Great insights on how default settings shape user behavior. I think this discussion also hints at a broader issue: even open platforms can face restrictions, whether by design or external forces. In environments where access is limited—be it due to institutional policies or government regulations—having a reliable workaround becomes crucial. I've personally found that using a robust residential proxy service like NodeMaven can make a big difference. Their proxies offer secure, unrestricted access, ensuring you can connect to the full spectrum of online resources without hassle. If you ever hit a roadblock, it’s definitely worth checking out NodeMaven’s service https://nodemaven.com/proxies/residential-proxies/.
The DOJ still wants Google to sell off Chrome
711–718 of 718 posts
Re: The DOJ still wants Google to sell off Chrome
#712Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the control should be in the hands of the public. Stewarded by a public organization with government funds. What do you think?
> I think the control should be in the hands of the public. Stewarded by a public organization with government funds. What do you think? I don't know. I think today the EU could set up EUBrowser, a fork of Chromium, and start work. Almost all the hard work has been done by OSS contributions. Google engineers, and Google-funded things such as Firefox. They could live off that comfortably while providing a more locked-…
I like both these ideas. But feel the first more destined for success.
Re: The DOJ still wants Google to sell off Chrome
#713Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
> some of the biggest (Slack, Zoom, Skype, Discord) If everyone is jumping off a cliff, would you too? Slack: downloads 500+ megabytes of trash and stores it on your computer. It also is dogshit slow to load conversations. It used to have a bunch of really neat integrations, and then they did the rug-pull for chat history, APIs, and other costs. It's going on momentum now but most businesses and gamers have moved off…
I don't know how to answer this. Bloatware is being fixed by cross platform frameworks, but hardware is also being upgraded accordingly to facilitate it. I've heard the theories; and I know 3 codebases for 3 platforms is sooner becoming a relic of a time gone-by than gaining ANY momentum in both the job market AND modern stack statistics. As is one codebase team for native desktop applications - especially when there are technologies now that allow you to reach more market share and accessibility for having the same codebase reach several platforms and device types.
>Zoom: barely works in a browser tab, and the app receives updates daily, and still has broken user experiences. Chat is barely functional, and screen sharing breaks often. Little or no useful API or integrations. Terrible user experience. But the configuration is probably the best of the apps you cite.
You probably don't use Zoom often. It works great in-browser, user experience is rigid, just because YOU don't use the API or integrations doesn't mean it's not useful - there's an entire Zoom Marketplace where you can build apps with scopes that tailor to your needs, I have more than a dozen setup; and my single-most used integration between ALL my stack is a simple Zoom General App that checks attendance for past meetings, and starts a routine based on whether the invitee's email is in that list of past meeting participants or not. But YMMV on both ends of this position.
>"Figma is dog slow compared to what functionality it provides" Again, not sure where you're coming from. It's very performant.
>"Maybe you should change careers into middle management or executives, you seem the type." Luckily, Team programmer -> Senior Management -> Executive was my path.
>"Or maybe you might want to cut back on personal attacks because there's plenty of pragmatism in wanting native applications if you'd look past your own short-sighted career-driven opinion." Sure! But that's the thing; you have to look at PAST and HISTORICAL trends to see its validity.
>"You want pragmatism? Focus on why I want native apps on my desktop platform, discussed in the sibling fork of this comment thread." Sibling fork shows you're a minority, more and more people are looking up "(function) online" to accomplish something without leaving their browsers; trust in installing exe's, msi's and pkg's are at an all-time low and, in many user experience studies, are seen as hostile.
Re: The DOJ still wants Google to sell off Chrome
#714First 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…
Chrome could probably make a huge amount of money by doing what people assume Google does but actually doesn't - selling users browsing history. Google uses a complex anonymization/privacy framework to collect some aggregate signals from website visits, but they don't use it directly. Regulators don't understand this, and technologists who do tend to distrust Google anyway and think they might secretly be using it. T…
> Google does but actually doesn't - selling users browsing history
Doing that would make Google lose money, not make money. It is much more useful to be sole owner of this data.
Re: The DOJ still wants Google to sell off Chrome
#715Here'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…
The main problem with Google anti competition is how chrome is being leveraged to mine user behavior signals for search engine algos. That is the unfair advantage that needs to be killed off
Re: The DOJ still wants Google to sell off Chrome
#716Earlier quoted context omitted.
How many people get past the first page? I'd wager a guess its under 3%. It could be 20 results or an infinite amount, it wouldn't make a single bit of difference. It is a fact that google gets to control who and what shows up in a search, and they put paying entries at the top. There are many problems with this. They have also de-listed websites from google search, and are at a high risk of complying with any govern…
That's an answer to a different question. Italian restaurants might use the first page of their menu for pizza. Do customers who want pasta conclude pasta "doesn't exist" because it's not listed on first page?
This analogy disregards everything we know and understand about the internet and how corporations operate
Re: The DOJ still wants Google to sell off Chrome
#717Earlier quoted context omitted.
> can’t find it on Google via keywords Can't find what? Are you saying people are using Google to search for things they've misplaced? At what point is the user thinking "I can't find what I'm looking for?"
No, I'm saying they use Google to navigate. If they want a lasagna recipe, they use Google. If (for whatever reason), a particular lasagna recipe is not findable via this method, it for all intents and purposes doesn't exist. I hope I'm making myself clear.
So the user has something in mind. Your example is a recipe.
Just to clarify my point. Google isn't meddling with your Lasagna recipes.
The parent poster claimed website owners need to "bend your website to satisfy both Google search and Google chrome". This isn't accurate, and the claim should have been called out by more than me.
You might never use Chrome other than 30 seconds of quick testing your website build. I build sites that obtain high search ranking and I barely open Chrome. I conform to HTML standards and other good practices regarding content and structure. There's nothing "Google" about a good website other than the alarmist misinformation such as expressed by the person's comment in this thread about needing to "bend to Chrome".
The irony is I'm not friends with Google. So many things they do I object to. Even their "super-thanks" how they take 30% cut, it's criminal. People were using super-thanks to donate to fire victims on youtube, and Google was grabbing 30% of every donation for itself. I can't forgive that. BUT... I don't think they should be made to stop doing deals to be default search engine, that is overreach. Forced to sell Chrome?... don't care. I don't use Chrome.
I hope I'm making myself clear.
Re: The DOJ still wants Google to sell off Chrome
#718Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's an answer to a different question. Italian restaurants might use the first page of their menu for pizza. Do customers who want pasta conclude pasta "doesn't exist" because it's not listed on first page?
This analogy disregards everything we know and understand about the internet and how corporations operate
> everything we know
Please demonstrate what you know before making representations about what we know.
The restaurant sells more pizza than pasta, so they put pizza on the first page of menu. The strategy works, people come back for more pizza.
Google facilitates conversions by presenting paid results relevant to search intent. If nobody ever clicked paid results and converted, businesses wouldn't buy those paid spots. Admittedly, Google makes tracking success of paid ad spending a confusing nightmare, but not impossible to work out with some effort.
If there's only 10 organic spots on the highly sought after page 1, paid search is a way to fight it out in the market. Fair enough?
It's a balance of:
* Running a search engine business.
* Providing quality paid results that match search intent
* Surfacing quality organic results that match search intent
* Allowing various ways to filter and access results according to refined search intent, for example advanced search tools or other channels such as image, shopping search, maps etc.