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

291–300 of 718 posts

Re: The DOJ still wants Google to sell off Chrome

#291

Post by crop_rotation »

cosmic_cheese wrote: post #290
crop_rotation wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Manifest v3 is not even breaking any standards. This is like saying Google should not make any changes to their browser as any forks will not be able to maintain any divergence. All forks are free to keep manifest v2. Off course maintaining a browser is expensive, but that doesn't mean Google has to foot the bill for everyone and everything.

> All forks are free to keep manifest v2. In theory, yes. In reality, the more diverged forks become from mainstream the more expensive they become to maintain, until eventually it becomes entirely unsustainable. With the sheer number of Chrome patches Google churns out, the level of divergence where maintainence becomes overwhelming is actually pretty low. It’s like trying to handle Niagara Falls with a Solo cup. So…

By that logic google can not make any changes to their browser unless all forks agree to it, as the forks will definitely not be able to continue maintenance for long. By this logic it makes more and more sense to not open source anything and keep your product as tightly closed as possible (what Apple/MSFT have been doing).

Re: The DOJ still wants Google to sell off Chrome

#292

Post by colinplamondon »

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.

- Google pays Firefox ~$500M/year for 2.5% market share, 65% market share should get a healthy annual payout for default search status.

- A pure focus on web browser monetization could lead to some interesting enterprise options. Presumably there'll be a lot of attempts to leverage Chromium, and an aggressive fork at some point.

- As AI proliferates, can they pull additional revenue by getting revshare from subscription AI products, alongside SEM? Or even revshare?

This could also change the calculus for Apple building a search engine. If they could get an independent Chrome to sign on, with some data sharing provisions to help with development, they'd have a huge leg-up.

Alternatively, maybe they try to create a fusion of search results and AI from a variety of providers, so they can monetize SERPs themselves.

Revenue seems incredibly strong. My question would be whether they could get back to aggressive product execution, given the size of the codebase.

Re: The DOJ still wants Google to sell off Chrome

#293

Post by colinplamondon »

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…

- Google pays Firefox ~$500M/year for 2.5% market share, 65% market share should get a healthy annual payout for default search status.

- A pure focus on web browser monetization could lead to some interesting enterprise options. Presumably there'll be a lot of attempts to leverage Chromium, and an aggressive fork at some point.

- As AI proliferates, can they pull additional revenue by getting revshare from subscription AI products, alongside SEM? Or even revshare?

This could also change the calculus for Apple building a search engine. If they could get an independent Chrome to sign on, with some data sharing provisions to help with development, they'd have a huge leg-up.

Alternatively, maybe they try to create a fusion of search results and AI from a variety of providers, so they can monetize SERPs themselves.

My question would be whether they could get back to aggressive product execution, given the size of the codebase. Acq

Re: The DOJ still wants Google to sell off Chrome

#294

Post by colinplamondon »

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…

- Google pays Firefox ~$500M/year for 2.5% market share, 65% market share should get a healthy annual payout for default search status.

- A pure focus on web browser monetization could lead to some interesting enterprise options. Presumably there'll be a lot of attempts to leverage Chromium, and an aggressive fork at some point.

- As AI proliferates, can they pull additional revenue by getting revshare from subscription AI products, alongside SEM? Or even revshare on the SEM clicks themselves?

This could also change the calculus for Apple building a search engine. If they could get an independent Chrome to sign on, with some data sharing provisions to help with development, they'd have a huge leg-up.

Alternatively, maybe they try to create a fusion of search results and AI from a variety of providers, so they can monetize SERPs themselves.

My question would be whether they could get back to aggressive product execution, given the size of the codebase. Acquiring the Browser Company would make a lot of sense.

Re: The DOJ still wants Google to sell off Chrome

#295

Post by cosmic_cheese »

crop_rotation wrote: post #291
cosmic_cheese wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> All forks are free to keep manifest v2. In theory, yes. In reality, the more diverged forks become from mainstream the more expensive they become to maintain, until eventually it becomes entirely unsustainable. With the sheer number of Chrome patches Google churns out, the level of divergence where maintainence becomes overwhelming is actually pretty low. It’s like trying to handle Niagara Falls with a Solo cup. So…

By that logic google can not make any changes to their browser unless all forks agree to it, as the forks will definitely not be able to continue maintenance for long. By this logic it makes more and more sense to not open source anything and keep your product as tightly closed as possible (what Apple/MSFT have been doing).

It’s explicitly changes that are a net negative for users and privacy (e.g. manifest v3) or try to circumvent the web standards process (e.g. WebUSB) that are problematic and would be of interest to forks. Most changes are fine.

Re: The DOJ still wants Google to sell off Chrome

#296

Post by loeg »

asadotzler wrote: post #279
loeg wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't really know if they would be allowed to divest the IP but retain the developers. Maybe!

Of course they could. They could just cancel Chrome, shut the whole browser down and reassign all the staff, and the DOJ would be fine with that. Cancelling it, or selling while keeping 100% of the employees are in no way counter to the proposed remedies.

We don’t know what proposals the court will accept.

Re: The DOJ still wants Google to sell off Chrome

#297

Post by cvhc »

hysan wrote: post #236
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 e…

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

What would this business model be like, if, say, Google Chrome is eliminated?

As a reference, in China, very few people use Chrome because Google services are blocked. There are tons of third-party or vendor preinstalled browsers that bundles with bloatwares, put ads/clickbaits on every new tab, and spy on users. I'm pretty sure they are more sustainable than Firefox, former Opera, etc. But that's certainly a privacy dystopia :)

Re: The DOJ still wants Google to sell off Chrome

#298

Post by Jensson »

MyOutfitIsVague wrote: post #194
nfw2 wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the past, too many competing browsers resulted in a frustrating experience for web application developers. Does Google have undue influence now? Sure. But I’m not so sanguine about the alternatives either.

It was more than just too many competing browsers, from what I understand. It was a few competing browsers that interpreted standards completely different, and a standards body that was slow enough to be completely ineffective. I'd argue that the main problem was not too much competition, but effective anti-competitive behavior (and simple laziness) from Microsoft in particular. The frustrating experience was primari…

We will move back to a worse version of that when Microsoft buys Chrome, since now Google aren't allowed to compete in this space.

Re: The DOJ still wants Google to sell off Chrome

#299

Post by rootsudo »

cvhc wrote: post #297
hysan wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 e…

> Possibly by trying to find a business model that can support Chrome development just like all other Chromium (and non-Chromium) based browsers? What would this business model be like, if, say, Google Chrome is eliminated? As a reference, in China, very few people use Chrome because Google services are blocked. There are tons of third-party or vendor preinstalled browsers that bundles with bloatwares, put ads/clickb…

That's how it used to be, or did everyone forget Google Toolbar? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Toolbar It sucked in IE days.

But, it also goes back to browsers being built by the operating system, that was also a no-no, e.g. MSFT / IE.

Browsers then shouldn't be a profit center, but ironically google starting chrome made it one and then defined web standards. IE afaik wasn't a profit center, and MSFT hedged outsourcing all dev costs to practically google and forking it offically to Edge, lol.

Re: The DOJ still wants Google to sell off Chrome

#300

Post by j16sdiz »

colinplamondon wrote: post #293
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…

- Google pays Firefox ~$500M/year for 2.5% market share, 65% market share should get a healthy annual payout for default search status. - A pure focus on web browser monetization could lead to some interesting enterprise options. Presumably there'll be a lot of attempts to leverage Chromium, and an aggressive fork at some point. - As AI proliferates, can they pull additional revenue by getting revshare from subscript…

> - Google pays Firefox ~$500M/year for 2.5% market share, 65% market share should get a healthy annual payout for default search status.

Actually, this is hardly healthy. Firefox feel this single source of can be deprived anytime that they tried many other alternative -- like VPN, partnership with pockets, some sponsor ad on tab selection, and even selling some data

Other browsers go even further..

Post reply on HN