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

951–960 of 1001 posts

Re: DOJ will push Google to sell off Chrome

#951

Post by ColinHayhurst »

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…

Mojeek CEO here: Our business model is our paid API and contextual, no-tracking ads.

Re: DOJ will push Google to sell off Chrome

#952

Post by niutech »

criddell wrote: post #713
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?

> What do you think will happen if Google is forced to divest Chrome? The new Chrome company will struggle for a year or two then Apple will try to buy it but lose out after Oracle submits a higher bid.

Did you know that Oracle used to have its own web browser PowerBrowser? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oracle_PowerBrowser

Re: DOJ will push Google to sell off Chrome

#953

Post by yung_steezy »

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…

Apple are creating a walled marketing garden with their new privacy features too. If a person pays for iCloud storage of any time they get placed onto the Apple VPN and their IP address resolves one of two or three different values for any given country.

This makes web tracking and attribution impossible to anyone who is not Apple. Users might be happy with it but I think it is similar anti-competitive behaviour to what Google are doing.

Re: DOJ will push Google to sell off Chrome

#954

Post by oars »

somethoughts wrote: post #163
bityard wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the most chaotic alternate reality possible: Mozilla

Interestingly if I recall correctly a lot of the original talent for Chrome/Chromium originally worked at Mozilla and were poached by Google. [1] [1] https://www.niallkennedy.com/blog/2008/09/google-chrome.html...

This is such a valuable article from 2008. I've archived it here: https://archive.is/hVove

Re: DOJ will push Google to sell off Chrome

#955

Post by Ferret7446 »

titzer wrote: post #736

The conflict of interest between owning search , being a provider of user identity/login , and effectively owning the entire internet ads marketplace , and being a provider of the "user agent" (remember when people thought of that way!?) is immense. This should have happened years ago. TBF, I worked in Chrome almost 7 years and I didn't see anything outright nefarious. I don't know how user-hostile decisions (like br…

But there's no vendor lock-in from providing the user agent. It only costs a few minutes to switch to a different browser. The problem is other browsers suck, through no fault of Chrome (other than setting the bar high).

Re: DOJ will push Google to sell off Chrome

#956

Post by illiac786 »

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…

The problem is not that it integrates well with google products, the problem is that they are preventing other products from integrating as well.

Re: DOJ will push Google to sell off Chrome

#957

Post by user_7832 »

conductr wrote: post #925
wrsh07 wrote: post #876

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I tend to agree. I struggle to understand how a company runs a browser product without being eventually seen as a monopoly. They’re making a unique product ecosystem of browser and apps, just like everyone else, no need to keep coming down on whoever is successful at it. People can vote with their feet and use a dozen other options.

> I struggle to understand how a company runs a browser product without being eventually seen as a monopoly.

Just like for example how a car company can make cars without being a monopoly. Not the best example, but we’re so used to a monopoly it’s tough to imagine what a competitive browser market would look like.

Re: DOJ will push Google to sell off Chrome

#958

Post by wrsh07 »

fzzzy wrote: post #915
wrsh07 wrote: post #876

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

They didn't build it from the ground up

Fair correction, but they didn't acquire the most popular browser company or something

Re: DOJ will push Google to sell off Chrome

#959

Post by AlienRobot »

ColinHayhurst wrote: post #951
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…

Mojeek CEO here: Our business model is our paid API and contextual, no-tracking ads.

Interesting, when I was taking a look at alternative search engines I tried Mojeek and I never saw a single ad, so I assumed it had no way to make money (just like Wiby).

But where are the ads?

I just searched for "best cars 2024." Not a single ad. "Insurance lawyers," no ads. "Best keyboard," no ads.

Maybe the reason why this happens is because I'm not from the US/EU/UK?

Also when I use a search operator, like "insurance lawyers" surrounded by double quotes, I get a 403 forbidden error because I appear "to be sending automated queries so we can't process your search at this time." To me, that means Mojeek won't let me use it as a search engine.

Re: DOJ will push Google to sell off Chrome

#960

Post by devnullbrain »

throwinothrside wrote: post #932
devnullbrain wrote: post #910

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 comp…

Nor am I advocating that these companies take it over.

If it can't stand on its own, it's not competing fairly.

Post reply on HN