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

601–610 of 718 posts

Re: The DOJ still wants Google to sell off Chrome

#601

Post by Jensson »

ulrikrasmussen wrote: post #596
dcow wrote: post #416

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 r…

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

Then Apple should need to sell ios.

Re: The DOJ still wants Google to sell off Chrome

#602

Post by burnerthrow008 »

3vidence wrote: post #465
burnerthrow008 wrote: post #354

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok, but if Google is not allowed to pay Apple for search referrals, how exactly will it be legal for Google to pay not-Google-Chrome for search referrals? Chrome's non-iOS market share is probably larger than Safari's market share, so any monopoly considerations about Safari apply equally to Chrome.

Quick answer it won't be. Google will be barred from paying to be default.

Yea, that’s what I thought. So let’s take this one step further. If google can’t pay Chrome, how does Chrome hire developers to continue the product?

Re: The DOJ still wants Google to sell off Chrome

#603

Post by Tijdreiziger »

jpc0 wrote: post #558
soerxpso wrote: post #448

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…

Edge moved from their own engine to Chromium’s Blink engine, so from an IT support perspective, it should work equally well.

Re: The DOJ still wants Google to sell off Chrome

#604

Post by burnerthrow008 »

jasode wrote: post #600
criddell wrote: post #589

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 wel…

I’m convinced subscription software actively makes this problem worse: with the old model, the developer had to include enough new features and improvements to convince you to open your wallet for a large purchase. With subscription the developer has no incentive to fix anything because the product goes away if you stop paying for it.

Re: The DOJ still wants Google to sell off Chrome

#605

Post by fny »

maxclark wrote: post #132

First I don't believe this is an effective remedy to break up a Google monopoly, but I have no influence on the DOJ. I'm curious though, if Google can no longer pay browsers for search engine traffic what is the business model that will sustain development and advancement in the space? How does a non Google owned Chrome support itself and continue development? What happens to all the applications that rely on Chrome…

They should have split up ads. Going after Chrome does near nothing especially when it’s already open source.

Re: The DOJ still wants Google to sell off Chrome

#606

Post by geor9e »

scarface_74 wrote: post #477
geor9e wrote: post #460

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Chrome Sync (i.e. saving your history + everything else to the cloud so it syncs to all your devices) is an optional setting. Microsoft Edge has the same thing under another name. Safari does too.

Google also uses your browsing history to create a profile for advertising https://support.google.com/My-Ad-Center-Help/answer/12155451... And Apple provides end to end encryption of browsing history so it can’t decrypt your browsing history https://blog.cryptographyengineering.com/2021/03/25/whats-in... > What’s interesting about the Apple decision is that it appears to explicitly separate browsing history and bookm…

That's not Chrome's browsing history - that's an ad network, adsense, profiling you, via cookies/ip/digital fingerprinting, across every website that serves it's ads. It's like logging into facebook and saying they can see your browsing history - yes some of it, but it's because they're watching a server they own serve you requests.

Re: The DOJ still wants Google to sell off Chrome

#607

Post by jakelazaroff »

eastbound wrote: post #594
jakelazaroff wrote: post #570

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

[flagged]

I wasn’t suggesting anything. All I was saying is that Brendan Eich wasn't pilloried for simply holding a heterodox opinion, but for his actions to enshrine it in the state constitution. Agree with it or not, that is categorically different from "thoughtcrime".

Anyway, complaining about “wokists” here is pretty rich. People will really be like “you can’t do anything anymore without offending someone!” and then it turns out that “anything” actually means “stripping civil rights from millions of people”.

Re: The DOJ still wants Google to sell off Chrome

#608

Post by paulddraper »

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…

It might exist, but if you can’t find it on Google via keywords, it might as well not exist.

Does that make sense?

Re: The DOJ still wants Google to sell off Chrome

#609

Post by ramses0 »

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?

When google hit 51%+ of market share in search/mail (back in like 2005) they began to just fund "internet access" in general. They assumed that new users would put more money into googles pockets than other peoples pockets. Virtuous revenue circle.

Nowadays (post Omni-bar), one could argue that "the internet" is really a captive portal from g-browser, g-omnibar, g-search results, g-renderer with "content" being significantly funded by g-ads (of which a significant portion of _that_ is returned to google for search placement).

Take away "any browser at all" and does google then ship "Google Electron, powered by Google" that strips the Omni-bar and is a desktop client / portal into g-search, g-docs, etc... and then close off access to Google apps unless through the Google client?

You can't book uber without the uber client, why are you able to use Google without the google client?

Provide a read-only HTML4.0 version to plebes with lots of popovers and banners saying: "for the best experience..."

It's an interesting thought experiment, letting "the internet" lie fallow as each proprietary database attempts to accrue more content...

Re: The DOJ still wants Google to sell off Chrome

#610

Post by doctaj »

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…

Wouldn’t it be funny if the aggressive “are you sure you want to leave Edge?!” kind of messages actually made people ton the whole think it was a lower quality product…
Post reply on HN