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

161–170 of 663 posts

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

#161

Post by supernova87a »

gpt5 wrote: post #142
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…

[flagged]

Is it not sad/telling that the reporter of the story couldn't summarize this in the story, but the bot here can? If there were an indicator of the future to come...

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

#162

Post by kevin_thibedeau »

Hard_Space wrote: post #90
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 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…

Articles about patent infringement are similarly annoying when the patent numbers aren't cited. This is basic 21st century journalism 101. We aren't limited to what fits on a broadside anymore.

We need an AI driven extension that will insert the links. This would be a nice addition to Kagi as they could be trusted to not play SEO shenanigans.

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

#163

Post by supernova87a »

permo-w wrote: post #159
supernova87a wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess they are unable to value the function that I am more likely to read and trust stories from their website if they give me the honest info about where their stories come from that I can further read (and rely on them to always point me to as a guide).

they likely, and probably correctly, do not want you as a customer. people who are discerning and conscious like this generally use an adblocker, and even if you don't, are generally less easily influenced by adverts in the first place. most people like this tend towards wealthy, so it's a valuable demographic if they can get past those two issues, but they're not easy to get past

You made me snort with laughter with how right you were. I in fact have 2 adblockers on, and I actively ignore and sanitize some of my history (like Youtube) to not get directed towards advertising or other rabbit holes I don't want to see, even though I never click a single ad.

But I do pay for quality journalism / news websites!

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

#164

Post by motoxpro »

frankchn wrote: post #55
motoxpro wrote: post #44

Thank goodness. Them spinning that out would have been a nightmare. Bad day to be Apple. Edit: I just checked the stock, I had no idea people priced in a split with that much certainty.

Why would it be bad for Apple? They get to keep the billions/year flowing in exchange for Google Search being the default on iOS devices. Google just can't pay to be the only search engine on iOS (but they have never done that afaik). AAPL up 3%+ after hours.

Ah I see, I should have read it more clearly. Makes sense why they are up!

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

#165

Post by crazygringo »

lysace wrote: post #77
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.

From an outsider POV (holding Alphabet stock!): The US legal system seems quite broken.

Oh course it is, but is there another country that is any better at antitrust? I haven't seen it. And remembering that antitrust which goes too far is just as harmful as antitrust that is too weak.

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

#166

Post by 1vuio0pswjnm7 »

The opinion:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.223...

From page 157:

"Glue is essentially a super query log that collects a raft of data about a query and the users interaction with the response. Rem. Tr. at 2808:22809:6 (Allan). The data underlying Glue consists of information relating to (1) the query, such as its text, language, user location, and user device type; (2) ranking information, including the 10 blue links and any other triggered search features that appear on the SERP, such as images, maps, Knowledge Panel, People also ask, etc.; (3) SERP interaction information, such as clicks, hovers, and duration on the SERP; and (4) query interpretation and suggestions, including spelling correction and salient query terms. Id. at 2809:82812:20 (Allan) (discussing RDXD-20.026 to .028). An important component of the Glue data is Navboost data. See id. at 2808:16-20 (Allan) (Glue contains . . . Nav[b]oost information.); Liab. Tr. at 6403:3-5 (Nayak) (Glue is just another name for [N]avboost that includes all of the other features on the page.). Navboost is a memorization system that aggregates click-and-query data about the web results delivered to the SERP. Liab. Tr. at 1804:81805:22, 1806:8-15 (Lehman). Like Glue, it can be thought of as just a giant table. Id. at 1805:6-13 (Lehman). Importantly, the remedy does not force Google to disclose any models or signals built from Glue data, only the underlying data itself. Rem. Tr. at 2809:3-4 (Allan)."

When a graphical browser running Javascript distributed by advertising company or business partner is used, Google measures time spent on the results page (SERP), time spent hovering, as well as tracking what links are clicked; it also records device type, location, language

This data collection is common knowledge to many nerds but www users may be unaware of it

If do not use such a browser running Javascript and if only send minimum HTTP headers, none of this data is collected, except location as approximated from IP address. The later can be user-controlled by sending searches to a remote proxy (set up by the user), or perhaps Tor

IMHO, it is relatively easy to avoid "click-and-query" data collection such as duration on SERP, hovering and tracking clicked links, as well as device type and language, but alternative www clients that prevent it, i.e., not the browser distributed by Google, are not made available as a choice. With this settlement, Google can no longer restrict others from offering choice of alternative www clients

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

#167

Post by ajross »

jonas21 wrote: post #46
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.

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

> Do you not see ChatGPT and Claude as viable alternatives to search?

This subthread is classic HN. Huge depth of replies all chiming in to state some form of the original prior: that "AI is a threat to search"...

... without even a nod to the fact that by far the best LLM-assisted search experience today is available for free at the Google prompt. And it's not even close, really. People are so set in their positions here that they've stopped even attempting to survey the market those opinions are about.

(And yes, I'm biased I guess because they pay me. But to work on firmware and not AI.)

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

#168

Post by gpt5 »

supernova87a wrote: post #161
gpt5 wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Is it not sad/telling that the reporter of the story couldn't summarize this in the story, but the bot here can? If there were an indicator of the future to come...

I'm not a bot, despite the name. But I do find it is ironic that the HN crowd is downvoting the comment providing the summary.

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

#169

Post by MBCook »

xnx wrote: post #134
lysace wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From an outsider POV (holding Alphabet stock!): The US legal system seems quite broken.

> The US legal system seems quite broken. Indeed, sometimes the courts don't just get it wrong, they get it backwards. Compare how Google was punished for allowing Android to sideload apps, while Apple wasn't punished for not letting any apps outside the App Store on iOS.

That’s very different, as discussed at the time.

Apple never allowed it, Google did then had secret deals to squash it.

It was the secret deals to squash competition they got in trouble for.

Post reply on HN