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

The DOJ still wants Google to sell off Chrome

wired.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

361–370 of 718 posts

Re: The DOJ still wants Google to sell off Chrome

#361

Post by acdha »

spoaceman7777 wrote: post #338
braiamp wrote: post #328

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you want to make Chrome your desktop browser, you open the default browser, search for Chrome, click the correct result, download the installer, run the installer, open Chrome, and set it as the default browser. So many users do this that people conclude Chrome has an unfair advantage. Most of that advantage comes from an unfair practice, of Google making consumers think that their choice of browser was in somew…

That's just simple advertising though. Nearly every company is selling their product as being superior to some set of competing products, at whatever their price point is.

Did Chrome pay for the ad placement on Google’s sites? Could Mozilla or Microsoft buy the same spots? Could they pay YouTube to keep the site faster for them than standards-compliant browsers?

If the answer to any of those is no, it’s more than simple advertising.

Re: The DOJ still wants Google to sell off Chrome

#362

Post by nfw2 »

hysan wrote: post #236
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…

> How does a non Google owned Chrome support itself and continue development? Possibly by trying to find a business model that can support Chrome development just like all other Chromium (and non-Chromium) based browsers? As much as I loved Chrome when it first came out, I’ve also been well aware that Google’s backing of Chrome (and Chromium) has given it undue advantages in the browser market by effectively making e…

Most of these business models you refer to rely on some combination of:

1. funding from Google (Firefox)

2. engineering from Google (Chromium)

3. tech giant bundling (Safari, Edge)

Re: The DOJ still wants Google to sell off Chrome

#363

Post by fngjdflmdflg »

braiamp wrote: post #328
kweingar wrote: post #320

Here's something I don't understand. If you want to switch your search engine for Safari on iOS, you open Settings, tap Safari, tap Search Engine, and tap your preferred search engine. Not many users do this, and the conclusion is that the default has an unfair advantage. If you want to make Chrome your desktop browser, you open the default browser, search for Chrome, click the correct result, download the installer,…

> If you want to make Chrome your desktop browser, you open the default browser, search for Chrome, click the correct result, download the installer, run the installer, open Chrome, and set it as the default browser. So many users do this that people conclude Chrome has an unfair advantage. Most of that advantage comes from an unfair practice, of Google making consumers think that their choice of browser was in somew…

>Most of that advantage comes from an unfair practice, of Google making consumers think that their choice of browser was in someway inferior (which could be true) and thus they should prefer Chrome (which is not true).

Are you sure that the advantage came from marketing? In my mind the advantage was that Chrome really was faster for example due to V8. Also can you explain why the "thus they should prefer Chrome" reasoning is flawed?

Personally, I haven't seen Google act in a way that prevents competition in the browser space (ie. being anticompetitive). If anything, Windows is more anticompetitive because it is closed source, making it much more difficult to create a competing product. All the web specifications are completely free. And Apple is the only vendor that prevents browser competition on their platform, although Windows does give you a popup telling you not install Chrome.[0]

The Google search agreements between Apple and Google seem more likely to be anticompetitive.

[0] Searching for Google Chrome with the default Bing search engine with the default Edge browser gives you this result:

>Promoted by Microsoft

>There's no need to download a new web browser. Microsoft recommends using Microsoft Edge for a fast, secure, and modern web experience that can help save you time and money.

See also Every trick Microsoft pulled to make you browse Edge instead of Chrome - https://www.theverge.com/23935029/microsoft-edge-forced-wind...

Re: The DOJ still wants Google to sell off Chrome

#364

Post by creato »

keepamovin wrote: post #45
robertlagrant wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm okay with Windows being owned by Microsoft which is (was) basically the same thing in a way Windows is much worse by most metrics. I can't fork Windowsium and build (and sell) my own fully-compatible, 99.999999% R&D paid for by Microsoft, OS. > This is all probably too vague and unspecified for you lot...but it is just an idea It is a bit vague :) In that: who pays for it? Who decides what features are in or ou…

I think the control should be in the hands of the public. Stewarded by a public organization with government funds. What do you think?

Good luck paying engineers to work on chrome on the GS pay scale, subject to the whims of Elon Musk's DOGE.

Re: The DOJ still wants Google to sell off Chrome

#365

Post by abirch »

dfabulich wrote: post #360
kweingar wrote: post #320

Here's something I don't understand. If you want to switch your search engine for Safari on iOS, you open Settings, tap Safari, tap Search Engine, and tap your preferred search engine. Not many users do this, and the conclusion is that the default has an unfair advantage. If you want to make Chrome your desktop browser, you open the default browser, search for Chrome, click the correct result, download the installer,…

It's a common misconception that tons of users manually install Chrome, but Google just pays PC makers to make Chrome the default browser. Chrome is the only browser with a business model that makes sense to do this. Microsoft just doesn't make enough money from Bing/Edge to pay PC makers to leave Edge as the default. Firefox makes no money at all, and makes 95% of its revenue from Google's payments to be the default…

I agree with you. Of all the remedies to address Google's "monopoly" this seems to the most bizarre.

My question is if Google has to divest from Chrome, would they be able to build a new web browser? In the article it said that they'd need approval for any new joint venture, collaboration, or partnership with any company that competes with Google in search or in search text ads.

It makes no mention of web browsers.

Re: The DOJ still wants Google to sell off Chrome

#367

Post by abirch »

creato wrote: post #358
rudedogg wrote: post #355

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You get nagged to do it by the most popular website in the world (google.com) if you're using something else, which might be part of the problem.

And I get nagged by the operating system in multiple different ways (system dialogs, notifications, opening a new file type, ...) to switch back from Chrome.

It'd be ironic if Google had to sell Chrome to Microsoft due to monopoly reasons.

Re: The DOJ still wants Google to sell off Chrome

#368

Post by grishka »

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…

Unironically, the world be better off if the "advancement" in the space of web browsers comes to an end. This ever-expanding scope of what a web browser is "supposed" to do and be is good for no one. When it's finite, it's much easier to build a new browser engine from scratch. Which is something we should be doing much more as a society. To that end, I'm really excited about Ladybird.

So, like, let's pick a set of criteria where web standards are considered complete, and move towards that. And when we do reach it, just stop.

Re: The DOJ still wants Google to sell off Chrome

#369

Post by acdha »

creato wrote: post #364
keepamovin wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the control should be in the hands of the public. Stewarded by a public organization with government funds. What do you think?

Good luck paying engineers to work on chrome on the GS pay scale, subject to the whims of Elon Musk's DOGE.

I think you’d have had zero problems having engineers on the GS scale prior to November 6th, 2024. No, they wouldn’t get rich but it’s a space full of interesting technical and usability challenges and you’d be able to work on incredibly high-impact open source projects. Like if you simply make it easier for someone older/disabled/etc. to fill out forms, make good security decisions, find information, etc. literally millions of people benefit from that a couple of weeks later.

It’d be neat if the EU picked up the torch here but with any government it seems like it’d be better to have a non-profit get a block grant so you avoid things like those salary issues or other challenges: for example, if the EU decided they didn’t want to depend on the U.S. for critical infrastructure, funding a back-to-its-roots Mozilla.org would make it easier for, say, Canada or India to join in without the issues you’d have trying to directly pay government employee salaries.

Re: The DOJ still wants Google to sell off Chrome

#370

Post by kaonwarb »

ToucanLoucan wrote: post #335
guywithahat wrote: post #330

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The counterpoint would be anyone can fork Chrome and put an adblocker back in (ie Brave). I worry as part of Google, chrome is just an open source project with profit as a secondary motive, while as it’s own company they’ll probably try to make it more profitable and it’ll become worse and closed down.

If it's so unprofitable why have they spent, what, nearly a year now in court trying desperately to keep it? Have you genuinely never heard of a loss-leader? Across their entire buffet of products, many of which are free at point of use like Chrome is, they advertise Chrome. That the internet is better with Chrome. That their products are better with Chrome. Do you really believe this is genuinely just because they a…

> The fact that they're working so hard to keep it tells me it's an even better idea to make them sell it.

If your goal is nothing deeper than to hurt Google, sure. Otherwise, this logic is far from complete.

Post reply on HN