The App Store is one consideration, and the hardware ecosystem another. I personally think both are problems. The ability to cast audio from my device to another is less supported now than they were back when things had audio auxiliary jacks.
How so? Because you need to buy a converter cable? That sounds like “marginally more expensive”, and certainly not a monopoly-abusing position.
Apple today discontinued the lightning to 3.5mm converters, but I’m more referring to things like the apple exclusive airplay, proprietary Bluetooth codecs, etc
Why does Google have to sell Chrome? Any potential acquirer could build their own browser with Chromium.
The DOJ is technically illiterate if they think Google selling Chrome is the solution. If Google was forced to divest itself from Chrome, I see no need for Google to keep Chromium open source.
In this thread: Chrome and Chrome-related employees of Google worrying about their future compensation under a smaller company. Don't worry, I'm sure that Chrome / Chromium will be picked up by several big players together, Microsoft is involved via Edge, ... I don't see much changing. I think that government should limit its interference in the market as much as possible, but Chrome is just so monopoly-oriented from…
The sale wouldn't involve Chromium nor the Google employees that work on Chromium or Chrome. But good luck to whoever buys it to keep funding it and acquire the talent to work on it at the speed Google does. Meanwhile, Chromium will go closed source as there's no incentive to keep it open and Google will develop a new closed sourced browser to reclaim its market share.
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…
You raise some very important points. Specifically, this one: > browsers aren't really a self funding product I feel the same. I also feel the same about a modern C library and C compiler (and C++, if you like). They are essential to build any modern system and applications. Yet, those are also (mostly) no longer self-funding products. What do you think will happen if Google is forced to divest Chrome?
Firefox has made Mozilla billions over its lifetime by selling the default search engine rights to Yahoo and Google. Chrome, having a much greater user base, would demand a correspondingly higher fee (probably around $10b a year). Now, the other problem is there is no other search engine to compete with Google at that level, but that might change with independence of Chrome.
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.
I will fix the internet for you : + No platform ever must include an Internet Brower by default. User must install one some way without anyone being suggested or hinted by platform. Platform can inform user an internet browser can be installed but not saying how. Platform owner can set a default anytime + No Internet Browser ever must default, or suggest or hint a search engine. The platform owner can always pick one…
How would new users install a browser without having a browser? The browser is where 99% of users spend 99% of their time.
> browsers aren't really a self funding product Yeah... Because massive companies use them anti-competitively as a moat against other companies, and as a loss leader to enable massive data collection and vendor lock in. "browsers aren't really a self funding product" is a symptom of dysfunction, not the inevitable conclusion of a fair market.
Well, things with open source alternatives tend to fare badly when sold.
I'm reading this on a non Chrome browser and I can search for it on a non Google search engine. I don't understand where the monopoly is.
I'm reading this on a non-Chrome browser based on Chromium, the project Google gave freely to the world that enables competitors to reach hundreds of millions of users
Google realized if they don't control the search distribution they gonna lose out sooner or later; which is kinda contradictory for them if they claim Google is the best search out there and that they are constantly improving it and that's why(they say), people choose it over other alternatives. But tbh distribution of your product/s is crucial. Just look at Microsoft and their internet strategy, they chose the other…
> 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.
That’s how I feel about Yandex lately. When it’s a struggle to find something on the common search engines, Yandex works like magic.
It’s not that Yandex is particularly better in any way, it just chooses to not filter the content one is looking for.
> 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.
We all agree Google-the-search-engine is losing relevance (literally). So they should also lose their distribution channel, Chrome, because being nagged until you synchronize your Chrome profile and use their search engine is anti-competitive, on top of being pretentious from a less-relevant search engine.