21–30 of 47 posts
> and it left the door open to requiring the company to spin out Android, too. Hell yes. Next YouTube!
The best argument I could make is that owning chrome allows you to see the searches people make on Google in the address bar (and if you were unscrupulous, on Google's Search page as well)? Maybe that's strong enough?
I'm genuinely concerned as a lover of the web that this will slow the innovation we've seen in the space to a crawl. The web has grown so much since the bad old days in no small part due to Chrome. I wonder if Google's vested interest in growing the web (since as when the web grows, so does search and ads usage) would result in them investing in Firefox instead, but I strongly doubt it (at least, not to the same level).
Never understood why the government seems to have such a hard-on against Google. Somehow, Apple / Microsoft / Amazon / … skate by without getting the same beat-down.
In any case, this is more whataboutism than anything. The fact that you perceive others as not being targeted doesn't mean that nothing should be done about Google's monopoly on Search.
Never understood why the government seems to have such a hard-on against Google. Somehow, Apple / Microsoft / Amazon / … skate by without getting the same beat-down.
Do anticompetitive things, win anticompetitive prizes.
> and it left the door open to requiring the company to spin out Android, too. Hell yes. Next YouTube!
Explain how that would work. YouTube cannot exist without Google. It gets a free ride on Google infrastructure, software, and R&D including custom silicon. If it had to pay nondiscriminatory prices for network, compute, and storage then it simply would not exist. I can't see how that benefits the consumer.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Explain how that would work. YouTube cannot exist without Google. It gets a free ride on Google infrastructure, software, and R&D including custom silicon. If it had to pay nondiscriminatory prices for network, compute, and storage then it simply would not exist. I can't see how that benefits the consumer.
Because that type of service should not come from a private entity. In an ideal world our taxes would pay for these services and the government would provide video hosting. Same goes for map business searching and co BTW. This must not be from a private entity. But it is, because the government is not competent to do it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Explain how that would work. YouTube cannot exist without Google. It gets a free ride on Google infrastructure, software, and R&D including custom silicon. If it had to pay nondiscriminatory prices for network, compute, and storage then it simply would not exist. I can't see how that benefits the consumer.
Because that type of service should not come from a private entity. In an ideal world our taxes would pay for these services and the government would provide video hosting. Same goes for map business searching and co BTW. This must not be from a private entity. But it is, because the government is not competent to do it.
Why?
Just thinking: So, Google makes life easier for users by creating Chrome and getting us respite from IE. When they moved the web really forward and way faster than others (Edge/Opera switched to Chromium too) - the DOJ wants them to give it away. It's like raising an exceptional child only to be asked to be adopted when they grow to be an adult.
It’s like raising an exceptional child who is a criminal and having people come out of the woodwork saying “he was so good, he didn’t do anything wrong”