71–80 of 164 posts
Honest question: who are the potential realistic buyers of Chrome? OS vendors already have their own browsers and Chrome doesn't directly make much (any?) money.
"Similarly, Google would be prevented from pressuring its partners to use Google search or AI services over the competition."
But would these services even be financially viable as separate entities? How does Chrome make income? Isn't it basically developed at a loss, but it makes money for Google's other business units?
Honest question: who are the potential realistic buyers of Chrome? OS vendors already have their own browsers and Chrome doesn't directly make much (any?) money.
No one. Chrome would be bought for pennies on the dollar, and the buyer wouldn't be able to sustain the project.
Honest question: who are the potential realistic buyers of Chrome? OS vendors already have their own browsers and Chrome doesn't directly make much (any?) money.
But would these services even be financially viable as separate entities? How does Chrome make income? Isn't it basically developed at a loss, but it makes money for Google's other business units?
If Mozilla can make up a significant portion of funding by selling default search engine placement, I'm sure an independent Chrome could get 10x that (based on userbase/usage) and be reasonably self-sufficient for continued browser development.
IMHO, the real issue with Google isn't the control of the web browser, but the complete vertical integration of the ad space. Divest Google of its position as the ad broker (i.e., unwind its acquisition of DoubleClick), and prohibit any sort of privileged data flow from Google to ex-Google Ads, and you'd probably have a more viable solution than the poking DoJ is trying to do right now.
On the other hand, Google would argue that Doubleclick is Google, and everything else Google does is just to create channels for ads, and acquire data for ad targeting and pricing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Don't forget the other industries suffering from the same problem: Walmart, UnitedHealth Group, Berkshiere Hathaway, ExxonMobil, JPMorgan Chase, etc.
The problem with Google, Meta, Amazon, et. al. is that they have a steady stream of income from their main business, and use it to enter new markets with loss leader schemes obviously designed to destroy their pre-existing competition... I'm not from the US, but it seems to me like the companies you mention stay in their respective market and don't try to destroy competition in other markets, like Walmart is a superm…