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

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

cnbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 663 posts

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

#211

Post by dragonwriter »

azemetre wrote: post #151
dragonwriter wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, the actual remedy is not yet decided in detail (though sharing some search data is going to be part of it), this ruling was basically setting some parameters of what is on and off the table and then ordering the parties to meet on details before further court action.

Unless the remedy is that Google's online ads has to be spun out into a separate company away from their control, I don't see how any remedy can be effective. What can honestly be done to punish them? I mean punish too, certain entities of Google should not exist.

This article and ruling relate to the search antitrust case, not the adtech antitrust case.

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

#212

Post by supernova87a »

1vuio0pswjnm7 wrote: post #210
supernova87a wrote: post #56

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…

"Why is it up to the judge versus the FTC or whoever to propose?" The data sharing remedy and other remedies were not the judge's proposals. They were proposed by the parties.

yup, I just saw that in reading the ruling in more detail.

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

#213

Post by hangonhn »

ElijahLynn wrote: post #86
jonas21 wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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".

Same feeling for me as well. It was like the old Google where it lead you to the right answer. ChatGPT is similar but in some ways smoother because it's conversational. I think most days I don't even use Google at all.

That said their "Dive into AI" feature has cause me to use it more lately.

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

#214

Post by skrtskrt »

rafram wrote: post #185
supernova87a wrote: post #56

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…

I’ve noticed this in New York Times articles in the last couple years. Articles are heavily interlinked now - most “keyword” terms will link to a past article on the same topic - but the links rarely leave the Times’ site. The only exception is when they need to refer back to a prior story that they didn’t cover, but that another publication did. Sources are almost never linked; when they are, it’s to a PDF embed on…

It's also a political tool.

About a year ago when the NYTimes wrote an article called liked "Who really gets to declare if there is famine in Gaza?", the conclusions of the article were that "well boy it sure is complicated but Gaza is not officially in famine". I found the conclusion and wording suspect.

I went looking to see if they would like to the actual UN and World Food Program reports. The official conclusions were that significant portions of Gaza were already officially in famine, but that not all of Gaza was. The rest of Gaza was just one or two levels below famine, but those levels are called like "Food Emergency" or whatever.

Essentially those lower levels were what any lay person would probably call a famine, but the Times did not mention the other levels or that parts were in the famine level - just that "Gaza is not in famine".

To get to the actual report took 5 or 6 hard-to-find backlinks through other NYTimes articles. Each article loaded with further NYTimes links making it unlikely you'd ever find the real one.

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

#215

Post by cosmic_cheese »

It’s surprising that the proven conflict of interest posed by other departments driving Chrome team decisions was allowed to stand. I would’ve expected at minimum for Google to be required to keep Chrome/Blink as siloed off from the rest of the company as is practically possible.

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

#217

Post by joshu »

supernova87a wrote: post #56

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…

for what it’s worth, reporters don’t get to include links in their articles. Usually the web producer does it.

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

#218

Post by dragonwriter »

supernova87a wrote: post #56

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…

> I am not too familiar with antitrust precedent, but to what extent does the judge rule on how specific the data sharing need to be (what types of data, for what time span, how anonymized, etc. etc.) or appoint a special master? Why is that up to the judge versus the FTC or whoever to propose?

The judge doesn't propose, he rules on what the parties propose, and that can be an iterative process in complex cases. E.g.. in this case, he has set some parameters in this ruling, and set a date by which the parties need to meet on the details within those parameters.

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

#219

Post by A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 »

andrewstuart wrote: post #106

This is great news. Chrome is the most sophisticated and awesome software ever built, next to Linux. It leads and drives web innovation. Don’t get me wrong - my main drive is Firefox but googles investment in Chrome benefits every single player in the internet.

Heh. I will make a quick prediction. If you think generic HN-crowd opinion of Google was low today, I can now basically guarantee you that it will be much, much lower a year from now based on nothing other than Google's behavior prior to this ruling ( effectively barring side loading for most users ). Now all bets are off. So is it great news? For investors? Yes. For everyone else, mmmmmm, nop.

Edit: I am ignoring your point, because I honestly can't take it seriously.

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

#220

Post by bigstrat2003 »

IshKebab wrote: post #116
stackskipton wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Feels like judge was looking for any excuse not to apply harsh penalty and since Google brought up AI as competitor, the judge accepted it as acceptable excuse for very minor penalty.

AI is a competitor. You know how StackOverflow is dead because AI provided an alternative? That's happening in search too. You might think "but ChatGPT isn't a search engine", and that's true. It can't handle all queries you might use a search engine for, e.g. if you want to find a particular website. But there are many many queries that it can handle. Here's just a few from my recent history: * How do I load a share…

I don't agree that ChatGPT gives an overall better experience than Google, let alone an actual good search engine like Kagi. It's very rare that I need to ask something in plain English because I just don't know what the keywords are, so the one edge the LLM might have is moot. Meanwhile, because it bullshits a lot (not just sometimes, a lot), I can't trust anything it tells me. At least with a search engine I can figure out if a given site is reliable or not, with the LLM I have no idea.

People say all the time that LLMs are so much better for finding information, but to me it's completely at odds with my own user experience.

Post reply on HN