961–970 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How about this: sell the browser to the entreprise [1] and use the profit to offer the browser to the public for free, which in turns helps you secure a user base. [1] https://www.island.io/
So the browser isn't open source then. Sounds like a net loss for the public good.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> browsers aren't really a self funding product They are, see how both Safari and Firefox, the 2nd and 3rd most popular browsers, have brought in tens of billions of revenue per year. Safari is immensely profitable, Firefox too would be if Mozilla wouldn't be run in an absurdly poor manner. > the user gains a huge amount of value by a browser being integrated into the OS, webviews in other applications, etc What is t…
> Safari is immensely profitable The exact way Safari itself is immensely profitable is under scruity in this exact DOJ case!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> browsers aren't really a self funding product They are, see how both Safari and Firefox, the 2nd and 3rd most popular browsers, have brought in tens of billions of revenue per year. Safari is immensely profitable, Firefox too would be if Mozilla wouldn't be run in an absurdly poor manner. > the user gains a huge amount of value by a browser being integrated into the OS, webviews in other applications, etc What is t…
Please provide proof that Firefox has "brought in tens of billions of revenue per year".
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?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> - 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.) I have yet to see evidence that Google uses browser sync data for advertising. Go do something in chrome (look for cruises maybe), then delete the activity from myactivity.google.com, th…
>I have yet to see evidence that Google uses browser sync data for advertising. Then you probably don't get out much: https://www.theverge.com/2024/5/31/24167119/google-search-al... Another major point highlighted by Fishkin and King relates to how Google may use Chrome data in its search rankings. Google Search representatives have said that they don’t use anything from Chrome for ranking, but the leaked documents s…
It could be marked as chrome because Firefox doesn’t support it (without a default-off config value) and Safari technically implemented it at a later date than Chrome, with non-chromium Edge supporting it years after chrome.
This would indicate Google is using chrome to tell it when (via its support of the ping property) but wouldn’t indicate they are decrypting and analyzing chrome sync data.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 Micro…
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…
The problem is not that it integrates well with google products, the problem is that they are preventing other products from integrating as well.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Any potential buyer will have to be looking to use Chrome to accomplish the same kinds of synergies that Google is using it for, to get ahead in some adjacent market. Depending on the buyer that could be good for competition, at least in the short term, but it's not clear that it will be better for us as users.
Hypothetically, why would some buyer using Chrome's monopoly to establish a market advantage in an adjacent domain be different than Google using Chrome's monopoly to establish a market advantage in an adjacent domain?
After the separation, Google won’t have an incentive to promote Chrome - so it’ll lose market share eventually, and Chrome won’t have an incentive to require things like Google accounts or use Google search by default - opening space for other companies to compete.