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

591–600 of 718 posts

Re: The DOJ still wants Google to sell off Chrome

#591

Post by gabeio »

Terretta wrote: post #449
ethbr1 wrote: post #333

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you want to switch your search engine for Safari on iOS... I can set Kagi as the default search engine on iOS? Because last I checked, Apple hardcoded their list of options.

> I can set Kagi as the default search engine on iOS? Because last I checked, Apple hardcoded their list of options. Check again: https://apps.apple.com/us/app/kagi-for-safari/id1622835804 Works perfectly.

As a user of this application, this is not even close to the same thing as having the ability to change the search engine in the browser settings itself. If I need to actually search something on one of the other search engines for reasons then I have to go disable the plugin, or set it to a specific search engine which I am unlikely to use. I am also curious if my typing into the search bar still sends my quick search pre-submit to my search engine selected in the browser unless I remove the pre-fetching. So no, not perfect. And this is not Kagi’s fault that’s just the unfortunate situation Safari leaves them in.

Re: The DOJ still wants Google to sell off Chrome

#592

Post by philistine »

3vidence wrote: post #461
philistine wrote: post #405

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point is simple: Google has a monopoly in search and has used its control of Chrome to maintain that monopoly. There is no monopoly in browsers, and the DOJ has evaluated that selling off Chrome will not adversely affect the browser market. If we go from Chrome having 66% market share to Edge having 66%, but in the interim the search market has seen more entrants competing fairly, wouldn't that be a benefit?

Then a year later Microsoft will be sued for anti competitive practices involving edge. If we just keep selling the browser market to the next trillion dollar company that's not going to fix anything

The DOJ logic is its going to fix the search market! Are you seriously believing that it will take a year for people to give Microsoft a monopoly position in browsers (which Google still hasn't achieved) when Google divest itself from Chrome?

Get real, the DOJ forcing Google to get rid of Chrome is one of the best tech news in years!

Re: The DOJ still wants Google to sell off Chrome

#593

Post by philistine »

nmstoker wrote: post #579
philistine wrote: post #394

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

You're right in the short term but look how quickly the required outcomes from United States v. Microsoft Corp were relaxed and eventually ignored.

The difference between that case and the Google one now is that Microsoft was forced to sell nothing. It was a pyrrhic victory for the DOJ that comforted Microsoft.

Re: The DOJ still wants Google to sell off Chrome

#594

Post by eastbound »

jakelazaroff wrote: post #570
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…

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

[flagged]

Re: The DOJ still wants Google to sell off Chrome

#595

Post by dcow »

zacwest wrote: post #473
Terretta wrote: post #449

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I can set Kagi as the default search engine on iOS? Because last I checked, Apple hardcoded their list of options. Check again: https://apps.apple.com/us/app/kagi-for-safari/id1622835804 Works perfectly.

This doesn't change the search engine, it attempts to redirect from whatever one is configured in the settings. It's very much an unreliable hack.

Unreliable indeed. It stops working half the time for no apparent reason and you have to go in and toggle settings to make it work again.

Re: The DOJ still wants Google to sell off Chrome

#596

Post by ulrikrasmussen »

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…

Case in point: Google's attempt at casually turning every user into a renter of their own devices via Web Environment Integrity: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_Environment_Integrity under the false pretense of protecting sites against bots. Google is continuously implementing more and more draconic control of users and their hardware, and they keep using security as the argument. It is now de facto impossible to run an open source build of Android, like LineageOS, without also losing access to a wide range of apps which refuse to run without a hardware attestation from Play Integrity API.

Chrome is not enough at all; Google also needs to sell off Android.

Re: The DOJ still wants Google to sell off Chrome

#597

Post by phkahler »

loeg wrote: post #224
phkahler wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Microsoft has a customized version of Chrome. Don't they already pay for it?

Doesn't Microsoft ownership of Chrome suffer from identical antitrust concerns?

Short term no. Langer term they would use it to leverage other things like Google does. Maybe not advertising, although they do seem to be leaning on that now with ads in software.

Re: The DOJ still wants Google to sell off Chrome

#598

Post by makeitdouble »

guywithahat wrote: post #511
makeitdouble wrote: post #357

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You seem to be disagreeing that what Google does is problematic, let alone illegal in the first place ?

I can see it as an opinion, but that changes the whole discussion IMHO.

Re: The DOJ still wants Google to sell off Chrome

#599

Post by HWR_14 »

philistine wrote: post #593
nmstoker wrote: post #579

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're right in the short term but look how quickly the required outcomes from United States v. Microsoft Corp were relaxed and eventually ignored.

The difference between that case and the Google one now is that Microsoft was forced to sell nothing. It was a pyrrhic victory for the DOJ that comforted Microsoft.

Microsoft was forced to change their behavior. If it wasn't for that DOJ case IE would still be the dominant web browser.

Re: The DOJ still wants Google to sell off Chrome

#600

Post by jasode »

criddell wrote: post #589
john_the_writer wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm always a little surprised how we (HN readers) are so against paying for software. If any group understands the work that goes into major software packages and the value we derive from it, it should be us. Who do you think should pay for it? What is the value to them? Do their incentives align well with yours?

>I'm always a little surprised how we (HN readers) are so against paying for software.

I talked about paying $29 for Opera for web browser software before : https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16090235

I switched to the free Chrome because it was a better browser. Just because I was paying for software doesn't mean it's a good situation for me.

>Who do you think should pay for it? [...] Do their incentives align well with yours?

Even if I (the customer) directly pay for software instead of ads indirectly paying, it still doesn't mean it's the optimal solution.

I paid $80 for a text editor but after being frustrated with bugs in the latest version, I took a serious look at the free VS Code. I realized that the editor I was paying for had really stagnated and lacking modern features. I should have quit funding them a long time ago.

Another example is Quicken home finance software. Kept paying $60+ annual renewal fee every year and yet the software keeps getting worse. Downloads of credit-card and bank transactions randomly quit working. The ledger balances on my desktop don't match the balances shown online. I had used the software for almost 30 years since the DOS floppy disk days and just finally gave up. I look at the 1-star reviews of Quicken on Amazon and browse the Quicken help forums and everybody complains about the same defects.

Often, what happens is companies don't respect their paying customers because they know they're locked in because of inertia or sunk costs. They just treat their repeat customers as ATM machines and barely improve the software. (E.g. They make superficial cosmetic changes to UI instead of fixing core engine bugs.)

I'm not convinced paying a subscription for a web browser will give me a better browser. Maybe it will. But I doubt it.

Post reply on HN