Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The DOJ still wants Google to sell off Chrome

wired.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 718 posts

Re: The DOJ still wants Google to sell off Chrome

#231

Post by scarface_74 »

modulus1 wrote: post #159
pclmulqdq wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is an ads company owning a web browser, OS, and search engine, and using that control over how users interact with the internet to outcompete everyone else. You left out Google's raison d'etre from your statement.

MS and Apple have the same thing, they're just less successful. Just a browser and an OS was previously seen as antitrust (and it looks like MS is being anti-competitive in this space still). Just a browser and a search engine can allow anti-competitive behavior. Or just a search engine and an ads platform... The problem is the anti-competitive behavior. Businesses are generally rational actors, so clearly our system…

The US never did anything about Microsoft owning a browser. There was never a browser choice screen in the US and Microsoft was never forced to sell Windows without a browser.

Re: The DOJ still wants Google to sell off Chrome

#232

Post by AshamedCaptain »

ImJamal wrote: post #217
thrance wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How so? They pay almost no taxes, they capture a huge share of the market, they stifle innovation, they regularly engage in anti-user practices... The bottom 90% is owning an ever smaller share of the economy, while the real economy doesn't seem to grow that much.

If a Chinese company has a monopoly you get All those things, minus the US jobs. It seems like you are comparing small companies vs large companies, rather than US vs Chinese.

Cue the uncountable number of Chinese jobs generated by overseas companies / the US monopolies, indirectly or directly....

Re: The DOJ still wants Google to sell off Chrome

#236

Post by hysan »

maxclark wrote: post #132

First I don't believe this is an effective remedy to break up a Google monopoly, but I have no influence on the DOJ. I'm curious though, if Google can no longer pay browsers for search engine traffic what is the business model that will sustain development and advancement in the space? How does a non Google owned Chrome support itself and continue development? What happens to all the applications that rely on Chrome…

> How does a non Google owned Chrome support itself and continue development?

Possibly by trying to find a business model that can support Chrome development just like all other Chromium (and non-Chromium) based browsers?

As much as I loved Chrome when it first came out, I’ve also been well aware that Google’s backing of Chrome (and Chromium) has given it undue advantages in the browser market by effectively making everyone else compete with a loss leader. If Chrome itself cannot sustain its pace of development or even stay alive without the unlimited funding by Google, then I think that is a good thing and proof that it acting as a monopoly. Forcing Chrome to balance product velocity with revenue constraints evens the field amongst all browsers.

(edit: If Google killing competition by injecting unlimited funding into a project without needing to make a profit sounds familiar, it’s because they’ve done this for a long time. The often cited example being Google Reader.)

Re: The DOJ still wants Google to sell off Chrome

#237

Post by scarface_74 »

geor9e wrote: post #140
nickthegreek wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Safari and Firefox are capable web browsers. Where do people get this outlandish take from?

Capable is a interesting word choice. Capable means something meets a bare minimum for success. A and B are great. C is fantastic. D is arguably first class. E is capable. When making a free choice, I want the best one, so any lackluster review feels like one of those southern backhanded compliments, getting the message across without insulting it in polite company. Capable perfectly describes my feelings towards Fir…

Seeing that Safari doesn’t drain my battery on my laptop and it doesn’t send my search engine to an adtech company…

Re: The DOJ still wants Google to sell off Chrome

#238

Post by cyanydeez »

mattlondon wrote: post #235

So they sell Chrome today and create Ghrome tomorrow? I can't see Chrome surviving as a standalone product - where is the revenue? I am sure someone will buy it and try to create some "premium" version, but ultimately it will wither and die I expect.

I assume Oracle will buy it and start threatening to change APIs and then sell a enterprise version

Re: The DOJ still wants Google to sell off Chrome

#239

Post by dathery »

flanked-evergl wrote: post #143
pclmulqdq wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is an ads company owning a web browser, OS, and search engine, and using that control over how users interact with the internet to outcompete everyone else. You left out Google's raison d'etre from your statement.

That is not what is happening. I use Android, Chrome, and Google Search because the alternatives are quite poor. All of those things work better with alternatives than any competition. Android is the most open mobile OS, Chrome is the most open and non-coercive browser, Google Search works great with all other OS's and browsers.

Isn't "monopolies suppress competition" one of the classic reasons people think they should be broken up? I'm not saying you have to agree with that theory, but just observing a current lack of competition doesn't by itself seem like an argument against breakup.

Re: The DOJ still wants Google to sell off Chrome

#240

Post by seam_carver »

loeg wrote: post #199
Tuna-Fish wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

chrome no longer supports effective ad-blocking extensions.

Sort of. MV3 is less effective than MV2, sure. But it is not wholly useless. uBlock Origin Lite exists.

uBO Lite seems to sufficient for like 99% of my usage. Only certain websites I'll open up in FireFox with UBO full.
Post reply on HN