571–580 of 718 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Does upholding monopolies help Americans at all? Do not conflate the ballooning wealth of billionaires with any kind of improvement in your material conditions.
Americans marginally benefit from American owned monopolies over Chinese owned monopolies.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which is still a workound and sometimes buggy - it overwrites an existing search engine. In my case its google. But when I want to use google, I can’t - I have to switch to another browser or deactivate the kagi addon/plugin.
I actually don't want my Kagi plugin to overwrite Google for a different reason: Sometimes the plugin fails to hijack my search, and I really don't want my searches going to Google. So I overwrite DuckDuckGo, so even the fallback is okay.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If chrome is no longer owned by Google I'll use it. That's the reason I switched to firefox in the first place.
Who do you think is going to buy chrome? And don't you think they are going to want to recoup their investment? I suspect chrome will get far less consumer friendly than chrome currently is if it is sold.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I believe the claim was that it's coming default on prebuilt PCs. If you're installing Windows, that's not the situation where Chrome would be the default.
I do a lot of IT support. Edge is the default on every single prebuilt / laptop I have setup for people. This is ancedotal sure but it's several hundred datapoints from the cheapest student focused budget laptops(running windows not chrome os) to business grade laptops from the big 3 (HP/Dell/Lenovo). Apple ships Safari by default and every linux distro I have used ships firefox or a spinoff of firefox by default. So…
Give Kagi a go - the usability thing is superb, as you can down rank common awful sites so they never appear in the results and they aren't stuffing ads into the results either
I find the results excellent 99% of the time and for those odd cases I'm not convinced it found the best results I pop back to Google. I tend to find that I do that most with subtle image searches (which are kind of rare but you are usually after something very specific where Kagi occasionally struggles with on the image side)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Chromebooks are a thing, and are extremely popular
> extremely popular for really small amounts of "extremely" (outside US K-12 they are hardly a thing)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes. My biggest gripe with Google is that they prop up unprofitable products with their wildly popular product. It makes competition impossible. YouTube is the perfect example. I feel like it should be illegal to use your profits in one industry to run a loss leader in a totally separate industry.
> I feel like it should be illegal to use your profits in one industry to run a loss leader in a totally separate industry. There’s nothing wrong with running a loss leader, only with squeezing everybody else out.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
> My question is if Google has to divest from Chrome, would they be able to build a new web browser? I'm not a lawyer, and didn't read the verdict, but your query is very Hacker News. Justice is not code. If Google is forced to divest from Chrome, it of course means it can't turn around and make the Google Dhrome browser. If Google did, they'd be sued for ignoring the verdict.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
in a simple world, a web browser is a tool that is used by an end-user, and so end-users should be the ones paying for it. whether that's directly as paid software, or indirectly as part of purchasing a device that has the software installed on it.
gha.. Another subscription based app. I can see it now: 2.99/month. Also we already have browsers pre-installed. Safari and IE(or what ever it's called these days) There's no call to advance these though. Chrome has profiles. That alone makes it a winner for my use case.