company in funding/enabling competition. Microsoft had to do far less to resolve their EU dispute: just give users other options for browsers on install of their OS. [0] Unless if today you take Chromium and make your own browser, and it still has all the stuff in about logins and tracking.

When the DOJ asks to split off Chrome from Google, I presume that meant/included Chromium as well. They're basically the same thing.

Why would Google continue to fund Chromium development without Chrome?

Re: DOJ will push Google to sell off Chrome

#692

Post by crazygringo »

fransje26 wrote: post #683
jeswin wrote: post #329

I'm totally fine with this, but I wish they would do the same thing with Apple. Google's platform, at the very least is open and I can run my own apps. One could ask, "How is Apple a Monopoly, and do they abuse that position?". In my view it is, since you can't have a business or build connected hardware without an iOS app. And as for abusing that position for gaining market share, there are just too many examples st…

> One could ask, "How is Apple a Monopoly, and do they abuse that position?" I opened my local configurator to buy a 13" M3 MacBook Air. Memory, update from 16GB to 24GB -> +230€ SSD, update from 256GB to 2TB -> +920€ Textbook monopolistic price gouging.

No, that's textbook price discrimination, aka standard pricing everywhere. Have you looked at the prices for add-ons for cars? Or even for pizza toppings?

There's no world in which you can tell me Apple has a monopoly on laptops. C'mon.

Re: DOJ will push Google to sell off Chrome

#693

Post by madeofpalk »

hodder wrote: post #688
madeofpalk wrote: post #601

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't disagree, but I'm also not sure what the alternative is. Who's going to buy Chrome that also doesn't suffer from the same anti-trust problems? Who would want to buy Chrome? Who would want to fund Chrome? What browser would Android ship? In one view I kind of like the idea that Google would have to shop around and 'buy' a browser for its OS (competition good!), but also that seems ridiculous and easy to fall r…

There doesn't have to be a buyer. They can spin it off as an independent company. Surely it can be a profitable enterprise on its own.

Surely? I can't imagine Chrome by itself is a very profitable company. Who knows.

Re: DOJ will push Google to sell off Chrome

#694

Post by kube-system »

lofaszvanitt wrote: post #556
pjc50 wrote: post #548

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is this: - the browser is undeniably critical as everyone's window through which they view the online world; - the user gains a huge amount of value by a browser being integrated into the OS, webviews in other applications, etc - browsers aren't really a self funding product - having a single for-profit US advertising company control everyone's view of the online world, however slightly (e.g. by obstructi…

Browsers should be developed by an intercountry nonprofit. Funded by all the countries' governments.

We can't even get the world's governments to agree on what basic human rights are.

Re: DOJ will push Google to sell off Chrome

#695

Post by PapaPalpatine »

fransje26 wrote: post #683
jeswin wrote: post #329

I'm totally fine with this, but I wish they would do the same thing with Apple. Google's platform, at the very least is open and I can run my own apps. One could ask, "How is Apple a Monopoly, and do they abuse that position?". In my view it is, since you can't have a business or build connected hardware without an iOS app. And as for abusing that position for gaining market share, there are just too many examples st…

> One could ask, "How is Apple a Monopoly, and do they abuse that position?" I opened my local configurator to buy a 13" M3 MacBook Air. Memory, update from 16GB to 24GB -> +230€ SSD, update from 256GB to 2TB -> +920€ Textbook monopolistic price gouging.

> Textbook monopolistic price gouging

So they’re a monopoly because you can only buy Apple laptops from them?

Re: DOJ will push Google to sell off Chrome

#696

Post by SirHumphrey »

bufferoverflow wrote: post #292
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.

Who would like to own the #1 most popular browser in the world? How is that even a question. It's worth billions. User data, ability to inject ads, ability to drive the future of web and web-based apps.

It’s an open source project that can be forked - especially when google is not behind it to protect the market share, with users that don’t expect to pay and microsoft also involved with their own version.

Currently it’s probably worth bilingual because Google owns it. I expect it to rapidly lose value should that change.

Re: DOJ will push Google to sell off Chrome

#697

Post by bee_rider »

mrkramer wrote: post #664
Loic wrote: post #645

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Fortunately this didn't work out for them but unfortunately that worked out for Google. No, Google was better, then they used Chrome as an extremely powerful moat to protect their situation. Google at first was like magic compared to the Altavista of the time.

Yes but without Chrome, Google wouldn't have 90% search market share that they have today. They are completely dominating the WWW industry.

Is that true? I seem to remember Google dominating search all the way back in 2010 (before Chrome really caught on).

Re: DOJ will push Google to sell off Chrome

#698

Post by gigatexal »

gigatexal wrote: post #497

I thought Trump could be bought off to make this go away like he flipped on the til too forced sale of ban. But this whole thing began under his last administration (sic): “If Mehta accepts the proposals, they have the potential to reshape the online search market and the burgeoning AI industry. The case was filed under the first Trump administration and continued under President Joe Biden. It marks the most aggressi…

s/til too/tiktok

Re: DOJ will push Google to sell off Chrome

#699

Post by lanthissa »

Why is this a better solution than forcing chrome to have no defaults and select an option just like IE.

Chrome google pulled the entire browser market forward by investing in chrome. A stand alone chrome is just going to make money by charging by default status or be bought by someone else trying to create push their defaults.

Re: DOJ will push Google to sell off Chrome

#700

Post by DeusExMachina »

IX-103 wrote: post #632
DeusExMachina wrote: post #584

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They could sell a lot of the data that Google now gets for free and uses for its ranking algorithms, like Clickstream sells data to SEO tools like AHrefs and SemRush.

Google doesn't use Chrome data for Ads or Search. They're not allowed to based on the TOS, and also they have government regulators watching carefully to make sure they don't make a mistake like that.

A data leak from earlier this year suggested that they do, although there is no definitive proof.

https://www.theverge.com/2024/5/31/24167119/google-search-al...

Post reply on HN