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

321–330 of 345 posts

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

#321

Post by jauntywundrkind »

mixmastamyk wrote: post #276
jauntywundrkind wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

You say it's "outlandish" to consider alternatives, but new ones are starting all the time. Every advance of the post-FLOSS era has started just like this. Big players getting out of the way can only help evolution along.

Name 10 then. Name 3? Name any!

I don't think 98% of readers here have any possible candidates in mind. We don't have any idea what might be better, or why.

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

#322

Post by thfuran »

fooker wrote: post #314
thfuran wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, people mostly won't pay because ad-supported free alternatives exist.

Yes that is my point. If you want to prevent such alternatives from existing, you'd need fairly authoritarian measures.

No more authoritarian than minimum wage.

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

#323

Post by dave4420 »

fooker wrote: post #297
dave4420 wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah. I think that was the wrong decision. The problem was introducing features between IE and IIS and using that to extend their end user OS monopoly into a server OS monopoly. MS should have been blocked from the server OS market instead (or maybe some some of consent decree, I’m sceptical it would have been appropriately enforced though).

> I think that was the wrong decision. Could be. But this decision is why we even have other browsers.

I don’t think so.

The decision came too late to save Netscape. Microsoft then stopped competing, and were slow to react when Firefox emerged.

Meanwhile, Apple were always going to create their own browser — as part of their own OS — eventually. Opera kept on keeping on. Konquerer was never going to live or die depending on what happened on Windows.

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

#324

Post by mixmastamyk »

jauntywundrkind wrote: post #321
mixmastamyk wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You say it's "outlandish" to consider alternatives, but new ones are starting all the time. Every advance of the post-FLOSS era has started just like this. Big players getting out of the way can only help evolution along.

Name 10 then. Name 3? Name any! I don't think 98% of readers here have any possible candidates in mind. We don't have any idea what might be better, or why.

Gemini, ipfs. There are new browsers that could choose different designs re surveillance: servo, ladybird. There have been attempts at modernizing older protocols like gopher. Not the most inquisitive wunderkind, are we?

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

#325

Post by tatersolid »

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.

> Costco is a subscription business.

I don’t think that’s accurate. The membership fee is a trivially small percentage for most members, and can’t be a significant margin driver. Especially for those members who have a pack of kids and shop Costco regularly, spending hundreds of dollars per visit.

I personally think the membership fee exists as a gating function to keep less-prolific customers out of overcrowded stores on weekends.

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

#326

Post by Ygg2 »

Izkata wrote: post #308
Ygg2 wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They did? AJAX of jQuery fame, is extremely similar to ActiveX XmlHttpRequest. The problem isn't XmlHttpRequest, but everything else they added/removed. Same with Google. The problem isn't they made request more secure, they made ad blocking impossible.

> AJAX of jQuery fame, is extremely similar to ActiveX XmlHttpRequest. I think you have two names mixed up: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/1600419/xmlhttprequest-v... This stuck out because I remember jQuery's ajax being a wrapper around XMLHttpRequest (and maybe still is?).

I don't see how that affects my argument. The point is, Active X had an XML HTTP Request way before it was standardized. Same with iframe, and other features.

Microsoft is known for treating developers pretty good. Much unlike Apple.

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

#327

Post by hermanradtke »

tatersolid wrote: post #325
hermanradtke wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> Costco is a subscription business. I don’t think that’s accurate. The membership fee is a trivially small percentage for most members, and can’t be a significant margin driver. Especially for those members who have a pack of kids and shop Costco regularly, spending hundreds of dollars per visit. I personally think the membership fee exists as a gating function to keep less-prolific customers out of overcrowded stor…

Costco prices are very low. They intentionally make very little margin on what people buy.

Their margin comes from subscriptions.

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

#328

Post by Izkata »

Ygg2 wrote: post #326
Izkata wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> AJAX of jQuery fame, is extremely similar to ActiveX XmlHttpRequest. I think you have two names mixed up: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/1600419/xmlhttprequest-v... This stuck out because I remember jQuery's ajax being a wrapper around XMLHttpRequest (and maybe still is?).

I don't see how that affects my argument. The point is, Active X had an XML HTTP Request way before it was standardized. Same with iframe, and other features. Microsoft is known for treating developers pretty good. Much unlike Apple.

It wasn't supposed to be a rebuttal, I could just see the statement being really confusing for anyone not around back then who didn't realize terms had been mixed up.

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

#329

Post by fooker »

dns_snek wrote: post #318
fooker wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes that is my point. If you want to prevent such alternatives from existing, you'd need fairly authoritarian measures.

Far from authoritarian, dealing with business models that seem fine on an individual level but that are detrimental to society as a whole is precisely the type of problem that governments are supposed to solve.

I don’t disagree. But that’s literally the definition of authoritarian. Doing things because you have the authority to, because $REASONS.

It’s all flowers and sunshine when you agree with what they are doing but it’s incredibly easy to abuse the power. And suddenly, like compounding interest, you have dictatorship.

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

#330

Post by fooker »

thfuran wrote: post #322
fooker wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes that is my point. If you want to prevent such alternatives from existing, you'd need fairly authoritarian measures.

No more authoritarian than minimum wage.

People surviving is a core government responsibility. Business models or companies surviving, less so.
Post reply on HN