The DOJ still wants Google to sell off Chrome • Hacker News Board

Re: The DOJ still wants Google to sell off Chrome

#501

Post by sweeter » Sun, Mar 09, 2025, 6:38 AM UTC

exodust wrote: post #499

MR4D wrote: post #397

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s not the issue. The problem is that Google owns both sides of the internet - the browser on your computer and the search engine to find everything. As a result, they control your perception of the internet. If a site doesn’t work, you as the user thinks the site doesn’t work. You don’t think oh, my browser is broken. Also, if you don’t find a site on Google the. To you, it doesn’t exist. As a result, you have t…

> if you don’t find a site on Google, to you, it doesn’t exist What do you mean "find a site"? Are you saying the user has a website in mind they've visited before? Or are you saying the user doesn't have a website in mind, and is looking for "any website about XYZ?" I don't think your claim is valid. At what point does the user conclude something "doesn't exist"? Users never reach such a conclusion, in part because…

How many people get past the first page? I'd wager a guess its under 3%. It could be 20 results or an infinite amount, it wouldn't make a single bit of difference. It is a fact that google gets to control who and what shows up in a search, and they put paying entries at the top. There are many problems with this. They have also de-listed websites from google search, and are at a high risk of complying with any government request to censor topics. Which, again, is not good for humanity.

Re: The DOJ still wants Google to sell off Chrome

#502

Post by surajrmal » Sun, Mar 09, 2025, 6:46 AM UTC

adastra22 wrote: post #489

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,…

Chrome is the default on every non-Apple system in common use. Windows (Edge), Chrome OS, Android…

Edge is chromium based not chrome based. Google is not the default search engine on edge nor does it have any real control over the edge experience which Microsoft couldn't change itself.

ChromeOS is not popular by any means outside of the US education market. Chrome being the default on just Android is hardly a strong case when Android usage in the US is only 56%.

Re: The DOJ still wants Google to sell off Chrome

#503

Post by mattlondon » Sun, Mar 09, 2025, 6:51 AM UTC

asadotzler wrote: post #284

mattlondon wrote: post #235

So they sell Chrome today and create Ghrome tomorrow? I can't see Chrome surviving as a standalone product - where is the revenue? I am sure someone will buy it and try to create some "premium" version, but ultimately it will wither and die I expect.

If the remedy doesn't forbid them from creating Ghrome tomorrow, and for many years after, then the remedy is seriously flawed. Somehow I doubt that all the people at DOJ working on this lacked your insights and failed to consider that outcome.

Why should the remedy prevent them creating a new product and start again from zero? If people choose to install and use it - like they did for chrome - then that is not monopolistic behaviour, it is people making a choice.

Is this about breaking Google from a popular browser, or just about punishing Google for offering services people find useful?

It feels to me that it is more about punishing Google than about chrome. Apple and Microsoft seem to be able to get away with wat worse with their browsers - literally every time i use my win11 laptop it is nagging me to use edge or warn me that I should change my default browser to use edge or whatever. Apple won't even let you use another browser at all. But that is somehow fine and allowed?

Re: The DOJ still wants Google to sell off Chrome

#504

Post by tiltowait » Sun, Mar 09, 2025, 6:51 AM UTC

dartos wrote: post #41

ksec wrote: post #34

I disliked Google ever since they started their "Do No Evil" PR campaign. For as long as I remember I was the extreme rare few on internet against them. And I also disliked Chrome. Especially the direction of the web they are using Chrome to push forward. And I also disliked Electron. But I am against DOJ forcing Google to sell off Chrome. Especially when most of Chrome is open sourced. I think this is just plain wro…

Electron isn’t a google product… Also why bring up disliking something as though you were ahead of the curve only to stop short of actually being in favor of taking action?

Concessive openings are a common means to lend extra weight to your conclusion. By signaling you're against $THING in general, your support for $THING in a particular instance is more profound than the support of a person who always supports $THING.

Re: The DOJ still wants Google to sell off Chrome

#505

Post by keepamovin » Sun, Mar 09, 2025, 6:52 AM UTC

floydnoel wrote: post #76

keepamovin wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's okay. Yes, it is just an idea, specifically of making it public. I think the government should pay for it. What do you think?

so every 4 years a new group can shift the priorities completely and what should be a technical challenge becomes a political one, dominated by those with money. I'm sure before long you would be required to input your government ID to use it. I am not sure a worse idea is even possible.

Catastrophizing is possible from any starting point, but it doesn't mean much. People change their minds on new information - democracy. Stability is possible with diversification but ubiquitous utility is its own security. Is that ok?

Re: The DOJ still wants Google to sell off Chrome

#506

Post by SpaceManNabs » Sun, Mar 09, 2025, 6:53 AM UTC

pclmulqdq wrote: post #166

modulus1 wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

MS and Apple have the same thing, they're just less successful. Just a browser and an OS was previously seen as antitrust (and it looks like MS is being anti-competitive in this space still). Just a browser and a search engine can allow anti-competitive behavior. Or just a search engine and an ads platform... The problem is the anti-competitive behavior. Businesses are generally rational actors, so clearly our system…

MS and Apple aren't companies who sell ads. MS and Apple are companies who sell tech products. Everyone analogizing the current situation with Google to Microsoft in 1999 is missing the core of the facts here. The Apple/Epic Games antitrust suits are much more similar to MS in 1999, but Google's antitrust issues are very different. Google's product isn't its software, it's the attention of its users. Having this larg…

A few years ago, one of the bigger points from the apple earnings was that its first party ads platform 10x'ed (or wtv, can't remember the number) its revenue after apple implemented "do not track" app changes.

Re: The DOJ still wants Google to sell off Chrome

#507

Post by snailmailman » Sun, Mar 09, 2025, 6:56 AM UTC

dcow wrote: post #416

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,…

The actual issue is that Google pushes Chrome on its properties “this site renders better with Chrome download here” so it’s almost impossible for users to avoid it. Same issue with Edge. Once you switch off of Safari on macOS that’s the last you hear of it. If anything should be illegal it’s using your dominant position in one market to force users into a specific position in an adjacent one. MS got busted for it pr…

This is definitely a huge part of it. My grandmother is not tech savy, and ended up with the google app installed on her phone. Because if she types anything into any of the search bars, google puts a big banner for the google app in the results page. She doesn't use safari for searching - she now goes to the google app.

Notably - it doesn't advertise chrome there? or maybe she just didn't see those. Most of her internet experience is through either the facebook app or the google app now

Re: The DOJ still wants Google to sell off Chrome

#508

Post by keepamovin » Sun, Mar 09, 2025, 6:57 AM UTC

fauigerzigerk wrote: post #57

keepamovin wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's okay. Yes, it is just an idea, specifically of making it public. I think the government should pay for it. What do you think?

Governments are unreliable (e.g. USAID or recently disappeared government datasets) and have even more conflicts of interest than Google itself (e.g. debates around encryption). Many people don't trust their government. Commercial funding is not necessarily more reliable in general. Google keeps shutting down stuff all the time. But in this particular case, the commercial interest is so strong that funding is secure.…

This is well thought out but possibly too much afraid of change. Its ubiquitous utility makes it very likely it will be safe. "OpenChrome: the open browser for the open web" is a helluva tagline. The right org structure is possible.

Re: The DOJ still wants Google to sell off Chrome

#509

Post by keepamovin » Sun, Mar 09, 2025, 6:59 AM UTC

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.

Hehehe - government funding doesn't mean government in charge. Maybe they only bootstrap it. The right structure is possible.

Re: The DOJ still wants Google to sell off Chrome

#510

Post by surajrmal » Sun, Mar 09, 2025, 7:00 AM UTC

o999 wrote: post #488

Ferret7446 wrote: post #371

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which is ironic because this judgement will destroy Firefox (if Firefox doesn't destroy itself, anyway), and probably Chrome, and leave Edge as basically the only mainstream web browser with a "monopoly". The more things change...

Selling off Chrome ≠ Destroying Chrome

Do you think it would survive a sale? Could the project be able to survive a huge nose dive in contributors? I only use chrome because I trust Google, who knows if the new owner would be similarly trustworthy in my eyes.