I'm very surprised by the number of people in this thread who don't seem to understand that monopolies are _very_ bad for consumers.
oh no, please don't give me any more free stuff, Google!
DOJ will push Google to sell off Chrome
811–820 of 1001 posts
Re: DOJ will push Google to sell off Chrome
#812Arguably out of the big 4 (Google, Microsoft, Apple, Amazon) Google gave the most back to humanity: Android, Chromium, Kubernetes, Google Office suite, the Go programming language, Tensor Flow, Alpha Fold (and Google DeepMind), donating to Linux, etc. All these are things everyone has access to precisely because Google is such a big player and can afford to lose money on innovation that fails. What did Microsoft and…
Google isn’t “getting targeted”. But to answer your question. 1. Microsoft gets left alone - Really? You may want to ask the closest adult near you about this. 2. Amazon - The government has looked into Amazon multiple times. It’s hard to see where Amazon does anything to illegally use its monopoly (they don’t use their shopping advantage to cross sell AWS in any way, or Vice versa). Amazon is genuinely not a bad mon…
> they are a terrible monopsony (basically destroying retailers that are not Chinese knockoffs)
Wondering if you or someone could explain this. I looked up monopsonies but still confused.
Re: DOJ will push Google to sell off Chrome
#813Earlier quoted context omitted.
> One could ask, "How is Apple a Monopoly, and do they abuse that position?" I opened my local configurator to buy a 13" M3 MacBook Air. Memory, update from 16GB to 24GB -> +230€ SSD, update from 256GB to 2TB -> +920€ Textbook monopolistic price gouging.
Aston Martin charges $1000 to add a six CD changer in the trunk of Vanquish. Clearly textbook price gouging from the monopolistic auto manufacturer, Aston Martin.
Apple monitor stand: $999
Re: DOJ will push Google to sell off Chrome
#814Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem is this: - the browser is undeniably critical as everyone's window through which they view the online world; - the user gains a huge amount of value by a browser being integrated into the OS, webviews in other applications, etc - browsers aren't really a self funding product - having a single for-profit US advertising company control everyone's view of the online world, however slightly (e.g. by obstructi…
How does splitting off Chrome as a separate company solve anything? They would still rely on Google for funding (like Mozilla) and being close friends they would do whatever Alphabet tells them to do. A better solution is to implement a bill like DMA in the EU to enforce competition among web browser vendors and fight monopolies.
> A better solution is to implement a bill
Not that I disagree with the overall point, but this is something the DOJ does not do. They would just look at the current laws and decide who to prosecute based on their interpretation of events.
Re: DOJ will push Google to sell off Chrome
#815Would this even survive the coming change of administration? Why attempt this now?
Re: DOJ will push Google to sell off Chrome
#816Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I'm very surprised by the number of people in this thread who don't seem to understand that monopolies are _very_ bad for consumers. Bad for consumers , how? Financially? How does that translate to the current situation? The average "consumer" here is paying $0.00 for Google, Chrome, Gmail, Maps, Flights, Docs, Sheets, Chat, Meet, Books, Scholar, Shopping, YouTube, News, Groups, Voice... how are you going to argue…
This has the same energy as arguing that gathering your private data to give you more accurate ads does not hurt consumers, it's in fact helping them! Google has been the one pushing for getting rid of the v2 manifest for browsers extensions, which just so happens to seriously nerf ad blockers. Because so many browsers are forks of Chromium v2 will disappear from a majority of browsers. Meanwhile if you try to use a…
Accurate ads does in fact help consumers. Ads facilitate free stuff. Better ads = less ads. When I was a kid every TV show timeslot was like 25% ads. Do you not remember those days? Do you want to go back to that?
Re: DOJ will push Google to sell off Chrome
#817I'm very surprised by the number of people in this thread who don't seem to understand that monopolies are _very_ bad for consumers.
There's a very vocal subset of people here that believe monopolistic entities arise due to how much better they are than their competition, and thus deserve to be monopolies. The very same users believe that such companies aren't "bad" yet, but in some kind of intermediate stage between successful startup and evil MEGAcorp. I don't know. I think it's the mix of nostalgia, and being too invested in their ecosystem/pro…
The vast majority of people just like their free stuff and don't go on hacker news to discuss it
Re: DOJ will push Google to sell off Chrome
#818Am I alone in thinking that all the stuff I get for free (in exchange for some amount of targeted advertising) from Google is pretty cool and that these attempts to break up big tech are going to be very bad for consumers and the economy and is just punishing successful companies that produce products that customers want to use. You all can use mosaic/edge if you want to.
You are certainly not alone. I’d say you’re in the vast vast majority, just not necessarily on our little corner of the Internet (hackernews), but realistically probably the majority here as well.
Re: DOJ will push Google to sell off Chrome
#819Re: DOJ will push Google to sell off Chrome
#820Earlier quoted context omitted.
> DOJ is trying to completely change Google's business model and dictate how they are supposed to make money This is good reasoning. It is overreach for a regulatory body to do something that could impact the business model of a monopoly. Monopolies are bad, unless being a monopoly is part of that monopoly’s business model and an important part of how the monopoly makes money, in which case nothing should be done.
I do mostly agree with grandparent, but not with your take. What is the problem with government regulating, say, the ingredients that can be used in foods, forbidding addictive drugs from being added to them? Or selling drugs that are completely fake or outright dangerous? This obsession with small governments (and basically, libertarianism) doesn't really stand on proper grounds. Why can't the government work for yo…
This is a good point. “Why should anyone think about monopolies when we could imagine what it would be like if they put nicotine in beefaroni?” is exactly the sort of salient and nuanced discourse that is sorely lacking these day’s