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

581–590 of 663 posts

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

#581

Post by x0x0 »

attendant3446 wrote: post #464
x0x0 wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I'd love to see google harshly penalized, nobody has proposed an answer that doesn't end with the destruction of essentially the world's only browser. Or it's sale to extremely sketchy people, which I guess also ends in destruction plus with OpenAI or whomever buys it hoovering up as much personal data as they can. So I get not liking this answer, but I haven't heard a better one.

Yeah, without Google's funding, Firefox could be in trouble, but I doubt it will be destroyed. And nobody is selling it. Or what 'only' browser are you talking about? xD

80% of Mozilla funding is Google anti-trust insurance payments. If Google doesn't need that insurance, they stop pretending and Mozilla dies.

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

#582

Post by Ray20 »

tyingq wrote: post #547
WD-42 wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who cares if the traffic is declining? I don’t find Wikipedia useful because it gets lots of visits, I find it useful for the information it contains.

Visits drive revenue. Declining traffic is declining revenue. Not an issue yet, but eventually...

I saw statistics somewhere that Wikipedia ALREADY has enough money for centuries of work (if it stops spending them on promoting wokeism).

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

#583

Post by [deleted] »

brookst wrote: post #421
dragonwriter wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it can't be exclusive, that means other providers must be allowed to pay to be default on some portion of installs? If so, wouldn't that result in the basis of payment changing to a basis which takes into account the number or (e.g., advertising demographics-based) desirability of the default installs that Google receives, rather than a global amount based on what is expected to be aggregate number and desirabilit…

Forbidding Google from requiring exclusivity is not the same thing as mandating that Apple accept payments from others. Google can afford to pay more per user/click because of scale economies; their cost per user/click is lower. So, great, Google will pay Apple $20/user/year on a nonexclusive basis, and Firefox or whoever are free to match or exceed that, so long as they don't mind losing money on every user.

[deleted]

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

#584

Post by r0m4n0 »

shmeeed wrote: post #524
r0m4n0 wrote: post #438

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Google Search, Chrome, Android each are market leaders in their domain. You seriously consider that "tiny pieces"?

I personally would not like chrome, or some of these other things to exist on its own. Google operates some of these things mostly like a charity. Obviously there are serious incentives to have control but imagine what Chrome would be doing without Google… you think your privacy is at stake now? Some private equity companies were drooling over the idea of buying chrome a few weeks ago

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

#585

Post by ajross »

zargon wrote: post #415
rs186 wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have seen way more hallucination from "AI overview" than ChatGPT. You are biased, sure, but it seems that you haven't even used ChatGPT or other similar products enough to even attempt to give a fair assessment.

I'm not sure I have ever seen "AI overview" not hallucinate. Granted, I only end up at google on other people's computers or on some fresh install where I haven't configured search yet.

> Granted, I only end up at google on other people's computers or on some fresh install where I haven't configured search yet.

Which is exactly my point. A bunch of people doing that to conform with the shibboleth identity of the phone in their pocket and then posting strong opinions about the product they don't (or at least claim not to) use is an echo chamber and not a discussion. You only get the upvotes in these threads if you conform.

HN is supposed to be better than that.

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

#587

Post by balder1991 »

CamperBob2 wrote: post #580
balder1991 wrote: post #352

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Besides the issue of repetitive beginner questions, which today could be answered with an LLM, was a significant driver of low-quality content, requiring substantial intervention from StackOverflow. However, your point stands: as new technologies develop, StackOverflow will be the main platform where relevant questions gain visibility through upvotes.

If it were just a matter of upvotes and downvotes, that would be one thing, but voting to close a question for being a "duplicate," forcibly terminating an emerging discussion because somebody asked something vaguely similar 10 years ago for a completely different platform or language, is just nuts. Or closing a general question because in the opinion of Someone Important, it runs afoul of some poorly-defined rule re…

You’re right, but I suspect that it became this hostile to beginners because of the constant flood of repetitive questions. It’s possible that with LLMs doing this filtering, the community loosen up the hostility when new more and more new questions are stuff LLMs can’t answer.

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

#588

Post by Ray20 »

komali2 wrote: post #465
Hansenq wrote: post #31

This seems like a very sensible and logical conclusion by the judge to me. An exclusive contract with Apple/Samsung isn't great, but even Apple testified that they would not have accepted any other searcch engine because everyone else was worse. You can't make restrictions on what Apple is allowed to do because Google violated some law--if Apple wants to make Google the default, they should be allowed to do so! The b…

> Forcing Google to give up one of its best products is effectively eminent domain by the government to a private company. What's wrong with that?

> What's wrong with that?

The absence of a clear objective boundary of what can be taken and what cannot.

And without such a boundary, such a practice could be quite widespread, with the poorest and smallest actors being the first to be subjected to it, simply because it is easier to take from them and they do not have sufficient influence on the distributing bodies. This is like theory of building socialism 101

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

#589

Post by TheNewsIsHere »

tallanvor wrote: post #556
dboreham wrote: post #552

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But there has to be some reason for original source links never appearing in journalist articles.

It's not historically done. Printed newspapers obviously didn't have links and neither did televised news. Even when the news media started publishing online, it's not like the courts were quick to post the decisions online. And there's also the idea that you should be able to at least somewhat trust the people reporting the news so they don't have to provide all of their references. --You can certainly argue that no…

There is also the added pressure that some organizations quietly pile on editors to keep people from clicking out to third parties at all, where their attention may wander away. Unless of course that third party is an ad destination.

Reputable news organizations are more robust against such pressures, but plenty of people get their news from (in some cases self-described) entertainment sites masquerading as news sites.

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

#590

Post by TheNewsIsHere »

baq wrote: post #402
kevin_thibedeau wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Articles about patent infringement are similarly annoying when the patent numbers aren't cited. This is basic 21st century journalism 101. We aren't limited to what fits on a broadside anymore. We need an AI driven extension that will insert the links. This would be a nice addition to Kagi as they could be trusted to not play SEO shenanigans.

If news on the web was journalism instead of attention seeking for ad revenue you’d be right. Agree on the extension idea, except I’m not sure I want to see the original sensationalized content anyway. Might as well have the bot rewrite the piece in a dry style.

> If news on the web was journalism instead of attention seeking for ad revenue you’d be right.

That’s painting with an overly broad brush. Nevertheless, the news was relying on ads long before most people knew the word “Internet”, but there were far fewer channels to place ads back then, so in some respects news and media organizations had a captive audience in advertisers.

Mass adoption of television was effectively made possible because of advertising money.

Post reply on HN