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

241–250 of 345 posts

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

#241

Post by metadat »

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…

> Panglossian

I had to look it up, but what a fantastic word which applies perfectly to this context:

"Panglossian" describes something or someone characterized by extreme and often naive optimism, especially in the face of adversity

Panglossian • \pan-GLAH-see-un\ • adjective. : marked by the view that all is for the best in this best of possible worlds : excessively optimistic.

Example: Even the most Panglossian temperament would have had trouble finding the good in this situation.

Thank you!

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

#242

Post by arccy »

dns_snek wrote: post #186
fiddlerwoaroof wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, I for one don't want to pay $15/mo for my browser: I'm happy for it to be the complement of some company's product.

I'm so confused when I read takes like that. The only way advertising can be sustainable under capitalism is if every $1 spent on advertising generates >= $1 of profit for advertisers, keeping in mind that ad networks take a share of revenue, say 30%. This means that you as a consumer have to spend at least $1 (likely more - profit not revenue) for every $0.70 of value you receive in "free" services. Being supportive…

They only need to make money in aggregate, they might make $0 out of you, but $2 out of someone else.

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

#243

Post by joquarky »

msmshazan wrote: post #175
int_19h wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And that whole "war on cookies" where they keep pitching replacements that basically let Google (and only Google) do all the same things, so that they can then gatekeep it and pay others for the privilege of accessing some limited subset of that data. Regardless of why Google made Chrome originally, today, the main reason why it exists is to enable Google to track users more efficiently. And that is a bad thing.

Kinda ironic that "Don't be evil" is Google's former motto

That was before they were absorbed by Doubleclick.

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

#244

Post by Centigonal »

metadat wrote: post #241
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…

> Panglossian I had to look it up, but what a fantastic word which applies perfectly to this context: "Panglossian" describes something or someone characterized by extreme and often naive optimism, especially in the face of adversity Panglossian • \pan-GLAH-see-un\ • adjective. : marked by the view that all is for the best in this best of possible worlds : excessively optimistic. Example: Even the most Panglossian te…

It comes from a character named pangloss in Voltaire's Candide who takes the view that we must live in the best of all possible worlds.

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

#245

Post by thewebguyd »

andrewflnr wrote: post #48
inetknght wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> nobody writes checks to Chrome to make a certain search engine the default And some people wonder how Chrome could ever make money if it were divested from Google...

Would that be a better world than we have now, though, if Chrome was nominally separate from Google but still only exists because Google pays for it? It seems like the same thing with extra steps.

I believe the default search payments are also part of the antitrust case, so likely those payments will also become illegal, also affecting Firefox and Apple/Safari.

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

#246

Post by arccy »

OuterVale wrote: post #80
jauntywundrkind wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> What features has Google killed, do you think? JPEG-XL pops to mind.

it was never alive enough to be killed

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

#247

Post by arccy »

vips7L wrote: post #218
tim333 wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They aren't that bad. Out of the FAANG lot Facebook, Amazon, Apple, Netflix, and Google they are probably the one I'm happiest with. Facebook have gone crazy with ads, Apple are expensive, Amazon and Netflix are pushy for money. Google on the other hand has provided me with a lot of services I use daily for 20 or so years without really bugging me or trying to screw me over. They are not preventing adblock, just forc…

Google has happily provided you with those services because they are stealing your data and invading your privacy secretly behind your back for 20 years. Everything Google does is to steal more info about you. It’s baffling that you’re unhappy with companies wanting you to pay for their product. Yes Netflix increases their prices and wants to prevent you from sharing your account, but they’re not scanning every singl…

Well the companies can either: sell your data, or take your money and still sell your data. Don't trust the ones that say they don't sell your data, it's only a matter of time until they get caught. Even Apple only cares as much as they need for marketing.

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

#249

Post by thewebguyd »

paddw wrote: post #18

What's unclear is who the buyer is supposed to be? Chrome's entire monetization is centered around its synergy with Google's ad business. Cutting off Chrome is so much messier, than the obvious, (although I fear it would itself have bad repercussions) decision to force them to sell Youtube.

Yeah I don't quite understand either. Once you rip Google out of Chrome, it's just chromium, I don't think there's going to be a buyer interested in buying what they can already get and build themselves for free.

A more appropriate ruling would be just force Google to stop distributing Chrome, not sell it but kill it. There's already a myriad of chromium reskins, so that wouldn't change, and that's all chrome will become if someone else buys it. Make the precedent that owners of a search engine can't also have a browser.

I think just killing chrome would do more good than selling it off to become yet another sketchy chromium reskin with questionable privacy and crypto miners.

Post reply on HN