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

261–270 of 345 posts

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

#261

Post by paulryanrogers »

thewebguyd wrote: post #245
andrewflnr wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I don't think it's illegal for anyone to buy defaults. Rather, just for large players with outsized market share.

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

#262

Post by charcircuit »

thomassmith65 wrote: post #165
charcircuit wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Advertising is a monetization modal. That's like saying that resteraunts are just credit card swiping businesses. Chrome is similar to other apps like X, Instagram, or YouTube. You click on the app. You are given a way to discover content and ads are shown along side that content. When you click on a site / post there can also be ads. Maximizing engagement on the web, means people will discover more content, which me…

Advertising accounts for 80% of AlphaGoogle's revenue. That makes them Google's monarchy. Re: AMP. AMP is like Cloudflare. Whatever is good about it is, by definition, bad for the Web, because its model replaces the Web as-we-know-it with something closer to Compuserve. Re: Ad-blockers. It may not be a complete prohibition, but it is a hobbling of ad-blockers. It is clearly intentional, too, as evidenced by AlphaGoog…

>its model replaces the Web as-we-know-it with something closer to Compuserve.

Companies providing web hosting is already an established part of the web for a long time. People want to dedicate their time to the problems the site has and not to the problems the infra has. Not every site is going to want to setup their own servers at hundreds of points of presence around the world. Being able to use someone else's for free allows site operators to improve the user experience of their site for users for free. Even if such a deal ends people can still connect and use the original site directly.

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

#263

Post by charcircuit »

hermanradtke wrote: post #197
charcircuit wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Advertising is a monetization modal. That's like saying that resteraunts are just credit card swiping businesses. Chrome is similar to other apps like X, Instagram, or YouTube. You click on the app. You are given a way to discover content and ads are shown along side that content. When you click on a site / post there can also be ads. Maximizing engagement on the web, means people will discover more content, which me…

> That's like saying that resteraunts are just credit card swiping businesses. You are being sarcastic here, but ironically you are not far from the truth. The core financial model of a businesses is not always obvious. McDonald’s is a real-estate business. Costco is a subscription business.

I'm not being sarcastic. I'm providing an example of the reductionist thinking going on. Companies can about multiple things. McDonalds still cares about getting people to eat at their resteraunt.

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

#264

Post by riku_iki »

streptomycin wrote: post #22

I don't get the negative comments here. It's pretty simple I think... - Google is banned from paying Firefox to be the default search engine -> Firefox has way less money -> Firefox development massively slows - Someone buys Chrome and needs to turn a profit from Chrome, rather than using it to indirectly profit from the web in general like Google does -> Chrome probably goes to shit and development massively slows S…

> Someone buys Chrome and needs to turn a profit from Chrome, rather than using it to indirectly profit from the web in general like Google does -> Chrome probably goes to shit and development massively slows

I kinda believe Chromium is already complete enough, and government can take over it, and keep in running in maintenance mode (security fixes through possible bounties) with minimum expenses, and it will be great product: reliable, performant, secure and without corp-crap-tech.

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

#265

Post by riku_iki »

almosthere wrote: post #248

We need legislation that bans all types of ads except for banner style. :) I don't care if the money motivation disappears - we don't need you assholes. I was with the web when it was powered by 56k modems. Greed-assholes can leave.

> we don't need you assholes

You really need it. Food chain of your own paycheck likely rely on efficient ads at many points.

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

#266

Post by charcircuit »

Voultapher wrote: post #84
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…

Let's not forget their attempt to push web attestation through WEI https://pluralistic.net/2023/07/24/rent-to-pwn/#kitt-is-a-de...

Malicous bots are a serious issue that trouble site operators. Trying to come up with solutions to such problems doesn't mean they don't care about the web. If it allows web sites to spend less time moderating and users to spend less time reading spam that would be a win win for both parties.

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

#267

Post by jauntywundrkind »

mixmastamyk wrote: post #127
jauntywundrkind wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Putting hopes in someone else making an entirely new standards and protocols based hypermedia sounds outlandish. Whose going to go on a decade long quest to build something amazing to give away, again? I for one really tire of this spiritual vandalism masquerading as a hopeful pineing ask for a new beginning. The web rocks, is amazing. Sure there's some incidental complexity that's accrued, but the versatility & wide…

Silly, it’s already started. An obstacle would give impetus to new solutions,

I don't know specifically what you are referring to and I doubt many other folks have any idea other.

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

#268

Post by libertine »

Spooky23 wrote: post #7
xigency wrote: post #2

Arguably, Google divesting Chrome would be great for the web. This piece seems to be looking at Google at large (and I think all of Alphabet would be better scope there). Certainly this would be unpopular here but I would be all for aggressive trust-busting beyond what the DOJ has done historically, including vertical integrations. Right now tech is a strange feudal state with hundreds of thousands of small teams anc…

The administration doesn’t give a shit about the web, and DOJ is a fully political entity. They’ll extort Google for whatever concession they want, and Chrome will remain.

Google would just need to buy many Trump coins on the next drop. If he ever got Russian money, that was a great opportunity for it.

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

#269

Post by 93po »

Google being forced to sell would cost them billions of dollars. It makes sense that Google would spend at least tens of millions of dollars trying to convince the public at large that this is bad. I don't know the author but he's presumably a multi-millionaire and a bit entrenched in this space and has at least some connection with Google given his startup/company has partnered with them in the past. I'm not saying Chris is being dishonest, but he's probably not very unbiased in this. Combined with the many flaws in this writing, it doesn't seem very credible.
Post reply on HN