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

231–240 of 345 posts

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

#231

Post by jgalt212 »

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…

> AMP, and the Ad-blocking prohibition are evidence of this.

That's the crux of the argument. I don't need any further evidence.

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

#232

Post by nerdjon »

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…

I think what they said is not technically wrong (excluding the "happens to be good for al of us part"). What is good for the health of the web really is good for Google, since they need the web to be sustainable.

But, the problem is the opposite is not true. What is good for Google is often bad for the web as a whole. The only reason it "Works" is because of their dominance.

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

#233

Post by light_hue_1 »

amrocha wrote: post #139
chneu wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would like to point out that your perception of what a browser can/should be is based on what Google has turned browsers into. What a browser is in 2025 is vastly different from what anyone thought they would ever be. There are major, major issues with the way web engines/web browsers function today and much of those issues stem from Google's near monopoly on browsers. There was a lot of very interesting and good d…

What do browsers do that they weren’t meant to? The only thing that comes to mind is password management. But I would also argue that’s a boon for normal users and trust in the web.

Restrict extensions for "security" reasons. Which just killed most ad blockers in Chrome.

Speed up the web with AMP that gives one company control over everything.

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

#234

Post by light_hue_1 »

bloppe wrote: post #219
npodbielski wrote: post #207

I started reading this article and was immediately hit how biased it seems, like in this meme 'leave multi-bilion dollar corporation alone'. Unfortunetelly we are in the times when any split of any of those multi-bilion dollar corp would be greatly benefiting humanity as a whole. How many people are taking their profits really? Hundreds? Thousands maybe? And that is it. What humanity have from existence of those? Lik…

I'm not sure about having them "pretty soon", but what do you think AI, self driving cars and androids are for if not to alleviate people of work? Better health care is a tough one, I'll give you that.

That's funny.

As a disclaimer I work on AI research.

Oh yeah. Definitely when we have discussions with companies to get funding we totally talk about how we're going to save the poor worker from all of these horrible jobs.

There's one end goal. Get rid of people to increase profits for management and shareholders.

People generally do not want to be "alleviated" of work, a great euphemism for being unemployed.

There's far more funding in getting rid of people than increasing their productivity 2x.

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

#235

Post by rootsudo »

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…

Exactly this.

Google removed don’t be evil. They created a web browser which originally was good back in the day d.g. Internet explorer was crap, Firefox was okay but very different world 2007 vs today.

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

#236

Post by iav »

hkt wrote: post #95
beeflet wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The 'what is good for the web is good for Google' line certainly was true in 2005 when the greatest threat to the web was companies like microsoft using internet explorer to adjust the de-facto web standards and privatize it in the "EEE" fashion. Obviously the most visited websites would maintain the web better than OS vendors, their buisness depended on it being open. We have a similar situation now, but with google…

Re: your first paragraph, this is exactly what Google does now. They maintain such an incredible pace of development and such a unilateral attitude that nobody can stop them from developing web standards even if they want to. When was the last time anyone said no to a Chrome feature and expected it everywhere else? Developers treat it as the go to to the extent that some don't even bother testing in other browsers. G…

Mobile Safari exists though. Chrome is #2 on iOS and that’s where the most valuable consumers are

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

#238

Post by snowwrestler »

keepamovin wrote: post #164
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 itsel…

Google does not want to get rid of Chrome because it is by far the best source of “signal” that they use for training their systems. For example Chrome browsing stream data is the largest signal used in ranking search results.

Google deprecated PageRank in large part because interlinking was a proxy for user interest, and now with Chrome they can measure user interest directly in real time.

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

#239

Post by snowwrestler »

fiddlerwoaroof wrote: post #33
ohso4 wrote: post #9

> Users don’t pay for Chrome. There aren’t ads in Chrome. There is no direct business model for Chrome. Unlike Safari and Firefox, nobody writes checks to Chrome to make a certain search engine the default. They track you. There IS a business model for Chrome: monetizing user data.

There isn’t a business model for a company whose product is just chrome, though. Unless it’s some kind of foundation or non-profit with a sufficient endowment to not need a business model. I’m no fan of Google, but—unless people really want browser subscriptions—I don’t see how you can have a browser company today. They exist better as a byproduct of some other business model.

> There isn’t a business model for a company whose product is just chrome, though.

Yes there is, it is the same business model Chrome has now, but with overt pricing. In other words if you can understand why Chrome is valuable to Google now, then you can understand what Chrome-the-standalone-business would put a price tag on.

Google benefits from the data that Chrome collects. So Chrome-the-business would collect the same data and charge Google for it.

But it could also sell that data to other companies too. This would create competition which would lead to better pricing and more innovation. That is why it is a remedy for a monopoly.

The history of antitrust is full of stuff like this. Standard Oil used to own all the gas stations in the country. AT&T used to be the only company that sold telephones.

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

#240

Post by solardev »

fiddlerwoaroof wrote: post #33
ohso4 wrote: post #9

> Users don’t pay for Chrome. There aren’t ads in Chrome. There is no direct business model for Chrome. Unlike Safari and Firefox, nobody writes checks to Chrome to make a certain search engine the default. They track you. There IS a business model for Chrome: monetizing user data.

There isn’t a business model for a company whose product is just chrome, though. Unless it’s some kind of foundation or non-profit with a sufficient endowment to not need a business model. I’m no fan of Google, but—unless people really want browser subscriptions—I don’t see how you can have a browser company today. They exist better as a byproduct of some other business model.

I really do want a browser subscription or purchase, so that its incentives are aligned with mine and not the advertisers'.

Paid browsers used to be common in the past, and ones like Netcaptor gave us tabbed browsing, pop-up blocking, etc. Opera was great too. Netscape itself used to be paid at first. It was big companies like Microsoft and Google tyring to EEE the web by giving away free browsers that killed the thriving browser marketplace and led to monopolies like the ones we have now.

There very much can be a browser market and business model IF antitrust were actually enforced.

Divest that shit yesterday.

Post reply on HN