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

211–220 of 345 posts

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

#211

Post by hackerbob »

If Google has to sell Chrome what stops another buyer from being even more profit maximizing then Google. What if a private equity firm like Silver Lake buys it?

Some will say well the free market will do its thing and people will just switch. The problem is Chrome has a 60-70% market share. And like it or not anyone that is a professional developer will be at the mercy of this new buyer because like them or not they will own 60%+ browser market share overnight.

Anyone who was old enough to remember what web development was in the 2000s and early 2010s remembers that was not a smooth or enjoyable transition going from IE to Firefox to Chrome. I remember those years it was the Dark Ages of desktop internet browsing.

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

#212

Post by protimewaster »

CaffeineLD50 wrote: post #64
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.

Browsers aren't a product because massive companies give it away and destroy the market. If any product was given away by massively rich companies there would be "no market" for it, because it was destroyed .

Massive companies give away operating systems, but there seems to still be a market for them, so I don't think this statement is universally true.

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

#213

Post by thfuran »

charcircuit wrote: post #126
thomassmith65 wrote: post #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. This is a panglossian take that belongs in the year 2005. 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…

Advertising is a monetization modal. That's like saying that resteraunts are just credit card swiping businesses. Chrome is similar to other apps like X, Instagram, or YouTube. You click on the app. You are given a way to discover content and ads are shown along side that content. When you click on a site / post there can also be ads. Maximizing engagement on the web, means people will discover more content, which me…

>Advertising is a monetization modal. That's like saying that resteraunts are just credit card swiping businesses.

Ads aren't the mechanism through which Google receives payment, they're what Google is paid for. The actual claim your analogy matches is that Google is just an online credit card processing business. But nobody makes that claim.

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

#214

Post by acdha »

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?

Things are going to get more heated as the voluntary economic downturn heats up. The current protests get some coverage but we’re starting to see even the loyalists realize that they won’t be spared, and that is likely to increase protests considerably.

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

#215

Post by fao_ »

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.

> "allow web servers to evaluate the authenticity of the device and honest representation of the software stack and the traffic from the device".

That's not in the purview of a web server to do that, and quickly falls into the territory of violating 'neutrality' and 'anti-compete' territory. (i.e. it should not be possible for Apple or Microsoft servers to show content only to Microsoft or Apple devices, because that violates the law, it prevents competing software vendors from being compatible with them).

It is strictly not appropriate for every single web server that my browser contacts to audit my software stack, just like if a bank phones me up randomly it's not appropriate for them to verify who I am — the burden is on the web server to validate and confirm that it's identity and software stack is correct, instead.

The job of a web server is to truthfully serve it's content and not to butcher or malform that content, just like a librarian. Imagine if you had to take your birth certificate and pictures of your flat's security system to a library every time you wanted to borrow a book!

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

#216

Post by danaris »

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.

If Chrome cannot succeed on its own, but under Google it is an oppressive force taking over the vast majority of web marketshare, that is a textbook case for antitrust action. That is Google using its dominance in one market (search, advertising) to expand into and dominate another market (web browsers).

If a hypothetical Chrome Corp. couldn't figure out how to use the exact same data Google is harvesting with the browser to at least move in the direction of profitability, then they're hypothetically idiots.

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

#217

Post by danaris »

beeflet wrote: post #78
thomassmith65 wrote: post #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. This is a panglossian take that belongs in the year 2005. 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 'what is good for the web is good for Google' line certainly was true in 2005 when the greatest threat to the web was companies like microsoft using internet explorer to adjust the de-facto web standards and privatize it in the "EEE" fashion. Obviously the most visited websites would maintain the web better than OS vendors, their buisness depended on it being open. We have a similar situation now, but with google…

> The 'what is good for the web is good for Google' line certainly was true in 2005

...But even then, it did not follow that "what is good for Google is good for the web".

Just because 2005!Google does something that improves its situation doesn't mean that's automatically good for all of us, even if stuff that improves the web for all of us makes 2005!Google's situation better as a side effect.

And 2025!Google is definitely not in that position. At this point, what's good for the web is only good for Google if it fits with Google's own plans and enhances their control.

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

#218

Post by vips7L »

tim333 wrote: post #171
wordofx wrote: post #5

If 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.

They aren't that bad. Out of the FAANG lot Facebook, Amazon, Apple, Netflix, and Google they are probably the one I'm happiest with. Facebook have gone crazy with ads, Apple are expensive, Amazon and Netflix are pushy for money. Google on the other hand has provided me with a lot of services I use daily for 20 or so years without really bugging me or trying to screw me over. They are not preventing adblock, just forc…

Google has happily provided you with those services because they are stealing your data and invading your privacy secretly behind your back for 20 years. Everything Google does is to steal more info about you.

It’s baffling that you’re unhappy with companies wanting you to pay for their product. Yes Netflix increases their prices and wants to prevent you from sharing your account, but they’re not scanning every single email you’ve ever received or making the web worse for everyone to collect more data about you.

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

#219

Post by bloppe »

npodbielski wrote: post #207

I started reading this article and was immediately hit how biased it seems, like in this meme 'leave multi-bilion dollar corporation alone'. Unfortunetelly we are in the times when any split of any of those multi-bilion dollar corp would be greatly benefiting humanity as a whole. How many people are taking their profits really? Hundreds? Thousands maybe? And that is it. What humanity have from existence of those? Lik…

I'm not sure about having them "pretty soon", but what do you think AI, self driving cars and androids are for if not to alleviate people of work?

Better health care is a tough one, I'll give you that.

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

#220

Post by Jensson »

danaris wrote: post #216
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.

If Chrome cannot succeed on its own, but under Google it is an oppressive force taking over the vast majority of web marketshare, that is a textbook case for antitrust action. That is Google using its dominance in one market (search, advertising) to expand into and dominate another market (web browsers). If a hypothetical Chrome Corp. couldn't figure out how to use the exact same data Google is harvesting with the br…

> If a hypothetical Chrome Corp. couldn't figure out how to use the exact same data Google is harvesting with the browser to at least move in the direction of profitability, then they're hypothetically idiots.

Selling that data to the government and other corporations is user hostile though, and that is exactly what is going to happen when Google is forced to sell.

I can see why the government would love this though so it makes sense they pursue this hard now,

Post reply on HN