DOJ will push Google to sell off Chrome • Hacker News Board

Re: DOJ will push Google to sell off Chrome

#191

Post by lxgr » Mon, Nov 18, 2024, 11:43 PM UTC

legitster wrote: post #153

I'm all for competition and increasing consumer choices, but the government is really not making a case that this is supposed to help consumers. The only reason I still use Chrome is because I already use other Google products and they integrate well together. There are many other better options out there otherwise, and they are all free. Breaking out Chrome from Google will not in any way benefit me as a consumer. >…

> There are many other better options out there otherwise, and they are all free.

For how long, though?

The trajectory for Firefox doesn’t look good at all (and it’s completely dependent on Google too).

Apple are doing their share of anticompetitive shenanigans with Safari on iOS, although the other way around.

Everything else is based on Chromium and therefore not contributing to any heterogeneity of implementations.

Re: DOJ will push Google to sell off Chrome

#192

Post by kivle » Mon, Nov 18, 2024, 11:44 PM UTC

teractiveodular wrote: post #120

hinkley wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn’t Google refusing to make changes that boost online privacy because it’ll tank their ad revenue?

Quite the opposite, Google is the key sponsor of Privacy Sandbox: https://privacysandbox.com/intl/en_us/ Working out why they're doing this is left as an exercise to the reader.

The whole reason for "privacy sandbox" is to still do user tracking, but do it in an anonymous way that they hope legislators won't go after. It's Google seeing the writing on the wall that legislation will soon ban third-party cookie tracking and fingerprinting and the like, so they need to be proactive and protect the ad tracking business.

A better name for it would have been something like "anonymous user tracking / data collection", but "privacy sandbox" is probably a good marketing term to fuzz what it's really doing. To a normal user it makes it sounds like Google is doing something good and protecting them, while it's really just "please opt in to our new more anonymized tracking technology while still allowing us to track you".

Re: DOJ will push Google to sell off Chrome

#193

Post by phyzix5761 » Mon, Nov 18, 2024, 11:44 PM UTC

jmpetroske wrote: post #164

phyzix5761 wrote: post #80

I'm reading this on a non Chrome browser and I can search for it on a non Google search engine. I don't understand where the monopoly is.

You can look up details of the lawsuit, but the idea is that Google paying Apple to be the default search engine prevents other search engines from competing with Google search. The default search selection has been shown to be quite important. Anti-trust law is built around the idea of maintaining competition - “monopolies” aren’t inherently illegal.

Every company does this though. They pay to be the exclusive or official XYZ of some company or event.

For example, Bud Light being the official drink of the NFL.

Or Coca-Cola being the exclusive drink that can be sold at the Olympics and many other sporting venues.

Re: DOJ will push Google to sell off Chrome

#194

Post by mplewis9z » Mon, Nov 18, 2024, 11:44 PM UTC

jascination wrote: post #183

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> only reason I still use Chrome is because I already use other Google products and they integrate well together This is the point. Google's products integrate with Chrome better than non-Google products. Including its ad platform.

1) does it though? It seems like the Google-specific parts of it are pretty ancillary to the whole experience 2) how is it different to Apples integration with Safari?

> how is it different to Apples integration with Safari?

It’s not, other than Google has a way larger market share (especially if you count Edge/Opera/Brave/etc.) and has been (ab)using that position to push web standards in a direction that favors their business and that other browser vendors have to follow to keep up.

If Safari had Chrome’s market share and was throwing their weight around like Google does and Microsoft did with IE, it’d be the same argument and I’d also personally support forcing them to divest it.

Re: DOJ will push Google to sell off Chrome

#195

Post by JumpCrisscross » Mon, Nov 18, 2024, 11:45 PM UTC

jascination wrote: post #183

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> only reason I still use Chrome is because I already use other Google products and they integrate well together This is the point. Google's products integrate with Chrome better than non-Google products. Including its ad platform.

1) does it though? It seems like the Google-specific parts of it are pretty ancillary to the whole experience 2) how is it different to Apples integration with Safari?

> how is it different to Apples integration with Safari?

Apple hasn't been found to have a monopoly like Google has [1].

[1] https://apnews.com/article/google-antitrust-search-engine-ve...

Re: DOJ will push Google to sell off Chrome

#196

Post by bogwog » Mon, Nov 18, 2024, 11:46 PM UTC

andrewflnr wrote: post #17

What would that even mean? Chrome doesn't make money. Who would buy it, except maybe someone who plans to do something even more nefarious?

> Who would buy it

If the decision drags on into the new administration, then the answer is probably Elon Musk.

Re: DOJ will push Google to sell off Chrome

#197

Post by elashri » Mon, Nov 18, 2024, 11:46 PM UTC

xnx wrote: post #121

XorNot wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I genuinely have no idea what "missing features" or incompatibilities keep people on Chrome compared to the benefits of uBlock just plain working better on Firefox.

> uBlock just plain working better on Firefox. In what way does uBlock work better on Firefox? I don't see any ads in Chrome. Ad block is more important to me than any browse. I use Kiwi on Android instead of Chrome, and would switch immediately on desktop if I saw ads.

This wiki page on uBlock origin repository is a direct answer to your question.

https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/uBlock-Origin-works-b...

Re: DOJ will push Google to sell off Chrome

#198

Post by itake » Mon, Nov 18, 2024, 11:48 PM UTC

jascination wrote: post #183

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> only reason I still use Chrome is because I already use other Google products and they integrate well together This is the point. Google's products integrate with Chrome better than non-Google products. Including its ad platform.

1) does it though? It seems like the Google-specific parts of it are pretty ancillary to the whole experience 2) how is it different to Apples integration with Safari?

2) consumers cannot use products like Safari as their exclusive web browser. The web has decided that Chrome is the only browser worth supporting and the world needs to keep Chrome at-the-ready for when the alternative browser eventually breaks.

For example, Chrome has replaced IE as the corporate browser, due to the integrations with Workspace accounts and Authentication mechanisms. In order to use the fingerID on my/employer's macbook pro, I have to give my employer root/sync access to Google Chrome.

Re: DOJ will push Google to sell off Chrome

#199

Post by bhawks » Mon, Nov 18, 2024, 11:48 PM UTC

This feels like a feel good headline for DoJ that doesn't materially impact the Search/Ads ecosystem nor improve things for the end consumer.

Chromium exists - literally as a baseline for several other corporations to build a browser.

If you wanted to do something meaningful - you must separate search and ads, everything else is rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.

Re: DOJ will push Google to sell off Chrome

#200

Post by jauntywundrkind » Mon, Nov 18, 2024, 11:48 PM UTC

This would be outrageously bad for the web.

Right now a healthy web ecosystem is Google's existential hedge, against all the closed platforms of the world coming to devour the web and Google's business.

Getting rid of Google as a patron for the web would be one of the most harmful damaging & awful things the DOJ could do this world. Strongly opposed, what a godforsaken heinous crime against humanity to consider leaving no one funding the web at scale.