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

561–570 of 718 posts

Re: The DOJ still wants Google to sell off Chrome

#561

Post by bad_user »

eastbound wrote: post #540
jimnotgym wrote: post #517

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

The web wouldn’t work with IE just because Microsoft had this unique strategy of deviating from standards, having non-working APIs and providing an awful experience to developers. It’s unique. Firefox compliance is another story, but very mild compared to IE. Chrome also had to deal with compatibility issues when Firefox was the leader, but Mozilla relinquished their leadership position because it was very important…

> he had given $1000 to an anti-abortion NGO

That's not what he did. He donated for California's Prop 8, which opposed same-sex marriage, in 2008. I'm personally not judging, as many US progressives have forgotten that during those days, even Obama opposed same-sex marriage. But it's important to get the facts straight, even when being sarcastic.

---

> Then they spent their time politicking and not enough coding.

Mozilla's management certainly is guilty of blunders, but I'm pretty sure the developers who have worked on Mozilla don't feel like they've spent time “politicking”.

The failure of Firefox in the marketplace starts from the fact that it's pretty hard to compete with a browser that's funded with more than 1 billion $ per year. And people may not remember much about the launch of Chrome, but it was literally years ahead of its competition. Have a look at its famous comic book, with which it was announced, describing its design and philosophy, and count the years it took for the competition to catch up (across the board, including Safari): https://www.google.com/googlebooks/chrome/

I mean, sure, you can blame that on politics, but I don't think anyone was able to stop the decline and when Brendan Eich resigned, people were already talking about Chrome's hegemony and Firefox dying.

Re: The DOJ still wants Google to sell off Chrome

#562

Post by viraptor »

fngjdflmdflg wrote: post #363
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…

>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" reas…

It's mostly marketing. Google spent lots of money both for external marketing and for Google-property banners that advertise Chrome. There were years you basically couldn't visit a popular website without being told to install Chrome. Then there were billboards and paper ads on top of that.

There were feature differences for sure, but the marketing did a massive amount of work in this case. If people switched for features, all that spending for years wouldn't be necessary.

Re: The DOJ still wants Google to sell off Chrome

#563

Post by jpc0 »

hysan wrote: post #518
3vidence wrote: post #464

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 po…

If Google is still paying the maintainers of chromium what would change in your example?

The real question is what happens when Google stops paying Mozilla and Apple unthinkable amounts of money for Google search to be the default on their browsers?

It seems clear that Mozilla intends to just become an ad company themselves and who knows what Apple's response will be, I doubt it's going to be to increase the amount of development on Safari vs where they currently are.

So if Google has to effectively divest from Chromium but still supports it's development but now isn't paying the only two current competitors what is the expected outcome there? Whoever now owns Chromium becomes even more of a monopoly, and Google doesn't even need to pay them to make Google the default for it to be implied they are to be the default or the developers go away.

Maybe in the actual long term we will see an improvement from this decision, but all I see in the short - midterm is more invasive user tracking in all current browsers that isn't Safari, which you can only use on Apple devices anyway.

Re: The DOJ still wants Google to sell off Chrome

#564

Post by jpc0 »

no_wizard wrote: post #228
ARandomerDude wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are they? “When you upload or input information through Firefox, you hereby grant us a nonexclusive, royalty-free, worldwide license to use that information to help you navigate, experience, and interact with online content as you indicate with your use of Firefox.”

How long is Firefox going to be held to a standard that none of the other vendors are realistically held to? They change their ToS in an unfavorable way and yes I think it’s criticism they need to hear. However, has Chrome, Brave (I don’t look favorably on their cryptocurrency initiatives) Edge , Safari etc. been held to the same, in practice? Why isn’t Chrome barraged with negative sentiment the same way? It has far…

I don't use Chrome or a Chromium based browser, I voted with my feet to the only browser who at least made a face value attempt to be better.

Explain why when they changed their stance me holding them to a standard I hold all other browsers is now an issue.

Re: The DOJ still wants Google to sell off Chrome

#565

Post by kortilla »

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 issue is that you don’t need to search for chrome. Google tried to force it down your throat when you visit their sites using any other browser

Re: The DOJ still wants Google to sell off Chrome

#566

Post by jasonjayr »

bad_user wrote: post #561
eastbound wrote: post #540

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The web wouldn’t work with IE just because Microsoft had this unique strategy of deviating from standards, having non-working APIs and providing an awful experience to developers. It’s unique. Firefox compliance is another story, but very mild compared to IE. Chrome also had to deal with compatibility issues when Firefox was the leader, but Mozilla relinquished their leadership position because it was very important…

> he had given $1000 to an anti-abortion NGO That's not what he did. He donated for California's Prop 8, which opposed same-sex marriage, in 2008. I'm personally not judging, as many US progressives have forgotten that during those days, even Obama opposed same-sex marriage. But it's important to get the facts straight, even when being sarcastic. --- > Then they spent their time politicking and not enough coding. Moz…

> And people may not remember much about the launch of Chrome

And remember -- the original browser engine that Chrome (+ Safari) came from was KHTML + KJS from the KDE folks, which was doing pretty good at the time considering the development resources available to it

Re: The DOJ still wants Google to sell off Chrome

#567

Post by TZubiri »

I don't get some of the antitrust measures.

It was dumb when they battled with microsoft's IE, and it's especially dumb when they battle Google's Chrome.

Chrome isn't just another google product, it is central to its search engine, they did an ofshoot into a browser because they found they needes to effectively develop a headless browser to scrape some js and mixed media websites.

Re: The DOJ still wants Google to sell off Chrome

#568

Post by TZubiri »

cowl wrote: post #315
hysan wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

we will end up again with edge being dominant just because it's the default one installed by Windows. what you say is nice in theory but you already have the Microsoft backed Edge and Apple backed Safari that are not hamppered by the "need to find a support model" and "not be a loss leader" And I am not looking forward again to a world where Microsoft disctates web development because for all privacy problems peaople…

But isn't edge built on chromium?

Re: The DOJ still wants Google to sell off Chrome

#569

Post by lima »

sneak wrote: post #74
3vidence wrote: post #70

(Googler opinions are my own, don't work on chrome) Chrome has just been a better product for the last 10 to 15 years. Every other company has just failed to make a good browser because they lack the incentives to do so (have gone back and forth as a Firefox user). The only competitive browsers are those already built on chrome or safari. I'm not personally a big fan of Safari but it's bigger issue is that it is only…

I’m confused, as a firefox daily driver, why is firefox not a good browser? Or are we discounting it because it is funded by Google?

Worse security posture (it took decades to even catch up with Chrome w.r.t. sandboxing).

Doesn't want to implement useful standards which I use in my own applications (filesystem API, WebSerial, WebUSB...).

Re: The DOJ still wants Google to sell off Chrome

#570

Post by jakelazaroff »

eastbound wrote: post #540
jimnotgym wrote: post #517

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

The web wouldn’t work with IE just because Microsoft had this unique strategy of deviating from standards, having non-working APIs and providing an awful experience to developers. It’s unique. Firefox compliance is another story, but very mild compared to IE. Chrome also had to deal with compatibility issues when Firefox was the leader, but Mozilla relinquished their leadership position because it was very important…

Using your money to help pass a law that binds every person in your state is not a “thoughtcrime”.
Post reply on HN