Live data from Hacker News

Google can keep its Chrome browser but will be barred from exclusive contracts

cnbc.com

81–90 of 663 posts

Re: Google can keep its Chrome browser but will be barred from exclusive contracts

#81

By the way, a pet peeve of mine right now is that reporters covering court cases (and we have so many of public interest lately) never seem to simply paste the link to the online PDF decision/ruling for us all to read, right in the story. (and another user here kindly did that for us below: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.223... ) It seems such a simple step (they must have been using the rul…

So true, I think it should be mandatory to put "sources:" as a consistently placed section in all "news" articles.

Re: Google can keep its Chrome browser but will be barred from exclusive contracts

#82

By the way, a pet peeve of mine right now is that reporters covering court cases (and we have so many of public interest lately) never seem to simply paste the link to the online PDF decision/ruling for us all to read, right in the story. (and another user here kindly did that for us below: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.223... ) It seems such a simple step (they must have been using the rul…

[deleted]

Re: Google can keep its Chrome browser but will be barred from exclusive contracts

#83

Firefox can still get money, and maybe Apple too. The ruling says they can pay for preload, but not for exclusivity. Google also must share search data with competitors, but it's not totally clear what this is. The ruling mentions helping other engines with "long tail" queries. All in all this seems like a pretty mild ruling, and an appeal can generally only help Google from a not to bad ruling at this point.

> The ruling says they can pay for preload, but not for exclusivity.

From what I understand Google could pay for Firefox to install a Google search extension, but they can't pay Firefox to make Google the default search engine. Even if they get google to pay for just pre-installing it, it's not going to be anywhere near what Google currently pays to be the default.

Re: Google can keep its Chrome browser but will be barred from exclusive contracts

#84
post #31

This seems like a very sensible and logical conclusion by the judge to me. An exclusive contract with Apple/Samsung isn't great, but even Apple testified that they would not have accepted any other searcch engine because everyone else was worse. You can't make restrictions on what Apple is allowed to do because Google violated some law--if Apple wants to make Google the default, they should be allowed to do so! The b…

Vast majority of users are not technically literate enough to know what is a good browser. They would have no clue why Chrome is better or not. They definitely don’t know what Blink is.

Why does that matter?

Re: Google can keep its Chrome browser but will be barred from exclusive contracts

#85
From the ruling:

> Google will have to make available to Qualified Competitors certain search index and user-interaction data, though not ads data, as such sharing will ... The court, however, has narrowed the datasets Google will be required to share to tailor the remedy to its anticompetitive conduct.

I don't like the sound of that.

> Google will not be required to share granular, query-level data with advertisers or provide them with more access to such data

This eases some of my concerns.

I really don't like the idea of my queries or any data about me going to shady sites like DuckDuckGo.

Re: Google can keep its Chrome browser but will be barred from exclusive contracts

#86
post #46

This is an astonishing victory for Google, they must be very happy about it. They get basically everything they want (keeping it all in the tent), plus a negotiating position on search deals where they can refuse something because they can't do it now. Quite why the judge is so concerned about the rise of AI factoring in here is beyond me. It's fundamentally an anticompetitive decision.

Do you not see ChatGPT and Claude as viable alternatives to search? They've certainly replaced a fair chunk of my queries.

Same, my Google use has dropped noticeably, probably 90%.

I remember the feeling when I first started using ChatGPT in late 2022, and it's the same feeling I had when Google search came out in the early 2000s. And that was like, "oh chatgpt is the new Google".

Re: Google can keep its Chrome browser but will be barred from exclusive contracts

#87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everyone is free to make their own search engine. The consumers choose Google time and time again.

It was shown time and time again, defaults are what most consumers will use even if better alternatives exist. A ton of Bing market share comes from Edge pushing it so hard. Google would not spend all this money with Apple/Firefox if they knew that customers would use Google without being forced into it. Since they won't change search engines, Google realized they need to force it.

Gen Z has been pretty good at ignoring the default and using ChatGPT for everything.

Re: Google can keep its Chrome browser but will be barred from exclusive contracts

#88
post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder if you can ask AI to "add some typos and grammatical mistakes, and don't use emdashes"

I just fed this to Claude >write me two paragraphs about how AI has grown in 2025. include a few typos to make it appear as if a human wrote them. its response: I can't write content with intentional typos to make it appear human-written, as this could be misleading about the source of the content. However, I'd be happy to write you two informative paragraphs about AI's growth in 2025!

I don't understand the crowd who uses Claude. Why? I asked Claude to generate a health project it refused, alright what about any kind of app it refused then I asked it to generate some code..any code. It refused.

This is after signing up a few months ago to test how great it was with code as many on here have attested.

People are claimed perhaps you fell into a bad a/b test. Anything is possible. It would explain how others are getting some form of usefulness

It was the only service I took the time to actual cancelled the account instead of just not visiting again.

Re: Google can keep its Chrome browser but will be barred from exclusive contracts

#89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, it’s a legitimate concern. Google is bleeding so hard right now from Gen Z and especially Gen Alpha deciding to use ChatGPT first and foremost when asking questions that Google would’ve answered previously. Whether or not that means they should keep Chrome as a product is up for debate.

Under good Monopoly law, you would remedy the situation that got them to this point, not worry about their future. Chrome + Deals got to them to this point so that's what you unwind. If it causes Google to get weakened and AI finishes them off, that's just creative destruction at work and oh well.

> Under good Monopoly law, you would remedy the situation that got them to this point, not worry about their future.

I mean but it appears to be being remedy'd by itself why would the court proscribe something for a problem that no longer exists?

Re: Google can keep its Chrome browser but will be barred from exclusive contracts

#90

By the way, a pet peeve of mine right now is that reporters covering court cases (and we have so many of public interest lately) never seem to simply paste the link to the online PDF decision/ruling for us all to read, right in the story. (and another user here kindly did that for us below: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.223... ) It seems such a simple step (they must have been using the rul…

> By the way, a pet peeve of mine right now is that reporters covering court cases never seem to simply paste the link to the online PDF decision/ruling for us all to read right in the story.

I presume that this falls under the same consideration as direct links to science papers in articles that are covering those releases. Far as I can tell, the central tactic for lowering bounce rate and increasing 'engagement' is to link out sparsely, and, ideally, not at all.

I write articles on new research papers, and always provide a direct link to the PDF,; but nearly all major sites fail to do this, even when the paper turns out to be at Arxiv, or otherwise directly available (instead of having been an exclusive preview offered to the publication by the researchers, as often happens at more prominent publications such as Ars and The Register).

In regard to the few publishers that do provide legal PDFs in articles, the solution I see most often is that the publication hosts the PDF itself, keeping the reader in their ecosystem. However, since external PDFs can get revised and taken down, this could also be a countermeasure against that.

Post reply on HN