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

Re: The DOJ still wants Google to sell off Chrome

#511

Post by guywithahat » Sun, Mar 09, 2025, 7:08 AM UTC

makeitdouble wrote: post #357

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.

On the one hand you're positing that Chrome can just live on independently from Google. That 's what "anyone can fork" means to me. Forking is not just copying the code, but maintaining the project and keeping it relevant On the other hand you worry that Chrome can't go on without Google, as it currently doesn't bring enough money and needs to be a market abuse tool to justify the costs. In a very real way, I think i…

Sure, but there’s a difference between Brave existing as its own company and the government forcibly coming in and breaking up a company.

I think it’s good for the market that some players are fully independent, and others are part of massive conglomerates.

Re: The DOJ still wants Google to sell off Chrome

#512

Post by buu700 » Sun, Mar 09, 2025, 7:18 AM UTC

MR4D wrote: post #397

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,…

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…

That framing of the issue makes a lot of sense. It might still be a reasonable middle ground if Google doesn't own Chrome itself, or control the proprietary bits or any related backend services, but still maintains leadership of Chromium development.

As a Firefox user, I also don't love the implications of forcing Google to end its default search engine deal with Firefox. If they changed course on that, then a similar deal with the hypothetical non-Google Chrome could be a viable way to maintain something like Chrome's current financial model without giving Google too much control over the web.

On the other hand, one might argue that Google's search business and that sector as a whole are already at a high enough risk right now without the courts throwing another wildcard into the mix. I'm not staking out a position on this one way or another, but I hope whatever decisions they land on are very carefully considered.

Re: The DOJ still wants Google to sell off Chrome

#513

Post by hysan » Sun, Mar 09, 2025, 7:22 AM UTC

soerxpso wrote: post #453

hysan wrote: post #441

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure how Chromium development relates to the order of divesting *Chrome* from Google. AFAICT, Google can continue pouring resources into Chromium. Was this an unintentional mixup in your comment?

Why would Google pour resources into Chromium if they don't profit off of it anymore?

Great question and one that I hope people would put more thought into. Here are two possible reasons off the top of my head:

- pushing for web ecosystem features that would help their own products (ex: Gmail, docs, etc)

- pushing for web enhancements that back SEO metrics that matter to them (ex: core web vitals)

I don’t think it’s as simple as - no more Chrome == no more investment into Chromium because Chrome/Chromium has been their strongest lever for getting web features that Google wants standardized. Stopping investment in that area cedes control of the web to other players who may have opposing goals to Google.

Re: The DOJ still wants Google to sell off Chrome

#514

Post by wruza » Sun, Mar 09, 2025, 7:22 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…

These result counts are known to be fake.

Re: The DOJ still wants Google to sell off Chrome

#515

Post by wruza » Sun, Mar 09, 2025, 7:31 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…

They not only officially own the user-agent which they made sure is the most installed.

They are gray cardinals of web standards which they bloated to the point of zero viable competition. And their only opponent lives on their couch.

Re: The DOJ still wants Google to sell off Chrome

#516

Post by bsimpson » Sun, Mar 09, 2025, 7:33 AM UTC

sashank_1509 wrote: post #378

Google has a monopoly but focusing on Chrome seems wrong. Here’s my prediction, let us remove chrome from the world tomorrow, make bing the default search engine on all devices. How much will Googles search market share fall by? From 90% to 80%. Maybe even 70%. I don’t see it falling below that. Does DOJ think that hypothetical market shares could be 40% Google, 30% Bing, 20-30% rest. I don’t think this is possible s…

> Firefox and Safari Exempted

It's been long enough now that there are significant differences, but Chrome started from the same base as Safari. The teams had different perspectives, so Chrome forked Safari's internals and called the result Blink.

Re: The DOJ still wants Google to sell off Chrome

#517

Post by jimnotgym » Sun, Mar 09, 2025, 7:34 AM UTC

magicalist wrote: post #408

dfabulich wrote: post #360

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> It's a common misconception that tons of users manually install Chrome, but Google just pays PC makers to make Chrome the default browser Maybe 10 years ago, but which ones do it now? thinkpads and HP machines, at least, ship with Edge as the default. Dell or something? Windows is also _hyper_ aggressive about pushing Edge now too. Like it's nuts how hard it pushes it, to the point that it embarrasses people who do…

Before Edge, everyone had to install Chrome because the web wouldn't work with IE. It is still the case that some major sites don't work with Firefox either. Edge is as close to a de-Googled Chrome as you can get to work properly. Unfortunately de-Googling meant re-Microsofting

Re: The DOJ still wants Google to sell off Chrome

#518

Post by hysan » Sun, Mar 09, 2025, 7:34 AM UTC

3vidence wrote: post #464

hysan wrote: post #447

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m a bit confused by this comment. I didn’t mention any of those and didn’t callout any specific business models for browsers. Just that Chrome would need to figure out how to monetize itself like how other browsers are trying to do. Diving into the different business models that other browsers are trying is a very different conversation that needs nuance. For example, how would Brave and Orion fit into your remark?

Brave is built on chromium and thus is being subsidized by Google https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brave_(web_browser) I think they used to have their own engine but like everyone else found it unprofitable to maintain.

I think this viewpoint is too simplistic in that the assumption is that if Google has to divest Chrome, then there is no benefit to investing in Chromium. I think that is too black and white (see my other comment on why - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43306985).

Let’s do a thought experiment - If Google truly felt that Chromium has no benefit, then smaller players will drive the project and, as others have pointed out, new feature proposals/implementations will slow down. That isn’t a bad thing in my opinion because it allows other engines to not be stuck in catchup mode. The field will start to even out and innovations will start to come from alternative engines. With an even playing field, what was once an unprofitable endeavor can become a differentiator in the browser ecosystem.

Re: The DOJ still wants Google to sell off Chrome

#519

Post by flanked-evergl » Sun, Mar 09, 2025, 7:36 AM UTC

pclmulqdq wrote: post #155

flanked-evergl wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is not what is happening. I use Android, Chrome, and Google Search because the alternatives are quite poor. All of those things work better with alternatives than any competition. Android is the most open mobile OS, Chrome is the most open and non-coercive browser, Google Search works great with all other OS's and browsers.

It doesn't matter why you use any of this software. What matters is what it does to the ads market. This is not 1999 and this is not Microsoft. Google's product isn't software. It's the attention of its users.

Google's share of my attention is negligible to the point of barely existing when compared to HN, X, YouTube(yes I know, but I see no adds because I have premium), podcasts, audiobooks and many other things. Even Facebook probably takes more attention and I barely use it.

Re: The DOJ still wants Google to sell off Chrome

#520

Post by jimnotgym » Sun, Mar 09, 2025, 7:41 AM UTC

bloppe wrote: post #439

bo1024 wrote: post #404

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Selling might not make business sense for Google or for Chrome, but it makes a ton of sense for the American public. Google is using Chrome to benefit advertisers, data brokers, and surveillance over users. Exhibit: the manifest v2 / Ublock Origin saga. And this is huge because so many other browsers use Chromium or its engine under the hood. Google can also use Chrome to push user-unfriendly web standards or de-fact…

The problem is that it doesn't make business sense for anybody else to buy Chrome. Bare in mind that 99% of Chrome is the free Chromium open source project, so you're not buying any sort of technological asset. You're just buying a big pre-existing user base, which would be extremely difficult to monetize without making the product much worse, although I'm sure Microsoft or Facebook would be happy to give that a go.…

> The problem is that it doesn't make business sense for anybody else to buy Chrome

I don't see why divesting it necessarily means selling it to another company. Google could create a non-profit like Mozilla, or a for profit and float it as its own business.