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

691–700 of 718 posts

Re: The DOJ still wants Google to sell off Chrome

#691

Post by bluefirebrand »

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,…

> So many users do this that people conclude Chrome has an unfair advantage

Because Chrome is the default on android phones and the easiest way to sync saved passwords between your android and your desktop/laptop is to use chrome in both places

Chrome having such a huge market share on mobile does add pressure for users to adopt it on Desktops and Laptops too

Re: The DOJ still wants Google to sell off Chrome

#692

Post by [deleted] »

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,…

[deleted]

Re: The DOJ still wants Google to sell off Chrome

#693

Post by pca006132 »

burnerthrow008 wrote: post #604
jasode wrote: post #600

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

I would argue that subscription is the only sensible model for browser (if payment is needed). For browsers you do want to keep up to date with security patches as well as new features, that is pretty critical for both usability and security.

For normal software you can buy and use some fixed version without too much issues, for browsers you probably need the updates.

Security-wise maybe something like buying a ESR version may be possible, but it will not be cheap and you may miss the new features when some webpage you visit breaks.

Re: The DOJ still wants Google to sell off Chrome

#694

Post by wuliwong »

snailmailman wrote: post #507
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…

This is definitely a huge part of it. My grandmother is not tech savy, and ended up with the google app installed on her phone. Because if she types anything into any of the search bars, google puts a big banner for the google app in the results page. She doesn't use safari for searching - she now goes to the google app. Notably - it doesn't advertise chrome there? or maybe she just didn't see those. Most of her inte…

Wasn't she just searching google via safari anyway? I do find that popup really annoying though.

Re: The DOJ still wants Google to sell off Chrome

#695

Post by HaZeust »

inetknght wrote: post #684
HaZeust wrote: post #670

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Electron would like a word.

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

Heard the same thing from React Native - now some of the biggest (Slack, Zoom, Skype, Discord), most performant (Figma) apps are built on both.

Only way I'd have a take like yours is if I was a native dev, and my job security relied on companies hiring 3 people to lead 3 teams for 3 codebases (Web, Android, iOS native) - rather than 1 team and 1 codebase for all 3. I'd dishonestly dismiss the notion of cross-platform programming only out of self-preservation, and not any semblance of pragmatism.

Re: The DOJ still wants Google to sell off Chrome

#696

Post by JoshTriplett »

inetknght wrote: post #685
JoshTriplett wrote: post #429

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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

Running in a user-agent which is explicitly adversarial to the app's interests and capable of e.g. filtering out and rejecting its HTTPS requests and changing its displayed content based on user preferences, such as preventing the loading or display of advertisements/tracking/etc.

Please by all means suggest an established sandboxing technology that applications use that already does that. If your answer is "you could extend existing native-application sandboxes to be capable of that", my response is "why should I bother when I already have one that does what I want and that applications actually use?".

I would love to instead have a world in which everything is Open Source, in which case it'd be less necessary. Given that we're not in that world, the web is the platform I want proprietary applications to live in.

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

I already use and develop for Linux, for a variety of Open Source applications. When I run other people's applications, I want them to either be Open Source or I want them to stay confined to a browser tab. Browsers aren't a "walled garden", they're a containment mechanism that works for the user.

> 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?

Delete the word "native" and the answer is "the web". And you've made zero compelling cases for adding the constraint "native".

To be clear, I could easily describe cases where native applications are better. For instance, I don't particularly want to run a code editor on the web, though many people do. 100% of those are cases where I seek out Open Source applications, so that I can trust them to not be doing things counter to my interests. And such applications don't need the same kind of sandboxing; they need to guard against security issues, but they don't generally need to guard against the application itself intentionally doing things against the user's interests. (That said, things like the xz backdoor do happen, which is an argument for being able to sandbox individual libraries and not just whole applications. But again, that's addressed by coarse-grained sandboxes like "this code shouldn't be doing this whole class of things at all".)

Re: The DOJ still wants Google to sell off Chrome

#697

Post by yndoendo »

alt227 wrote: post #686
jimnotgym wrote: post #517

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I have yet to find an actual web site that breaks with Firefox and works with Chrome.

Closest would be Google's Android Flash Tool that uses WebUSB to image an Android phone. But that is more like a browser extensions versus a HTML5 application.

I have had numerous experiences with ZScaler, corporate man-in-the service, breaking web sites with Firefox. I need to use Chromium to upload to Virus Total. ZScaler even likes to brake web sites on Chromium and requires multiple reloads with minutes or hours between refresh.

Microsoft services with ZScaler break easily with Firefox and Chromium but work fine with Edge or MS Teams. Don't know if this intent to push users to Edge or just a correlation with ZScaler.

ZScaler developers, thanks for making my work life living hell with 30s or more latency and lack of ability to properly connect to web services and handle cross-VM HTTP testing.

Re: The DOJ still wants Google to sell off Chrome

#698

Post by Terretta »

dcow wrote: post #595
zacwest wrote: post #473

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That was the old extension. New one is stable.

Re: The DOJ still wants Google to sell off Chrome

#699

Post by Terretta »

gabeio wrote: post #591
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.

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 sear…

> > > 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.

> not even close to the same thing as having the ability to change the search engine in the browser settings itself

Two replies up, they expressed surprise at being able to make Kagi DEFAULT.

You can. To your point, you can flip it off by toggling the extension.

You can also have it not intercept others, only one.

To the question, "I can set Kagi as default on iOS?" the answer is yes, for the normal definitions of set and default, meaning, make it so when I search I get Kagi.

Otherwise the comment would not have been about "Kagi as default on iOS", but something like, there's a setting for alternative search engines on iOS? The answer to that is of course, no, but there are workarounds.

Re: The DOJ still wants Google to sell off Chrome

#700

Post by jimnotgym »

alt227 wrote: post #686
jimnotgym wrote: post #517

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Ok, I tried to sign up for a Reddit account and it failed over and over on Firefox. Same computer, Chrome worked first time. I guess Reddit wanted to fingerprint my browser in a way that Firefox wouldn't allow.

This is not the only case btw, just a nice clearcut one

Post reply on HN