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

231–240 of 663 posts

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

#231

Post by hkt »

bc569a80a344f9c wrote: post #183
Workaccount2 wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Never link outside your domain has been rule #1 of the ad-driven business for years now. Once users leave your page, they become exponentially less likely to load more ad-ridden pages from your website. Ironically this is also why there is so much existential fear about AI in the media. LLMs will do to them what they do to primary sources (and more likely just cut them out of the loop). This Google story will get a l…

> But it is easy to see a near future where an AI agent just retrieves and summarizes the case for you. And does a much better job too. I am significantly less confident that an LLM is going to be any good at putting a raw source like a court ruling PDF into context and adequately explain to readers why - and what details - of the decision matter, and what impact they will have. They can probably do an OK job summari…

[flagged]

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

#232

Post by 1121redblackgo »

makeitdouble wrote: post #133
xnx wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The ease with which a total newcomer was able to steal share from Google is real-world evidence that there wasn't really a monopoly and that Google competitors (Bing, etc.) just sucked and didn't want to spend the money to be better.

You make it sound like some AI company snapped 5% of global search traffic from Google across all devices. What's the actual number ?

I'd hazard a guess much higher than 5%

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

#234

Post by ninkendo »

Barbing wrote: post #91
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…

Shoutout Ars Technica, where they never seem to sweat the… lost ad revenue? diminished time on page?… and give the PDF link.

Sure, after you dismiss the pop-up telling you to become an ars subscriber.

I’m only angry about this because I’ve been on ars since 2002, as a paid subscriber for most of that time, but I cancelled last year due to how much enshittification has begun to creep in. These popups remove any doubt about the decision at least.

(I cancelled because I bought a product they gave a positive review for, only to find out they had flat-out lied about its features, and it was painfully obvious in retrospect that the company paid Ars for a positive review. Or they’re so bad at their jobs they let clearly wrong information into their review… I’m not sure which is worse.)

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

#235

Post by nkurz »

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…

> 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.

I have the same peeve, but to give credit where it is due, I've happily noticed that Politico has lately been doing a good job of linking the actual decisions. I just checked for this story, and indeed the document you suggest is linked from the second paragraph: https://www.politico.com/news/2025/09/02/google-dodges-a-2-5...

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

#236

Post by cosmic_cheese »

bitpush wrote: post #224
cosmic_cheese wrote: post #215

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.

What conflict of interest? You're probably thinking of manifest v3, but Safari never supported extensions. Maybe you're thinking of third party cookie deprecation, which Safari doesnt have. In many ways, Chrome is becoming Safari - a browser a lot of users like. So again, what conflict of interest?

I forget the details, but one example that I recall is that it turned out that the search team pushed the Chrome team to make changes to the addressbar search functionality to drive more search traffic. Arguably another is how signing into any Google service also signs the browser into that account, as well as Chrome on Android never supporting extensions of any kind (and thus, not supporting adblockers).

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

#237

Post by x0x0 »

stackskipton wrote: post #30
fidotron wrote: post #19

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.

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.

While I'd love to see google harshly penalized, nobody has proposed an answer that doesn't end with the destruction of essentially the world's only browser. Or it's sale to extremely sketchy people, which I guess also ends in destruction plus with OpenAI or whomever buys it hoovering up as much personal data as they can.

So I get not liking this answer, but I haven't heard a better one.

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

#238

Post by azemetre »

dragonwriter wrote: post #211
azemetre wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think my worry is that Google should be getting two arms chopped off instead of one finger.

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

#239

Post by flappyeagle »

stackskipton wrote: post #75
xnx wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The ease with which a total newcomer was able to steal share from Google is real-world evidence that there wasn't really a monopoly and that Google competitors (Bing, etc.) just sucked and didn't want to spend the money to be better.

Well, courts disagree with your assessment and so do I. Yes, AI is a threat to Google. How much a threat remains to be seen. From normies I know, most of them are just using Gemini or whatever is on Google front page. They are not starting most of their searches on OpenAI or other ones.

You sound old. No one I know under the age of 30 uses Google. It’s all ChatGPT

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

#240

Post by dwoldrich »

skinnymuch wrote: post #41
Hansenq wrote: 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.

Blink and you'll miss it!
Post reply on HN