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

161–170 of 345 posts

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

#161

Post by mrkramer »

Gud wrote: post #160
mrkramer wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They will never be able to kill cookies unless they bribe the whole industry and make them believe Google's cookie replacement technology will bring them more ad money. Tbh cookies are lesser evil than Google's make believe cookie replacement technology. And remember Google is not Netscape, Google is on whole another level of power and domination.

What do you mean? the whole industry are happy to be on Chrome. What Google does, the rest will be either praising or be doing begrudingly. A few of us are using Firefox. The few who remember the terror that web development was when Microsoft had the monopoly. At least they were mostly ignorant, not outright hostile towards the open web.

Yes, you are right Microsoft was worse than Google but Google is constantly hypocritical....they are always twisting the narrative so it suits them whether it is open web, advertising or politics.

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

#162

Post by roenxi »

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…

So who is going to step up and build something better than Chrome? If we knock Google out of the running 2nd place for the sort of investment they've made is pretty weak and largely only works on iPhones.

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

#163

Post by KaiserPro »

The author raises a good point, but tangentially:

"if google doesn't pay for chrome, who will make it better? and who will make it secure"

This is a valid concern.

However, for those of us who remember the time before chrome, the web was dominated by IE, which kneecapped security and innovation.

Its the same with mobile safari, a lack of competitors is bad for health.

The issue is, google has embedded a shit ton of metrics gathering into chrome, which is hugely anti competitive.

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

#164

Post by keepamovin »

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…

This is an excellent analysis. Also, Google is actually a data business, building an AI, with a long time horizon view - and always has been. Larry's initial goal was to build the AI. Impressive tho they are, current AI products are mere ripples upon the surface compared to the deep currents of Google's long term plans.

Given that, I actually don't see much resistance from Google leadership to abc.xyz divesting itself of Chrome. In fact, it's probably on some level been "worked out" - with the DOJ pushing for a meaningful, and symbolically meaningful, concession that was already negotiated as something Google could agree to, and maybe even wanted.

Getting rid of Chrome could help them refocus their efforts, and unburden themselves from something that probably comes with a lot of issues. Cue the eventual press release, letter from the leadership, looking back on the decades of Chrome, and how they ultimate believe that a Browser should be owned by the web and the people itself, not by a company.

It could be a significant, meaningful and positive pivot for the company as it faces changing situations.

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

#165

Post by thomassmith65 »

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 accounts for 80% of AlphaGoogle's revenue. That makes them Google's monarchy.

Re: AMP. AMP is like Cloudflare. Whatever is good about it is, by definition, bad for the Web, because its model replaces the Web as-we-know-it with something closer to Compuserve.

Re: Ad-blockers. It may not be a complete prohibition, but it is a hobbling of ad-blockers. It is clearly intentional, too, as evidenced by AlphaGoogle's recent anti-adblocker initiatives at Youtube.

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

#166

Post by ripped_britches »

So many flawed assumptions in this article

How about Google making flutter? How is that not an awesome attempt to make mobile app development unified and easier for developers?

Also, selling your car? No a more apt metaphor would be selling the lemonade squeezing equipment business that you also hold a monopoly in.

I’m not arguing for the merits of forcing Google to sell chrome, but I think the articles points are off based either way.

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

#167

Post by amanaplanacanal »

surajrmal wrote: post #61
pluto_modadic wrote: post #3

Alphabet tried to kill adblock in Chrome, so...

It's conjecture at best that killing adblock was related to manifest v3. Given apple also rolled out the same sorts of restrictions years earlier, there is strong precedent for this being purely a security improvement measure. Especially when you consider how problematic and prevalent malware extensions are.

Is malware in ads not a problem anymore?

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

#168

Post by metalrain »

So what happens if Google sells Chrome? Who will buy it? Will they be as advertising/tracking heavy as Google is? Is there any other reason to own Chrome?

Is it any better if Meta, Alibaba, Microsoft or any other big company with money to buy Chrome owned Chrome?

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

#169

Post by ripped_britches »

stemlord wrote: post #65
streptomycin wrote: post #22

I don't get the negative comments here. It's pretty simple I think... - Google is banned from paying Firefox to be the default search engine -> Firefox has way less money -> Firefox development massively slows - Someone buys Chrome and needs to turn a profit from Chrome, rather than using it to indirectly profit from the web in general like Google does -> Chrome probably goes to shit and development massively slows S…

>moving the web forward What constitutes "forward" to you

Wasm? It may seem like it’s still just a browser but I’m very grateful that bad ass people have been working on it

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

#170

Post by youngtaff »

jauntywundrkind wrote: post #56
Georgelemental wrote: post #11

> They made a browser to invest in the web itself But that investment isn’t neutral. It’s oriented towards making the Web a better place for Google to make money—not a better place for users to avoid being tracked by Google. Chrome’s dominant position means Google can kill any new web feature that would help users, but hurt Google’s bottom line.

There's such a strong strain of dark side energy aimed at Google. It just feels so unhinged to me though. Blink-dev is an amazing mailing list of really good improvements being built intelligently, in well declared fashion, with lots of checks via standards bodies, fully open to discussion. There's very few places on the planet where such good work is so easy to see, and no where that it's so abundant. https://groups…

Sure there are a lot of people on blink-dev building good thoughtful features

But there are also plenty of people at Google etc who are convinced that advertising is the only way to fund the web and so build features to support that e.g. maintaining 3rd-party cookies, FLEDGE / Flock / Topics (and the rest of the deceptively names Privacy Sandbox)

Advertising is a massive invasion into our personal lives and via ad networks actors (sometimes hostile) can get access to data they have no rights to

Post reply on HN