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

Google Being Forced to Sell Chrome Is Not Good for the Web

chriscoyier.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 345 posts

Re: Google Being Forced to Sell Chrome Is Not Good for the Web

#131

Post by mdhb »

mixmastamyk wrote: post #19
matthewdgreen wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let’s not forget the “AI assistant”, which appears to lightly plagiarize the first three results on any topic, while adding some mistakes.

Nor WEI, which Ars Technica described as a "nightmare." The final solution to general purpose computing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_Environment_Integrity

Quoting from Wikipedia here:

The stated goal was for sites to be able to restrict access to human users instead of automated programs and "allow web servers to evaluate the authenticity of the device and honest representation of the software stack and the traffic from the device".

Which on the surface seems like a legitimate use case I have to be honest.

Re: Google Being Forced to Sell Chrome Is Not Good for the Web

#134

Post by bmacho »

fragmede wrote: post #121
tempodox wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or just the keys to total surveillance and suppression of web content they don't like.

Why would they need to do that when they already have the formula down? How much have you been hearing about all the protests?

Why wouldn't they?

Also they have the have the formula because they've already done it. And it works, why wouldn't they want to keep doing it, but more?

Re: Google Being Forced to Sell Chrome Is Not Good for the Web

#135

Post by chneu »

fiddlerwoaroof wrote: post #33
ohso4 wrote: post #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.

There isn’t a business model for a company whose product is just chrome, though. Unless it’s some kind of foundation or non-profit with a sufficient endowment to not need a business model. I’m no fan of Google, but—unless people really want browser subscriptions—I don’t see how you can have a browser company today. They exist better as a byproduct of some other business model.

I would like to point out that your perception of what a browser can/should be is based on what Google has turned browsers into.

What a browser is in 2025 is vastly different from what anyone thought they would ever be. There are major, major issues with the way web engines/web browsers function today and much of those issues stem from Google's near monopoly on browsers.

There was a lot of very interesting and good discussion around this in some of the Mozilla/Firefox threads recently. Mostly about how browsers turned into something they were never meant to be, which has changed the way the internet works and how we interact with it.

Re: Google Being Forced to Sell Chrome Is Not Good for the Web

#136

Post by user3939382 »

wordpad wrote: post #98
int_19h wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And that whole "war on cookies" where they keep pitching replacements that basically let Google (and only Google) do all the same things, so that they can then gatekeep it and pay others for the privilege of accessing some limited subset of that data. Regardless of why Google made Chrome originally, today, the main reason why it exists is to enable Google to track users more efficiently. And that is a bad thing.

Why is tracking a bad thing? It allows better monetization of the web which is good for everyone.

Care to post your browsing history from the last week? Please include private tabs.

Re: Google Being Forced to Sell Chrome Is Not Good for the Web

#137

Post by user3939382 »

mdhb wrote: post #131
mixmastamyk wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nor WEI, which Ars Technica described as a "nightmare." The final solution to general purpose computing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_Environment_Integrity

Quoting from Wikipedia here: The stated goal was for sites to be able to restrict access to human users instead of automated programs and "allow web servers to evaluate the authenticity of the device and honest representation of the software stack and the traffic from the device". Which on the surface seems like a legitimate use case I have to be honest.

It is, just like having an armed policeman permanently stationed in your living room to protect you is a legitimate use case.

Re: Google Being Forced to Sell Chrome Is Not Good for the Web

#138

Post by fumufumu »

xigency wrote: post #2

Arguably, 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…

[dead]

Re: Google Being Forced to Sell Chrome Is Not Good for the Web

#139

Post by amrocha »

chneu wrote: post #135
fiddlerwoaroof wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There isn’t a business model for a company whose product is just chrome, though. Unless it’s some kind of foundation or non-profit with a sufficient endowment to not need a business model. I’m no fan of Google, but—unless people really want browser subscriptions—I don’t see how you can have a browser company today. They exist better as a byproduct of some other business model.

I would like to point out that your perception of what a browser can/should be is based on what Google has turned browsers into. What a browser is in 2025 is vastly different from what anyone thought they would ever be. There are major, major issues with the way web engines/web browsers function today and much of those issues stem from Google's near monopoly on browsers. There was a lot of very interesting and good d…

What do browsers do that they weren’t meant to?

The only thing that comes to mind is password management. But I would also argue that’s a boon for normal users and trust in the web.

Re: Google Being Forced to Sell Chrome Is Not Good for the Web

#140

Post by blfr »

CaffeineLD50 wrote: post #71
fiddlerwoaroof wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, I for one don't want to pay $15/mo for my browser: I'm happy for it to be the complement of some company's product.

Yet you pay for Netflix and your internet and phone bill. But these could be given away by surveillance advertising firms to snoop your watching, surfing, and calling habits. As the saying goes, if the product is free, YOU are the product.

I don't pay for Netflix and a rival good (like ISP infra) is completely different from some compiled computer code (like a browser).
Post reply on HN