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

871–880 of 1001 posts

Re: DOJ will push Google to sell off Chrome

#871

Post by AlienRobot »

asadotzler wrote: post #868
AlienRobot wrote: post #846

DuckDuckGo has a web browser. Brave has a search engine. Kagi has a web browser. It seems weird to single Google for this. Wasn't the core issue behind this that these other search engines couldn't compete with Google? Vivaldi is a much better browser than their Chromium re-skins. Perhaps if their browsers were better people would use them instead of using Chrome. Additionally, perhaps if their search was better than…

Tell us you don't understand the first thing about centuries of anti-trust law without telling us you don't understand anti-trust law.

Why don't you illuminate me if you're so knowledgeable?

Re: DOJ will push Google to sell off Chrome

#872

Post by askvictor »

rkharsan64 wrote: post #510

People here seem to be underestimating the advantages that Google gets just because of Chrome: - When you sign in to Google, you sign in browser-wide. Google now gets all of your browsing data, perfect for advertising. (If you ever doubt it, go check out Google Takeout. You'll be shocked at the amount of data you see there.) - They have special APIs and features that they get to use, and nobody else. Only because the…

> Google specifically serves a worse version of Search on Firefox for Mobile. You have to get an extension to get the full experience.

What's the difference, and where can I find this extension?

Re: DOJ will push Google to sell off Chrome

#873

Post by andxor »

asadotzler wrote: post #857
justahuman74 wrote: post #18

What is the actual asset to buy precisely? The code is already mostly open. You'd be paying for a user base who could leave at any moment?

The trademarks, the team, and the infrastructure. Mozilla spun out of Netscape exactly like that, with the trademarks, part of the team and part of the infra. The monetization is up to the spinoff or acquirer to figure out.

The team would dismantle pretty quickly once they stop receiving Google stock grants.

Re: DOJ will push Google to sell off Chrome

#874

Post by mulmen »

russli1993 wrote: post #453
tadfisher wrote: post #438

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, they provide those things. They also have an illegal monopoly on search, and use those free offerings to entrench their monopoly.

Microsoft has the most monopoly. Bundle azure with office365, bundle teams with office365, bundle windows with azure, pushing bing, edge, OneDrive on windows. Why no one investigate them? Because they stay under off consumer minds, and has good lobby

Microsoft famously lost an antitrust case two decades ago. They’re also currently under investigation for Azure: https://www.seattletimes.com/business/microsoft/ftc-to-probe...

Re: DOJ will push Google to sell off Chrome

#875

Post by askvictor »

wongarsu wrote: post #740
throwaway2037 wrote: post #706

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Netscape used to cost the equivalent of $100 inflation-adjusted dollars and was only forced to go free to compete with Internet Explorer. Now the genie can't be put back in the bottle, and anyone trying to sell you a browser would become irrelevant the same way Delphi's paid compiler lost out to free C compilers. Maybe you could carve out a niche that's willing to pay, the same way C# did before dotnet core. But for…

Windows is a paid-for product; either enterprise licenses or via the manufacturer. Yet few people (mainly those who build PCs themselves) realise this.

What if the browser had a similar model? The manufacturer pays a certain 'browser development fee' into escrow, then on first boot, the copmuter shows a browser ballot, which gets set as the default, and the fee goes to the chosen browser developer? There's probably a bunch of problems with this approach, and, at least initially, wouldn't break the monoculture, but it might be a good starting point for how to fund browser development.

Re: DOJ will push Google to sell off Chrome

#876

Post by wrsh07 »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #175
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. >…

> only reason I still use Chrome is because I already use other Google products and they integrate well together This is the point. Google's products integrate with Chrome better than non-Google products. Including its ad platform.

I'm failing to see why "this product we built from the ground up integrates better with our other tools" is an anti trust problem

Isn't that what we want companies to do?

I have two frustrations with this kind of decision:

1. It's not clear to me that the judge has any interest in creating value. 2. It does feel a bit like being punished for success.

It's one thing when it's ill-gotten success, eg via coercive contracts (like Android has with play services), and we should aggressively deal with that sort of contract! However, what often seems to happen in these types of cases is the judge identifies a behavior they dislike and bans it without really considering more targeting / surgical treatments

Re: DOJ will push Google to sell off Chrome

#877

Post by Rebelgecko »

askvictor wrote: post #872
rkharsan64 wrote: post #510

People here seem to be underestimating the advantages that Google gets just because of Chrome: - When you sign in to Google, you sign in browser-wide. Google now gets all of your browsing data, perfect for advertising. (If you ever doubt it, go check out Google Takeout. You'll be shocked at the amount of data you see there.) - They have special APIs and features that they get to use, and nobody else. Only because the…

> Google specifically serves a worse version of Search on Firefox for Mobile. You have to get an extension to get the full experience. What's the difference, and where can I find this extension?

On Firefox, the design of the search results page looks about a decade older. Some people would argue that's a good thing :)

Re: DOJ will push Google to sell off Chrome

#878

Post by crabmusket »

philistine wrote: post #250
EMIRELADERO wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It sounds like the end goal of this is to enrich other companies , not customers. In this case, the "customers" are other companies. Antitrust markets can be defined broadly or narrowly. In this case, the market was "general web search advertising" (among others). Who are the consumers in this market? People and companies that want their ads placed where (and to who) it matters.

Exactly. Everybody thinks they're the consumer, but often times consumers are other companies.

The thing I keep coming back to is that everyone needs a job. So unless we all go to work for Google, things that help other companies help the employees of other companies.

Re: DOJ will push Google to sell off Chrome

#879

Post by wrsh07 »

hilbert42 wrote: post #258
st3fan wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

"And that is exactly why Chrome should be broken up/out." Exactly, we saw this with MS's IE 2—3 decades ago. That governments didn't learn from this and let it repeat with Chrome is so damn annoying.

Do we really still think operating systems shouldn't ship with browsers??

I thought that one had been retroactively deemed a pretty silly decision

Re: DOJ will push Google to sell off Chrome

#880

Post by phito »

Rebelgecko wrote: post #877
askvictor wrote: post #872

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Google specifically serves a worse version of Search on Firefox for Mobile. You have to get an extension to get the full experience. What's the difference, and where can I find this extension?

On Firefox, the design of the search results page looks about a decade older. Some people would argue that's a good thing :)

Also I can't get weather information on Google with Firefox
Post reply on HN