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

621–630 of 718 posts

Re: The DOJ still wants Google to sell off Chrome

#621

Post by malinens »

homebrewer wrote: post #537
figmert wrote: post #529

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not really required. Android comes with a separate webview (that cannot be overridden). Sure it's based on Chromium but that means there should zero reliance on Chrome the product, and those known working login portals can continue working without Chrome. It's well known that Google requires manufacturers to install their apps and requires it to be uninstallable. This includes Gmail, Google, and others.

> that cannot be overridden I thought I knew better, because the webview implementation can be changed in the system preferences, but (of course) the list of package names that can appear there is hardcoded: https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/HEAD/androi...

I live with firefox mobile engine for webview without any issue

Re: The DOJ still wants Google to sell off Chrome

#622

Post by adastra22 »

surajrmal wrote: post #502
adastra22 wrote: post #489

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Chrome is the default on every non-Apple system in common use. Windows (Edge), Chrome OS, Android…

Edge is chromium based not chrome based. Google is not the default search engine on edge nor does it have any real control over the edge experience which Microsoft couldn't change itself. ChromeOS is not popular by any means outside of the US education market. Chrome being the default on just Android is hardly a strong case when Android usage in the US is only 56%.

It depends on what the concern is. when IE6 was the default browser for the vast majority of consumers, it held back web technologies and generated considerable pressure towards MSFT hosting services.

Re: The DOJ still wants Google to sell off Chrome

#623

Post by bo1024 »

bloppe wrote: post #439
bo1024 wrote: post #404

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Selling might not make business sense for Google or for Chrome, but it makes a ton of sense for the American public. Google is using Chrome to benefit advertisers, data brokers, and surveillance over users. Exhibit: the manifest v2 / Ublock Origin saga. And this is huge because so many other browsers use Chromium or its engine under the hood. Google can also use Chrome to push user-unfriendly web standards or de-fact…

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.…

Yeah, I agree with all this.

Re: The DOJ still wants Google to sell off Chrome

#624

Post by nikanj »

dfabulich wrote: post #360
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,…

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…

About one in five Windows updates shows a notification along the lines of "Update your browser preferences to secure defaults?", which is code for "Can we bing you mate?"

Every time I visit my parents, I need to de-bing them again

Re: The DOJ still wants Google to sell off Chrome

#625

Post by jhasse »

zimbatm wrote: post #523
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…

Since Chrome's engine is used by Edge, Opera, Brave, etc.. Probably the best move is to become a non-profit and have all those organizations chip in. The main reason even Microsoft gave up and rebased their browser on top of Chrome is because of the breakneck speed at which Google introduces new standards and features to the ecosystem. Having them be forced to slow down might be a good thing for browser diversity and…

Or maybe because Chromium is pretty good, open-source and there's nearly no upside to reinventing the wheel?

If Mozilla would fork Chromium now and base Firefox on their fork I would switch from Brave. The engine simply technically superior.

Re: The DOJ still wants Google to sell off Chrome

#626

Post by bsoft16385 »

bluebarbet wrote: post #581
cvhc wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Possibly by trying to find a business model that can support Chrome development just like all other Chromium (and non-Chromium) based browsers? What would this business model be like, if, say, Google Chrome is eliminated? As a reference, in China, very few people use Chrome because Google services are blocked. There are tons of third-party or vendor preinstalled browsers that bundles with bloatwares, put ads/clickb…

In China, the vast majority of people are exclusively on mobile, where they use neither browsers nor even Android apps but rather manifold applets that are installed on top of a handful of nightmare spyware super-apps like WeChat.

Incidentally, WeChat mini apps (and the equivalents in AliPay and other services) are essentially specialized websites.

WeChat itself on Android bundles a Chromium-based engine to run these mini apps.

Most people in China are using Chromium frequently, even if they don't think of it as a browser.

Re: The DOJ still wants Google to sell off Chrome

#627

Post by thayne »

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,…

Google uses their dominant market position in search, email, video hosting (youtube) etc. to promote their browser. Such sites have had a banner telling you they are best viewed with chrome if you use a different browser, and are optimized to work best on chrome.

Re: The DOJ still wants Google to sell off Chrome

#628

Post by xdennis »

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…

> How does a non Google owned Chrome support itself and continue development?

You're literally pointing out the unfair advantage. The better question is how can all of the competitors manage? The answer is they can't very well because of the unfair advantage which Chrome has. If Chrome was split from Google (and Edge from Microsoft) browsers would be on a more equal playing field.

Re: The DOJ still wants Google to sell off Chrome

#629

Post by chupasaurus »

malinens wrote: post #621
homebrewer wrote: post #537

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> that cannot be overridden I thought I knew better, because the webview implementation can be changed in the system preferences, but (of course) the list of package names that can appear there is hardcoded: https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/HEAD/androi...

I live with firefox mobile engine for webview without any issue

GeckoView cannot replace built-in WebView [0].

[0] https://wiki.mozilla.org/Mobile/GeckoView

Re: The DOJ still wants Google to sell off Chrome

#630

Post by michaelbuckbee »

dfabulich wrote: post #360
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,…

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…

I like your analysis, but wonder about this line:

>> The only viable business model for a web browser is to accept money from a search engine (Google, specifically) to be make them the default.

Mostly, it's just that giving away browsers for free as a source of garnering search traffic distorts the market.

Post reply on HN