The DOJ still wants Google to sell off Chrome • Hacker News Board

Re: The DOJ still wants Google to sell off Chrome

#251

Post by robotnikman » Sat, Mar 08, 2025, 10:05 PM UTC

maxclark wrote: post #132

First I don't believe this is an effective remedy to break up a Google monopoly, but I have no influence on the DOJ. I'm curious though, if Google can no longer pay browsers for search engine traffic what is the business model that will sustain development and advancement in the space? How does a non Google owned Chrome support itself and continue development? What happens to all the applications that rely on Chrome…

At the same time though, being developed under a company which derives most of its revenue from ads seems to be a big conflict of interest to a free and open web. We have already seen this conflict of interest with Manifest V3, which takes away freedom from the users, and almost with remote web attestation before Google held off it's development due to the backlash (but I can see them trying to implement it again while Chrome is still under control of Google/Alphabet.) It also doesn't help that Chrome and the underlying browser engine powers just about every major browser other than Firefox, which is struggling.

So what will sustain the development of browsers like Chrome or Firefox? Well that's the big question... Maybe they will downsize and become a non-profit similar to the Linux Foundation, and receive funding similar to how they do? I can see this have the affect of greatly slowing down the development of various web standards, but would that be such a bad thing?

Re: The DOJ still wants Google to sell off Chrome

#252

Post by nuker » Sat, Mar 08, 2025, 10:07 PM UTC

no_wizard wrote: post #228

ARandomerDude wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are they? “When you upload or input information through Firefox, you hereby grant us a nonexclusive, royalty-free, worldwide license to use that information to help you navigate, experience, and interact with online content as you indicate with your use of Firefox.”

How long is Firefox going to be held to a standard that none of the other vendors are realistically held to? They change their ToS in an unfavorable way and yes I think it’s criticism they need to hear. However, has Chrome, Brave (I don’t look favorably on their cryptocurrency initiatives) Edge , Safari etc. been held to the same, in practice? Why isn’t Chrome barraged with negative sentiment the same way? It has far…

Please don't lump Safari with the rest of them, drunk on ad-based revenue.

Re: The DOJ still wants Google to sell off Chrome

#253

Post by Nasrudith » Sat, Mar 08, 2025, 10:11 PM UTC

ronnier wrote: post #103

It’s a big world. Does breaking up google give the Asian giants an advantage? Wonder if China breaks up their large tech companies?

It does but for totally dysfunctional different reasons, Emperor Xi fears any underling doing too good as a threat to his power and cracks down on entire markets. China has been regularly engaged in this sort of outright self sabotage.

Re: The DOJ still wants Google to sell off Chrome

#254

Post by HeatrayEnjoyer » Sat, Mar 08, 2025, 10:16 PM UTC

crop_rotation wrote: post #92

Springtime wrote: post #8

Regardless of what happens to Chrome per se it's who is involved with pushing for major controversial changes in Chromium that matters. Manifest v3 and Web Integrity API are prominent examples of Google's team shaping how all Chromium based browsers will be, regardless of pushback (though they relented with the latter for now).

Manifest v3 is not even breaking any standards. This is like saying Google should not make any changes to their browser as any forks will not be able to maintain any divergence. All forks are free to keep manifest v2. Off course maintaining a browser is expensive, but that doesn't mean Google has to foot the bill for everyone and everything.

The standards google bullies us into?

Re: The DOJ still wants Google to sell off Chrome

#255

Post by eCa » Sat, Mar 08, 2025, 10:17 PM UTC

ARandomerDude wrote: post #184

irrational wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Firefox seems to do fine without Google employees.

Are they? “When you upload or input information through Firefox, you hereby grant us a nonexclusive, royalty-free, worldwide license to use that information to help you navigate, experience, and interact with online content as you indicate with your use of Firefox.”

I believe that has been changed to something more like:

“You give Mozilla the rights necessary to operate Firefox. This includes processing your data as we describe in the Firefox Privacy Notice. It also includes a nonexclusive, royalty-free, worldwide license for the purpose of doing as you request with the content you input in Firefox. This does not give Mozilla any ownership in that content.”

Re: The DOJ still wants Google to sell off Chrome

#256

Post by Muromec » Sat, Mar 08, 2025, 10:17 PM UTC

jfengel wrote: post #161

relaxing wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Offshoring as the supposed death of the US software developer going on 40 years now remains greatly exaggerated.

And I still don't understand why. I expected it when I started my career, and here nearing the end it's still really rare. And it should have gotten easier in that time, what with the Internet. Time zones and culture and language and all that, I suppose. But the world is full of very smart people who have a decent grasp of American and European culture, and would work for a tenth the price.

It depends what kind of a company you work for. Something like a bank with a lot of boringly tedious stuff on top of procedures will have quite a lot of offshore contractors. They don't even have to be very smart, because truly smart ones decide to move closer towards the source of the moneys.

Re: The DOJ still wants Google to sell off Chrome

#257

Post by rad_gruchalski » Sat, Mar 08, 2025, 10:20 PM UTC

loeg wrote: post #197

thrance wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does upholding monopolies help Americans at all? Do not conflate the ballooning wealth of billionaires with any kind of improvement in your material conditions.

Americans marginally benefit from American owned monopolies over Chinese owned monopolies.

In what way, please explain. Both are monopolies.

Re: The DOJ still wants Google to sell off Chrome

#258

Post by appleorchard46 » Sat, Mar 08, 2025, 10:21 PM UTC

scarface_74 wrote: post #246

LightHugger wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Monopolies are at their worst when they use their position to make a power play over a market (such as browsers) that isn't very profitable on it's own but can be used as a loss leader in a wider monopolistic scheme. This is when antitrust is needed most, by design. There's a bit of understanding you need to do, but not only is it not dumb, what you said about nobody wanting to buy chrome is actually part of the proo…

So who is going to fund a fully featured browser?

It's not like browsers will cease to exist though. If the proposed selling of Chrome leads to slower change in web specifications (i.e. 'fully featured' browser stuff) I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing.

Re: The DOJ still wants Google to sell off Chrome

#259

Post by dathery » Sat, Mar 08, 2025, 10:21 PM UTC

flanked-evergl wrote: post #247

dathery wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't "monopolies suppress competition" one of the classic reasons people think they should be broken up? I'm not saying you have to agree with that theory, but just observing a current lack of competition doesn't by itself seem like an argument against breakup.

Google is not suppressing competition. There are plenty of competing browsers and search engines, they all suck. On the Mobile OS side there is less but substantially more robust competition, even though I, personally, hate iOS. So breaking Google up because of a theoretical problem that is refuted by reality is nonsensible.

> There are plenty of competing browsers and search engines, they all suck.

Maybe our difference in viewpoint is that I see this fact and wonder why it's seemingly impossible for anyone to build a financially viable alternative, and I'm at least open to the idea that it's very difficult to compete with Google when they can leverage their successful ads business to subsidize the investment into their browser.

Yes the alternatives are worse, but is that because Google is inherently smarter, or because the newcomers have a tiny fraction of the investment and usually fizzle out within a year or two? Google doesn't have to be actively trying to kill the competitors for it to have an anti-competitive effect in the market.

Re: The DOJ still wants Google to sell off Chrome

#260

Post by icehawk » Sat, Mar 08, 2025, 10:21 PM UTC

ARandomerDude wrote: post #184

irrational wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Firefox seems to do fine without Google employees.

Are they? “When you upload or input information through Firefox, you hereby grant us a nonexclusive, royalty-free, worldwide license to use that information to help you navigate, experience, and interact with online content as you indicate with your use of Firefox.”

What's the issue here?