Google Being Forced to Sell Chrome Is Not Good for the Web
chriscoyier.net
Google Being Forced to Sell Chrome Is Not Good for the Web
1–10 of 345 posts
Re: Google Being Forced to Sell Chrome Is Not Good for the Web
#2Arguably, Google divesting Chrome would be great for the web. This piece seems to be looking at Google at large (and I think all of Alphabet would be better scope there).
Certainly this would be unpopular here but I would be all for aggressive trust-busting beyond what the DOJ has done historically, including vertical integrations.
Right now tech is a strange feudal state with hundreds of thousands of small teams anchored to a few hydra-like super-corporations on a consuming destructive rampage. Somehow, with the most advanced computer and technological systems to ever be known by man, we're looking to increase working hours and cut benefits, for "profits" that are not quite realized by the labor class or the end users.
Gonna be interesting to see what happens. I know Wall Street will place their bets for what they want to happen right along side what's obviously going to shake out once the market becomes 'rational.'
Re: Google Being Forced to Sell Chrome Is Not Good for the Web
#3Alphabet tried to kill adblock in Chrome, so...
Re: Google Being Forced to Sell Chrome Is Not Good for the Web
#4We can always use Chromium https://www.chromium.org/chromium-projects/
This is like if Microsoft was forced to sell Edge or Apple sold Safari.
I am thinking of switching from Chrome to Brave https://brave.com/
Re: Google Being Forced to Sell Chrome Is Not Good for the Web
#5If Google wasn’t such a trash company and using chrome to drive more revenue by farming data and preventing adblocks then no one would have a problem with chrome.
Re: Google Being Forced to Sell Chrome Is Not Good for the Web
#6Alphabet tried to kill adblock in Chrome, so...
not good for their wallet apparently
Re: Google Being Forced to Sell Chrome Is Not Good for the Web
#7Arguably, Google divesting Chrome would be great for the web. This piece seems to be looking at Google at large (and I think all of Alphabet would be better scope there). Certainly this would be unpopular here but I would be all for aggressive trust-busting beyond what the DOJ has done historically, including vertical integrations. Right now tech is a strange feudal state with hundreds of thousands of small teams anc…
The administration doesn’t give a shit about the web, and DOJ is a fully political entity. They’ll extort Google for whatever concession they want, and Chrome will remain.
Re: Google Being Forced to Sell Chrome Is Not Good for the Web
#8This one struck me as a weird one as browser waves come and go and I feel like opera is the big swell rising at the moment anyway. The competitive component is there and alive and well.
What happens when this artificial friction causes chrome to lose network effect faster than natural, and we are ironically left with a different monopoly?
Re: Google Being Forced to Sell Chrome Is Not Good for the Web
#9> Users don’t pay for Chrome. There aren’t ads in Chrome. There is no direct business model for Chrome. Unlike Safari and Firefox, nobody writes checks to Chrome to make a certain search engine the default.
They track you. There IS a business model for Chrome: monetizing user data.
Re: Google Being Forced to Sell Chrome Is Not Good for the Web
#10 Google is a web business, that’s their whole thing. They made a browser to invest in the web itself because what is good for the web is good for Google, and happens to be good for all of us.
Google is less a 'web business' than it is an 'advertising business', a 'surveillance business', and a 'finance business'.
Consequently, it is false that 'what is good for the web is good for Google'. AMP, and the Ad-blocking prohibition are evidence of this.