Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google’s Chrome Becomes Web ‘Gatekeeper’ and Rivals Complain

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 249 posts

Re: Google’s Chrome Becomes Web ‘Gatekeeper’ and Rivals Complain

#31

Post by josteink »

jjeaff wrote: post #17
bad_user wrote: post #5

In the case of Chrome, you can't blame Google. They made a good browser, did some marketing and it got popular. However the current situation is worrisome, because alternative implementations are dying and in the case of the web, diversity is important. Both Opera and Microsoft's Edge are now powered by Chromium. Chromium is a project controlled by Google. Its redeeming quality, in terms of its open source nature, is…

"Some marketing", ha. It was prominently advertised with a message that almost made it seem required, all by itself, on the otherwise almost blank Google search page. One of the most, if not the most visited pages on the planet.

Yes I remember that too, worded with scummy, deceiving wording, like most other malware/spyware at the time.

Instead of “Virus detected! Click here for free scan” it was “Old browser detected. Click here to upgrade”.

It was literally 100% out of the malware deployment hand guide.

Re: Google’s Chrome Becomes Web ‘Gatekeeper’ and Rivals Complain

#32

Post by martin_a »

scarejunba wrote: post #13

What's the steelman argument for Google withholding Widevine from Samuel Maddock? Electron packaging with Widevine is a thing so this seems unusual. If you are Google and you're the good guy, why are you doing this?

> If you are Google and you're the good guy, why are you doing this?

What if you aren't actually the good guy?

Re: Google’s Chrome Becomes Web ‘Gatekeeper’ and Rivals Complain

#33

Post by fouc »

dTal wrote: post #20
ishan1121 wrote: post #2

Google is a clear monopoly, there's no doubt about it. It has a 70% browser market share, 70% market share in the search ecosystem. Even though their service is good and people are happy, I think they need to be broken down for the sake of keeping an open internet. Even Facebook for that matter. That's my opinion

Those 70% numbers undersell it. It's basically impossible to use the internet today without touching Google servers. Even if you, personally, completely eschew all Google services, almost everyone you want to communicate with will be on a Google service. Sending an email? Watching a video? Reading a blog? Chances are good that Google's involved.

Not sure why you were downvoted. I think you raise a good point, chrome + adwords + dns + etc + etc.. is concerning.

Re: Google’s Chrome Becomes Web ‘Gatekeeper’ and Rivals Complain

#34

Post by dalbasal »

Antitrust law is, I suspect, hopelessly outdated... both the laws and the understanding of monopolies/trusts that are baked into them.

These laws were based on 19th-century competition. The problems att were price fixing, predatory pricing (eg price low to kill competition then raise prices), supply chain bottlenecking (how you gonna sell your ore without my trains) ... industrial era trust stuff.

The precedents and laws are hair-splitting and specific. It's just not the kind of system that can "think" high level and apply abstract principles to totally new problems.

Google & Facebook mostly have no prices to fix. The ad markets where they make their money are competitive bid-based, ostensibly the opposite of a "monopolistic pricing" structure.

The economic/theory just doesn't match the pratices anymore. For example: Facebooks' revenue.

Imagine that tomorrow morning BMW's revenues are cut in half. BMW would need to produce fewer cars. Cars cost X to produce. Cut X in half, and you can expect half the volume.

What would happen if we did the same to FB. My guess is that they'd still make the same FB. If you take path dependency^ out of the mix (that it's hard to fire people and adjust downward), It's scary to think how big a company is required to make FB. Doesn't seem like a stretch to speculate that it can be done on a $5-$10bn budget... 1/10th of their current revenue. After all, Facebook was Facebook on that budget not long ago.

^By path dependency I mean imagine that FB's revenue had just never gotten to $80bn in the first place, the sahare price had never gotten so high. Etc.

IDK what exactly that implies about what antitrust laws should be, but it does mean that the theoretical foundation for the current ruleset is totally off. The way monopolistic power conerts to money in 2019 is fundamentally different from 1891... I mean genuinely fundamental, I'm not using it as a superlative. The definition of monopoly, benefits of owning one, the reasons why they're bad (or not).

Re: Google’s Chrome Becomes Web ‘Gatekeeper’ and Rivals Complain

#35

Post by stephenr »

bad_user wrote: post #18
dTal wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>In the case of Chrome, you can't blame Google. They made a good browser, did some marketing and it got popular. Where "did some marketing" equals "unethically abused monopoly position to aggressively push through dark patterns", sure. I think I can still blame them for that.

I've seen dark patterns from Google, but in the case of Chrome I have a hard time remembering any. Do you mean that they advertised for Chrome on their properties? Advertising on your own property is legitimate in my book. And simple advertising isn't a "dark pattern". Or do you mean something else?

A big "works better in Chrome" button/banner is not legitimate advertising.

Re: Google’s Chrome Becomes Web ‘Gatekeeper’ and Rivals Complain

#36

Post by r3bl »

TAForObvReasons wrote: post #15
writepub wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do not trust Google, but I do not trust Mozilla either. An overwhelming majority of Mozilla funding comes from Google, Microsoft, and other giants it directly competes with. Added to that, many of it's battles (at the W3C and like) prioritize philosophy over customer satisfaction and ease of use. 99.9% of browser users don't care or don't even know if their browser is open source - what they want is convenience and…

Mozilla really hasn't helped their cause with various privacy-related issues over the last few years, like the Booking.com ads ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18800360 ). The obfuscatory language around it are arguably more insulting than the ads themselves. As John Gruber so eloquently wrote: > If you want to sell ads, sell ads. Own it. Don’t try to coat it with a layer of frosting and tell me it’s a fucking…

They didn't sell the space to Booking.com. They've promoted one another in their user bases: Firefox showed a message about Booking, Booking showed a message about Firefox. There was no money involved.

I'm not gonna defend their action to do so because I disagree with it too, but if you wanna feel outraged about it, at least get the facts right. John Gruber should do the same.

Re: Google’s Chrome Becomes Web ‘Gatekeeper’ and Rivals Complain

#37

Post by stephenr »

gfosco wrote: post #9

I really don't like how browser vendors have become extension gatekeepers, strongly discouraging any integration they disapprove of. I like what Gab has done with the Dissenter Browser (fork of Brave) after being removed from the Google/Firefox stores.

Imagine being so convinced that nazis and white supremacists are "right" that literally fork your own browser.

Re: Google’s Chrome Becomes Web ‘Gatekeeper’ and Rivals Complain

#38

Post by Illniyar »

bduerst wrote: post #28
ishan1121 wrote: post #2

Google is a clear monopoly, there's no doubt about it. It has a 70% browser market share, 70% market share in the search ecosystem. Even though their service is good and people are happy, I think they need to be broken down for the sake of keeping an open internet. Even Facebook for that matter. That's my opinion

Just having dominant marketshare, especially in the presence of easily-accessible competitors (e.g. Safari, Mozilla, Opera, etc.), is definitively not a monopoly.

It more or less is, from a legal stand point, or atleast when referring to anti-trust laws.

That doesn't mean that they are doing anti-competitive stuff and are viable for enforcement, being a monopoly in an open market is not illegal, it does mean that with that level of marketshare they have some legal limitations that their competitors don't have. Usually it's a limit on merges, acquisitions, price setting and bundling.

Re: Google’s Chrome Becomes Web ‘Gatekeeper’ and Rivals Complain

#39

Post by mda »

josteink wrote: post #31
jjeaff wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Some marketing", ha. It was prominently advertised with a message that almost made it seem required, all by itself, on the otherwise almost blank Google search page. One of the most, if not the most visited pages on the planet.

Yes I remember that too, worded with scummy, deceiving wording, like most other malware/spyware at the time. Instead of “Virus detected! Click here for free scan” it was “Old browser detected. Click here to upgrade”. It was literally 100% out of the malware deployment hand guide.

In this case Chrome was actually miles better and secure than those old browsers though. It wasn't deceiving, it was the truth.

Re: Google’s Chrome Becomes Web ‘Gatekeeper’ and Rivals Complain

#40

Post by TAForObvReasons »

r3bl wrote: post #36
TAForObvReasons wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mozilla really hasn't helped their cause with various privacy-related issues over the last few years, like the Booking.com ads ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18800360 ). The obfuscatory language around it are arguably more insulting than the ads themselves. As John Gruber so eloquently wrote: > If you want to sell ads, sell ads. Own it. Don’t try to coat it with a layer of frosting and tell me it’s a fucking…

They didn't sell the space to Booking.com. They've promoted one another in their user bases: Firefox showed a message about Booking, Booking showed a message about Firefox. There was no money involved. I'm not gonna defend their action to do so because I disagree with it too, but if you wanna feel outraged about it, at least get the facts right. John Gruber should do the same.

Ironically that Gruber comment was about the "user-enhancing" Sponsored Tiles episode from early 2014. That we are still seeing questionable and un-telegraphed behavior in 2019 suggests none of the privacy-relevant lessons were taken to heart.
Post reply on HN