Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google’s Chrome Becomes Web ‘Gatekeeper’ and Rivals Complain

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 249 posts

Re: Google’s Chrome Becomes Web ‘Gatekeeper’ and Rivals Complain

#71

Post by zaarn »

tikkabhuna wrote: post #42
kuu wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is if Chrome finally wins it all (we're almost there) and at some point they decide to remove a functionality that we all love, or they stop improving as there is no competition, or they decide to make you pay a little fee for developing a website with an extra functionality, or they decide that Chrome does not run on Mac anymore.... The problem with monopolies is that they control all the power, for the…

As Chromium is open source, wouldn't someone then fork it and re-add those features or maintain Mac support? It seems like there is little motivation to maintain a separate browser at the moment, but one day Google may do something that motivates people to fork/create a new one. That could be a big bang moment or just a slow crawl that opens up a niche that a new browser could fill.

Maintaining a browser fork is a lot of work. And Google can simply decide to close-source their browser engine once their takeover is complete. What could anyone do about it? Google just keeps adding features until all Chromium forks die off.

Re: Google’s Chrome Becomes Web ‘Gatekeeper’ and Rivals Complain

#72

Post by icebraining »

amelius wrote: post #53
grenoire wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Err... I don't see either of these are relevant to the Chrome situation, given that the competitors are (and have been) also free. These aren't applicable for markets of free goods and services.

Opera wasn't always free.

It became free (without ads) three years before Chrome was first released.

Re: Google’s Chrome Becomes Web ‘Gatekeeper’ and Rivals Complain

#73

Post by wguaa »

dalbasal wrote: post #45
bad_user wrote: post #5

In the case of Chrome, you can't blame Google. They made a good browser, did some marketing and it got popular. However the current situation is worrisome, because alternative implementations are dying and in the case of the web, diversity is important. Both Opera and Microsoft's Edge are now powered by Chromium. Chromium is a project controlled by Google. Its redeeming quality, in terms of its open source nature, is…

" They made a good browser, did some marketing and it got popular. " They did make a good browser. However, their market share is not down to better browser or "some advertising." They use their other assets (search, youtube, android, docs..) to make chrome the "default" option. It's a dominance breeds dominance cycle... a hallmark of modern monopoly. Chrome wouldn't have gotten anywhere if it wasn't a very good brow…

>Chrome wouldn't have gotten anywhere if it wasn't a very good browser. It is good.

It is not only good. When it came out it wiped the floor with the alternatives. Firefox 3, from that time, was absolutely pathetic in terms of performance. I remember sticking to 2 for a while. Even today Chrome is still the best, even if the margin has narrowed. Other browsers are having to adopt Blink to catch up.

Re: Google’s Chrome Becomes Web ‘Gatekeeper’ and Rivals Complain

#75

Post by lprd »

I installed Firefox as my daily driver last year and have been completely happy with it. Great dev tools, good performance, and I agree with Mozilla's stance on privacy. All wins for me. I'll still occasionally open up Chrome for dev purposes -- but for the sake of browser diversity and maintaining an open internet, I encourage all my friends to give Firefox a try.

Re: Google’s Chrome Becomes Web ‘Gatekeeper’ and Rivals Complain

#76

Post by stephenr »

collyw wrote: post #70
stephenr wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Imagine being so convinced that nazis and white supremacists are "right" that literally fork your own browser.

Can you explain your comment, as it sounds like hyperbole to me.

GAB is a social media site that is "friendly" and "a safe haven" for neo-nazis, white supremacists and "the alt-right". It was created because they were too extreme even for Twitter's ridiculously ineffective controls on hate speech.

They apparently believe so strongly that they are "right", that they literally forked a browser to allow their extension to be used, so that like-minded nazis and white supremacists can discuss.... how bad jews are I guess, on any site they wish.

What exactly is hyperbolic? The first sentence is almost exactly the description of GAB from wikipedia btw.

Re: Google’s Chrome Becomes Web ‘Gatekeeper’ and Rivals Complain

#77

Post by onli »

scarejunba wrote: post #13

What's the steelman argument for Google withholding Widevine from Samuel Maddock? Electron packaging with Widevine is a thing so this seems unusual. If you are Google and you're the good guy, why are you doing this?

With that decision they aimed a very big gun straight at their foot and pulled the trigger. They proved:

1. That they are in a monopoly-like position where they have the power to decide over other web tech projects

2. That they have a very hostile process, not getting properly back to the developer for months. That alone is sabotaging of other projects.

3. That they make the wrong decision, seemingly only protecting their own position, without providing a proper reasoning.

Hear that? That was the antitrust investigator laughing. You can do that if it's about some random tech. You can't do that if the tech is linked to a browser controlling how 60% of internet users access the web, and worse, getting full access to popular stuff/success qualifying content like Netflix for all browser. They wanted that monopoly position when they pushed for DRM, now they have to handle it. Big mistake.

Re: Google’s Chrome Becomes Web ‘Gatekeeper’ and Rivals Complain

#78

Post by wguaa »

TAForObvReasons wrote: post #15
writepub wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do not trust Google, but I do not trust Mozilla either. An overwhelming majority of Mozilla funding comes from Google, Microsoft, and other giants it directly competes with. Added to that, many of it's battles (at the W3C and like) prioritize philosophy over customer satisfaction and ease of use. 99.9% of browser users don't care or don't even know if their browser is open source - what they want is convenience and…

Mozilla really hasn't helped their cause with various privacy-related issues over the last few years, like the Booking.com ads ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18800360 ). The obfuscatory language around it are arguably more insulting than the ads themselves. As John Gruber so eloquently wrote: > If you want to sell ads, sell ads. Own it. Don’t try to coat it with a layer of frosting and tell me it’s a fucking…

Really pathetic to see people here defending Mozilla putting ads on the home page of the browser.

What do you think of when the Mozilla Corporation sent the browsing history of users by default to a third party advertisement company?

>Users who receive a version of Firefox with Cliqz will have their browsing activity sent to Cliqz servers, including the URLs of pages they visit.

https://blog.mozilla.org/press-uk/2017/10/06/testing-cliqz-i...

Re: Google’s Chrome Becomes Web ‘Gatekeeper’ and Rivals Complain

#79

Post by Krasnol »

dalbasal wrote: post #45
bad_user wrote: post #5

In the case of Chrome, you can't blame Google. They made a good browser, did some marketing and it got popular. However the current situation is worrisome, because alternative implementations are dying and in the case of the web, diversity is important. Both Opera and Microsoft's Edge are now powered by Chromium. Chromium is a project controlled by Google. Its redeeming quality, in terms of its open source nature, is…

" They made a good browser, did some marketing and it got popular. " They did make a good browser. However, their market share is not down to better browser or "some advertising." They use their other assets (search, youtube, android, docs..) to make chrome the "default" option. It's a dominance breeds dominance cycle... a hallmark of modern monopoly. Chrome wouldn't have gotten anywhere if it wasn't a very good brow…

> They use their other assets (search, youtube, android, docs..) to make chrome "default" option.

Don't forget their annoying bundling with freeware...

Re: Google’s Chrome Becomes Web ‘Gatekeeper’ and Rivals Complain

#80

Post by collyw »

stephenr wrote: post #76
collyw wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you explain your comment, as it sounds like hyperbole to me.

GAB is a social media site that is "friendly" and "a safe haven" for neo-nazis, white supremacists and "the alt-right". It was created because they were too extreme even for Twitter's ridiculously ineffective controls on hate speech. They apparently believe so strongly that they are "right", that they literally forked a browser to allow their extension to be used, so that like-minded nazis and white supremacists can…

I understood that it was created because twitter was far too heavy handed with their censorship. (See Tim Pool's discussion on Joe Rogan if you don't think that is the case).

But the white supremacist bogeyman is everywhere, isn't it.

Post reply on HN