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

DOJ will push Google to sell off Chrome

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

361–370 of 1001 posts

Re: DOJ will push Google to sell off Chrome

#361

Post by graemep »

dijit wrote: post #338
MichaelCharles wrote: post #323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Monopolies are bad. Splitting up monopolies is good for the consumer. That doesn't mean this makes any sense. How are they going to separate Chrome from Chromium? If they do, what incentive does Google have to keep maintaining Chromium? Can Google make another new fork of Chromium and start yet another browser? Or are they now banned from making browsers? What company has the resources to maintain Chrome's massive co…

in general, I find a little bit distasteful that the only way to build a browser is as a loss leading project for the largest advertising company on the planet No wonder nobody can compete, loss leaders tend to kill competition as they can be maintained without direct business revenue at all. The same issue plagues domesticated cats, they don’t need to hunt for food since they have an abundance at home so instead wit…

It is not the only way to build a browser.

It is the only way to build a browser and push adoption.

The problem is not the lack of direct revenues. It is the lack of marketing budget and control of platforms (Chrome dominates on Android for exactly the same reason Safari does on Apple).

Firefox is a perfectly good browser, but has lost its market share because Google has huge marketing advantage.

Re: DOJ will push Google to sell off Chrome

#363

Post by TJSomething »

cambaceres wrote: post #343
jrflowers wrote: post #317

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> DOJ is trying to completely change Google's business model and dictate how they are supposed to make money This is good reasoning. It is overreach for a regulatory body to do something that could impact the business model of a monopoly. Monopolies are bad, unless being a monopoly is part of that monopoly’s business model and an important part of how the monopoly makes money, in which case nothing should be done.

> unless being a monopoly is part of that monopoly’s business model and an important part of how the monopoly makes money, in which case nothing should be done. Can you expand on this?

My read of this is based on an assumption that monopolies will always structure their business around being monopolies. This post is implying that there cases where there are not, and those are the only cases where antitrust law should be enforced. Based on this contradiction, as well as the odd phrasing, emphasizing how important making money is over resolving the badness of monopolies, I'm pretty sure this is a joke.

Re: DOJ will push Google to sell off Chrome

#364

Post by lanternfish »

cambaceres wrote: post #343
jrflowers wrote: post #317

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> DOJ is trying to completely change Google's business model and dictate how they are supposed to make money This is good reasoning. It is overreach for a regulatory body to do something that could impact the business model of a monopoly. Monopolies are bad, unless being a monopoly is part of that monopoly’s business model and an important part of how the monopoly makes money, in which case nothing should be done.

> unless being a monopoly is part of that monopoly’s business model and an important part of how the monopoly makes money, in which case nothing should be done. Can you expand on this?

It's a distillation of the top level comment done in a sarcastic manner meant to indicate the dubious natute of the original claim.

Re: DOJ will push Google to sell off Chrome

#365

Post by matwood »

wesselbindt wrote: post #306

I'm very surprised by the number of people in this thread who don't seem to understand that monopolies are _very_ bad for consumers.

Splitting off Chrome doesn't make any sense as a stand alone business. Anyone who could buy Chrome would immediately cause other anti-trust issues. This solution for Google is probably bad for consumers.

What the DoJ should be pursuing is having Google divest YouTube. Now we're talking real change.

Re: DOJ will push Google to sell off Chrome

#366

Post by Pufferbo »

chipdart wrote: post #299
jascination wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1) does it though? It seems like the Google-specific parts of it are pretty ancillary to the whole experience 2) how is it different to Apples integration with Safari?

> 1) does it though? It seems like the Google-specific parts of it are pretty ancillary to the whole experience You're unwittingly describing the textbook definition of anticompetitive practices only made possible by abusing a dominant position. > 2) how is it different to Apples integration with Safari? Safari does not represent >65% of all web traffic. Also, there's the major liability of having a single ad company…

You literally can’t use your mouse to copy/paste in google docs if you’re using Firefox. If that isn’t anticompetitive, I don’t know what is.

Re: DOJ will push Google to sell off Chrome

#367

Post by forgotoldacc »

matwood wrote: post #365
wesselbindt wrote: post #306

I'm very surprised by the number of people in this thread who don't seem to understand that monopolies are _very_ bad for consumers.

Splitting off Chrome doesn't make any sense as a stand alone business. Anyone who could buy Chrome would immediately cause other anti-trust issues. This solution for Google is probably bad for consumers. What the DoJ should be pursuing is having Google divest YouTube. Now we're talking real change.

And if they sold off Youtube, we'd have 500 comments saying, "This is a bad idea. They can't make a profit. They should divest from Chrome."

Splitting Google, Microsoft, Apple, Amazon, etc up all at once and into multiple separate pieces each would be great for consumers. But that's a huge undertaking, and the bigger the changes required, the less likely they are to happen. Taking it one step at a time, with the first step being Chrome and Google search (two products that strongly push users of one to use the other) being split up, is better than no progress at all.

At the very least, the biggest force in killing adblockers (Google gradually gutting them in Chrome) will have fewer means to kill them in browsers. That's a win for consumers.

Re: DOJ will push Google to sell off Chrome

#368

Post by criticalfault »

ninth_ant wrote: post #65
curiouscat321 wrote: post #5

Who would possibly buy Chrome? Letting any of the large tech companies purchase it (the only possible buyers) would just give someone else monopolistic power. Chrome can’t exist as a standalone business without being even more consumer hostile.

It doesn’t matter if no one buys it, or if it doesn’t even continue to exist as a standalone business. That’s preferable. The important part is ending the egregious conflict of interest where an advertising behemoth controls access to the internet. Ideal result is that Chrome ceases to exist and Chromium continues as an independent open source project controlled by a nonprofit. Even if Google is one of the contributo…

> TLDR just be like Mozilla

Please don't.

Do we really want incompetent management going into ad business? Declining market share, while raising management salaries and firing developers?

Re: DOJ will push Google to sell off Chrome

#369

Post by kaba0 »

junon wrote: post #337
eru wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is Chrome or Google a monopoly?

Not sure if this is an innocent comment or not but I'll answer earnestly. They're not, technically. They're hegemons , which doesn't make them much better. In fact, I'd argue the situation is worse. Chrome predominantly owns the web at this point. There are few contenders, and making a new browser is a lot of work (see the Verso browser). Google has the arguably unearned luxury of dictating what APIs and protocols th…

I think what people fail to see is that this is the same as "owning the sea by the British Empire" or "owning the railroads/roads". The economical benefit is not direct monetary gain, but nonetheless absolutely huge, and basically plays outside the "normal" rules.

Google can use their web dominance to push another service of their, or cripple a competitor's in a completely different domain.

Post reply on HN