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

Google can keep its Chrome browser but will be barred from exclusive contracts

cnbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

491–500 of 663 posts

Re: Google can keep its Chrome browser but will be barred from exclusive contracts

#491

Post by unilynx »

TJSomething wrote: post #385
pfg_ wrote: post #364

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whenever I use chrome, I'm missing the style editor and multi-line repl mode from firefox. When I switched to firefox from chrome, I didn't miss anything. There might be new features chrome has added since that I would want if I knew about them

While I agree on those counts, the debugger in Chrome handles large files of minified code, deep framework stack traces, and stopping in dysfunctional code better.

Except for infinite loops in JS. Firefox still handles those better.

Re: Google can keep its Chrome browser but will be barred from exclusive contracts

#492

Post by widhhddok »

camillomiller wrote: post #439
supernova87a wrote: post #56

By the way, a pet peeve of mine right now is that reporters covering court cases (and we have so many of public interest lately) never seem to simply paste the link to the online PDF decision/ruling for us all to read, right in the story. (and another user here kindly did that for us below: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.223... ) It seems such a simple step (they must have been using the rul…

As a reporter, I can tell you that your comment stems from a common fallacy: y’all think you know better than reporters what our jobs are and what the dynamics of our publishing platform entail. For some reason, everyone feels like they would know how to be a journalist better than the actual professionals. That said, reporters have most probably nothing to do with what you’re decrying. Linking policies are not the r…

This comment deflects from the very real original comment's gripe with not linking to the original source.

Re: Google can keep its Chrome browser but will be barred from exclusive contracts

#493

Post by ozgrakkurt »

tgsovlerkhgsel wrote: post #384
rendaw wrote: post #380

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is StackOverflow dead now? And because of AI? It still usually has the standard quality of answers for most questions I google. I google fewer questions because modern languages have better documentation cultures.

All my stackoverflow-style queries are now going to whatever AI chatbot is most accessible when I need my answer. They tend to provide answers that are at least as correct as StackOverflow (i.e. not perfect but good enough to be useful in most cases), generally more specific (the first/only answer is the one I want, I don't have to find the right one first), and the examples are tailored to my use case to the point w…

I am using free chatgpt and free deepseek mostly.

They are both terrible in terms of correctness compared to duckduckgo->stackoverflow.

As an example deepsek makes stuff up if I as for what syscall to use for deleting directories. And it really misleads me in a convincing way. If I search then I end up in the man page and I can exentually figure it out after 2-3 minutes

Re: Google can keep its Chrome browser but will be barred from exclusive contracts

#494

Post by arccy »

wraptile wrote: post #396
chneu wrote: post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google has systematically shittified the internet with Chrome by pushing bunk standards that other browsers are forced to adopt. Just recently they got fed up with ad-blockers so what do they do? Yeah. Then what just happened with android apps? yeah. Google is not good for the internet. Anyone saying this is just sucking google's dick and siding with a major corporation. Also fuck AMP.

AMP was such a colossal failure I can't believe people are allowing Google to live it down.

It was very good at delivering content with a lot less user visible impact of various trackers. In that goal it was a success.

Re: Google can keep its Chrome browser but will be barred from exclusive contracts

#495

Post by the_other »

conartist6 wrote: post #361
thayne wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The ruling says they can pay for preload, but not for exclusivity. From what I understand Google could pay for Firefox to install a Google search extension, but they can't pay Firefox to make Google the default search engine. Even if they get google to pay for just pre-installing it, it's not going to be anywhere near what Google currently pays to be the default.

I read that part. The court mandates a search engine choice screen initially for each device, then once a year afterwards. Google is allowed to pay for advertising on this screen. It seems to me that at very least Mozilla will have to renegotiate a contract and it's not clear what they might make off selling ads in that space. Google will presumably not value the lesser advantage as highly, but if the other provision…

How much could a slot that shows up at most twice per year for ~20s, for ~2% of web users, be worth, and where does that sit in the market? It sounds tiny, to me.

Re: Google can keep its Chrome browser but will be barred from exclusive contracts

#496

Post by the_other »

pdabbadabba wrote: post #20
LeoPanthera wrote: post #9

The BBC is reporting the exact opposite of this headline. "It's also free to keep making payments to partners such as Apple, to secure placement of its browser - another closely watched and contentious part of the case." https://www.bbc.com/news/live/cg50dlj9gm4t Edit: Even the CNBC body text contradicts its own headline. The confusion seems to be what "exclusive" means. "The company can make payments to preload prod…

I don't see the contradiction "paying partners to secure browser placement" =/ "exclusivity." This just means you can have partner deals, but that they can't be exclusive, right?

I don't see how it's different from what happens today. Google isn't an exclusive search option in any browser.

Are you saying that 'til now, Apple/Firefox _only_ took money for search default from Google due to the wording of the contract? In future, all the search vendors can pay all the browser makers for a position on a list of defaults?

Re: Google can keep its Chrome browser but will be barred from exclusive contracts

#497

Post by reddalo »

baq wrote: post #404
jowea wrote: post #323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem has more to do with editors. The theory is that less visits leads to less editors in the long run.

That’s certainly true for stack overflow, but in their case the moderators were very active in getting the negative feedback loop going.

Also, Stack Overflow is a commercial website, while Wikipedia is a free (as in freedom) project. Editing Wikipedia feels like you're contributing towards "an ideal", that you're giving back something to humanity, instead of just helping somebody else getting richer.

Re: Google can keep its Chrome browser but will be barred from exclusive contracts

#498

Post by ozgrakkurt »

harmmonica wrote: post #423
qnleigh wrote: post #401

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Structural load calculations for a post in a house You're relying on ChatGPT for this? How do you check the result? That sounds kind of dangerous...

Not dangerous in this implementation. I knew going in there was likely significant margin for error. I would not rely on ChatGPT if I was endangering myself, my people or anyone else for that matter (though this project is at my place). That said, the word "relying" is taking it too far. I'm relying on myself to be able to vet what ChatGPT is telling me. And the great thing about ChatGPT and Gemini, at least the way…

How do you “vet” something technical and something that you can’t even do yourself is beyond me.

Vetting things is very likely harder than doing the thing correctly.

Especially the thing you are vetting is designed to look correct more than actually being correct.

You can picture a physics class where teacher gives a trick problem/solution and 95% of class doesn’t realize until the teacher walks back and explains it.

Re: Google can keep its Chrome browser but will be barred from exclusive contracts

#499

Post by BrenBarn »

r0m4n0 wrote: post #438
BrenBarn wrote: post #390

> Plaintiffs overreached in seeking forced divestiture of these key assets, which Google did not use to effect any illegal restraints. This is the problem. It doesn't matter if they used those specific assets to perpetrate these specific acts. The overall market power derived from those assets (and many others) taints everything they do. There is no way to effectively curtail monopoly power by selectively limiting th…

Sounds nice but many companies cannot exist in tiny pieces, Google included. So if you force that it will cease to exist. Which I believe to be a net negative to the US, and world, some may disagree though Disclosure: Google employee, words are my own

> Which I believe to be a net negative to the US, and world, some may disagree though

Yes, I disagree. If we can't have Google without monopolism then we should have neither. Treating Google as essential in this situation is like a druggie saying he "needs" his next hit. People only "need" Google because Google has used its monopoly position to try to make people addicted to it. It should never have been allowed to happen in the first place, the company should have been broken up 10+ years ago, and it's only getting worse. It would be better to destroy it entirely (along with many other such large companies) than to keep it with its disproportionate power.

Re: Google can keep its Chrome browser but will be barred from exclusive contracts

#500

Post by grumbel »

IshKebab wrote: post #116
stackskipton wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Feels like judge was looking for any excuse not to apply harsh penalty and since Google brought up AI as competitor, the judge accepted it as acceptable excuse for very minor penalty.

AI is a competitor. You know how StackOverflow is dead because AI provided an alternative? That's happening in search too. You might think "but ChatGPT isn't a search engine", and that's true. It can't handle all queries you might use a search engine for, e.g. if you want to find a particular website. But there are many many queries that it can handle. Here's just a few from my recent history: * How do I load a share…

> AI is a competitor.

AI isn't competition for Google, AI is technology. Not only is Google using AI themselves, they are pretty damn near the top of the AI game.

It's also questionable how this is relevant for past crimes of Google. It's completely hypothetical speculation about the future. Could an AI company rise and dethrone classic Google? Yeah. Could Google themselves be the AI company that does it? Probably, especially when they can continue due abuse their monopoly across multiple fields.

There is also the issue that current AI companies are still just bleeding money, none of them have figured out how to make money.

Post reply on HN