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

681–690 of 718 posts

Re: The DOJ still wants Google to sell off Chrome

#681

Post by Suppafly »

soerxpso wrote: post #448
garyfirestorm wrote: post #424

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t remember chrome being default anywhere. You always needed to open edge to download chrome and I have installed windows numerous times in past.

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 believe the claim was that it's coming default on prebuilt PCs.

That's the claim, but I've never seen a pre-built with chrome installed (other than a chromebook obviously), let alone configured as the default. Which OEMs are pre-installing it as the default?

Re: The DOJ still wants Google to sell off Chrome

#682

Post by Suppafly »

gnabgib wrote: post #438
gscott wrote: post #431

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you buy a cheap computer with Windows S it is very hard to get out of the S configuration and in S configuration you can't install Chrome at all or Firefox.

You can switch out of S mode (for free) https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/switching-out-of...

Doing it that way is a pain if don't want to create a microsoft account, which when tries to convert your computer account to a microsoft account. Pretending that it's easy to switch by requiring you to use the microsoft store to do so is a really shitty antipattern.

Re: The DOJ still wants Google to sell off Chrome

#683

Post by Suppafly »

hu3 wrote: post #640
gnabgib wrote: post #421

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you might be holding it wrong? I've only been asked once, I said no. Quite sternly. It apologised, we laughed about it. Now Edge has no internet access.

I just opened Edge, first thing it did was ask me to become default browser: https://i.imgur.com/u2Nby1b.png

I think every non-default browser asks that the first time you open them. It's not a huge deal, but it is a huge deal when you start getting prompted from the OS to change it.

Re: The DOJ still wants Google to sell off Chrome

#684

Post by inetknght »

HaZeust wrote: post #670
inetknght wrote: post #407

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. You don't write "native applications on web browsers".

Electron would like a word.

If you think Electron is a native app then you're missing out on truly native performance and functionality.

Re: The DOJ still wants Google to sell off Chrome

#685

Post by inetknght »

JoshTriplett wrote: post #429
inetknght wrote: post #423

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Instead of complaining about native applications being outside of sandboxes... try looking at existing sandbox solutions. Or, hey, use an open source operating system and extend the existing sandbox solutions for whatever you think is missing.

You're trying to present an "instead of" that assumes I should want native apps and should jump through hoops to find a way to get what I want from apps that aren't designed for it. I want web apps , because they already do what I want, and keep getting better. The right answer to "download our app!" is "no, stay in your browser tab". > try looking at existing sandbox solutions. I have, quite extensively; virtualizat…

> You're trying to present an "instead of" that assumes I should want native apps

Yes.

> and should jump through hoops to find a way to get what I want from apps that aren't designed for it

What do you want which isn't designed for a native app?

> I want web apps, because they already do what I want, and keep getting better.

Perhaps. But where a web app might do what you want and get better, a native app can do what you want and get even more better.

> The best available application sandboxing solution that provides useful comprehensive APIs is the web.

You missed the next part: Or, hey, use an open source operating system and extend the existing sandbox solutions for whatever you think is missing.

> If an application is open, then sure, there are plenty of other options. If an application isn't open, I want it contained in a sandbox not of its own making, that it can't escape, that provides sufficiently comprehensive APIs such that interesting applications get built for it, and that keeps the user in control.

So you're either wanting to use and develop for Linux, or you're wanting to build apps that fit in walled gardens.

Guess which one lets you build and/or run native apps in a sandbox not of its own making, and provides comprehensive APIs, and keeps the user in control? It's not macOS or Windows, it's not iOS or Android, and it's definitely not web apps (which are the least common denominator of the list).

Re: The DOJ still wants Google to sell off Chrome

#686

Post by alt227 »

jimnotgym wrote: post #517
magicalist wrote: post #408

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 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…

Before Edge, everyone had to install Chrome because the web wouldn't work with IE. It is still the case that some major sites don't work with Firefox either. Edge is as close to a de-Googled Chrome as you can get to work properly. Unfortunately de-Googling meant re-Microsofting

> It is still the case that some major sites don't work with Firefox either.

This comment keeps popping up. Every time I ask the commenter to show me some sites that dont work with Firefox. Nobody has ever shown me one. I think people are stuck in the past here, Firefox has been absolutely fine for about 10 years now.

Re: The DOJ still wants Google to sell off Chrome

#687

Post by alt227 »

Suppafly wrote: post #682
gnabgib wrote: post #438

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can switch out of S mode (for free) https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/switching-out-of...

Doing it that way is a pain if don't want to create a microsoft account, which when tries to convert your computer account to a microsoft account. Pretending that it's easy to switch by requiring you to use the microsoft store to do so is a really shitty antipattern.

99% of Windows users use a microsoft account these days, so this method is trivial for most.

Re: The DOJ still wants Google to sell off Chrome

#688

Post by thanhhaimai »

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…

Your source shows the "Market Share Worldwide". I don't see it shows the "Default Browser Worldwide".

AFAIK, in the US, the default for:

- Windows: Edge

- Mac: Safari

- Ubuntu: Firefox

I think the claim that "Google just pays PC makers to make Chrome the default browser" needs a clear source.

Re: The DOJ still wants Google to sell off Chrome

#689

Post by dlivingston »

gjsman-1000 wrote: post #165
theptip wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But we are not discussing Chromium. Google’s browser is Chrome, and that product has search exclusivity deals that have been deemed monopolistic. Google could divest the Chrome product and keep contributing to Chromium, but the value proposition is really unclear when that OSS investment doesn’t buy you billions of dollars of browser lock-in value.

Thus why the Linux Foundation is gunning for Chromium. (When do we rename the Linux Foundation? Only 3.2% of their revenue goes to Linux development these days...) https://www.linuxfoundation.org/press/linux-foundation-annou... https://www.linuxfoundation.org/supporters-of-chromium-based...

Off topic, but why is the Linux Foundation website asking me to allow cookies for "Targeted Advertising"?

Re: The DOJ still wants Google to sell off Chrome

#690

Post by zanellato19 »

dathery wrote: post #259
flanked-evergl wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google is not suppressing competition. There are plenty of competing browsers and search engines, they all suck. On the Mobile OS side there is less but substantially more robust competition, even though I, personally, hate iOS. So breaking Google up because of a theoretical problem that is refuted by reality is nonsensible.

> There are plenty of competing browsers and search engines, they all suck. Maybe our difference in viewpoint is that I see this fact and wonder why it's seemingly impossible for anyone to build a financially viable alternative, and I'm at least open to the idea that it's very difficult to compete with Google when they can leverage their successful ads business to subsidize the investment into their browser. Yes the…

Also because Googles is part of the web committe because of Chrome, so it gets to dictate how much complexity is in a browser and stiffle competition like that.
Post reply on HN