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

931–940 of 1001 posts

Re: DOJ will push Google to sell off Chrome

#931

Post by ycombinatrix »

consumer451 wrote: post #110
hinkley wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn’t Google refusing to make changes that boost online privacy because it’ll tank their ad revenue?

Isn't it even worse than that? Didn't they make changes via Manifest v3, which will not allow me to follow the FBI's advisory about using ad blockers, to make sure their ad revenue does not decline? I do realize you can still use uBlock, but my understanding is that updates will be slow rolled, correct? Doesn't this open the window to malicious people to serve me mal-ads?

>I do realize you can still use uBlock

No, you can't. You can use "uBlock origin lite" which is the manifest v3 version that doesn't work correctly.

Re: DOJ will push Google to sell off Chrome

#932

Post by throwinothrside »

devnullbrain wrote: post #910
throwinothrside wrote: post #528

I have a feeling this will get worse. I can think of these companies which have the resources to take over Chrome - Amazon, Microsoft, Oracle, Apple and Facebook. I can't see anybody else. They are all monopolies and is gonna screw it up big time for us consumers.

>I can think of these companies which have the resources to take over Chrome... Exactly, who on Earth could build a competitor? You're describing the problem! The ability to take stunning losses each year without worry, knowing that it pays dividends in the value to search, ensures competition can't flourish. So it is anti-competitive.

I am definitely not a google fan here. In fact a privacy nerd. But if they sell it off like this, it will hurt consumers more.

We need to make Google play by the rules so that we can set an example for the rest. Not recreate the same problem with another company so that we will have to do the same after a decade all over again.

Cos at that point, nothing will change for the consumers except the brand logo of the company that is doing crazy things.

Re: DOJ will push Google to sell off Chrome

#933

Post by ycombinatrix »

pthatcherg wrote: post #930
ycombinatrix wrote: post #929

Earlier quoted context omitted.

libwebrtc not good

Why don't you like libwebrtc? There's a lot of good stuff in there.

i like webRTC as a technology but it seriously bothered me that any random website can get all my local IP addresses by default.

which dunce at Google was responsible for that?

Re: DOJ will push Google to sell off Chrome

#934

Post by tristan957 »

wrsh07 wrote: post #876
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 contra…

Chrome allows Google to control the web platform to benefit their Ads business.

Re: DOJ will push Google to sell off Chrome

#935

Post by bloppe »

First, it's important to keep a clear view of what's actually for sale here. Chromium is an open source project that already forms the basis of other browsers (most prominently Edge and Brave) and does not include all the weird Google stuff that the the DOJ takes issue with (tracking for ads, special privileges for Google websites, etc.). Chrome is basically a thin layer of shittiness on top of Chromium. That thin layer of shittiness is what's for sale. Its entire value is derived from the fact that it's already dominant. So whoever buys it is effectively buying that user base, but not much of a technical moat to keep them all in.

Who might buy it? I can list them:

- Apple

- Microsoft

That's it. Turns out you can't properly invest in a Browser without conflicts of interest. Apple might buy it to help drive more users toward the App Store. Microsoft might buy it for similar, all-too-familiar reasons. They both have the funds and incentives to want this massive "captive" audience, and the means to exploit it, and I can't think of anybody else who would care enough to bid much.

So what would happen to Google? That's the real question. Seems like the point is not selling anything. The point is to ban Google from having influence over any web browser. I wonder if Judge Mehta will be able to craft an effective order to that end.

Re: DOJ will push Google to sell off Chrome

#936

Post by GoblinSlayer »

sebastiennight wrote: post #892
GoblinSlayer wrote: post #827

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>browsers aren't really a self funding product You can use Firefox 3, programs don't rot.

Not really true... In this specific case I'd be willing to bet that Firefox 3 probably doesn't handle current HTTPS/TLS standards and might not be able to browser the modern Internet at all (let alone display modern webpages, HTML5 video players, single-page web apps, WebRTC live calls, etc.)

>HTTPS/TLS

Put it behind privoxy. All those SPA blogs exist solely due to google. No google - no SPA.

Re: DOJ will push Google to sell off Chrome

#937

Post by throwaway888889 »

niutech wrote: post #555
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…

How does splitting off Chrome as a separate company solve anything? They would still rely on Google for funding (like Mozilla) and being close friends they would do whatever Alphabet tells them to do. A better solution is to implement a bill like DMA in the EU to enforce competition among web browser vendors and fight monopolies.

Look at the effects of breaking up the bells into smaller companies....

Re: DOJ will push Google to sell off Chrome

#938

Post by paraknight »

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…

The APIs thing: it's not just Chrome, but Chromium too. I first noticed this when trying to replicate some of the screen sharing UI (buttons to share different things) from Google Meet, only to find that no non-Google domains have access to those APIs in the Chromium source code. Made a huge deal about it but nobody seemed to care.

Re: DOJ will push Google to sell off Chrome

#939

Post by Ferret7446 »

throwaway888889 wrote: post #937
niutech wrote: post #555

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does splitting off Chrome as a separate company solve anything? They would still rely on Google for funding (like Mozilla) and being close friends they would do whatever Alphabet tells them to do. A better solution is to implement a bill like DMA in the EU to enforce competition among web browser vendors and fight monopolies.

Look at the effects of breaking up the bells into smaller companies....

Which of the bells provided a valuable free product that could only be funded via other product revenue streams?

Re: DOJ will push Google to sell off Chrome

#940

Post by Ferret7446 »

rawgabbit wrote: post #718
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…

The issue is who controls Chromium. I would create a non profit and staff it with a handful of maintainers. Their primary job would be to ensure safety and squash exploits. Their other job is to curate and approve pull requests from volunteers for enhancements. They should make it open source with the caveat if it is used for commercial purposes, there will be a licensing fee to pay for security enhancements, bug bou…

Whoever contributes to it controls Chromium.

If 90% of the contributors were non-Google, then it would effectively be controlled by non-Google, because they could fork it and their fork would still get 90% of development.

See Terraform for a live example.

The only reason Google "controls" Chromium is because Google funds almost, but not quite, 100% of its development.

On a similar note, there's nothing stopping Microsoft from investing equal or greater amounts and forking Chromium (well, arguably they might already have with Edge). Except that they're benefiting from all of Google's investment, for free. Why turn down a massive developer investment from your competitor with no strings attached?

Post reply on HN