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

DOJ will push Google to sell off Chrome

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

991–1000 of 1001 posts

Re: DOJ will push Google to sell off Chrome

#991

Post by ikeashark »

chucke1992 wrote: post #543
Ameo wrote: post #538

My primary worry here is that this would hurt the open web - whether or not splitting out Chrome into a separate business would be good for consumers in and of itself. It's true that Google adds a lot of things to Chrome or their own benefit or even the potential detriment of others like Mozilla. That being said, they also do a tremendous amount of work to push the state of the web forward and, most importantly, they…

Google has to be dismantled in parts one way or another - too much control over search and Youtube to the point where they are able to enforce Chrome standards that prevent adblocks from working.

> Youtube to the point where they are able to enforce Chrome standards that prevent adblocks from working.

Youtube needs to profitable somehow, and advertisers are the best way to do this. If Youtube couldn't generate the revenue through advertising, what else can they do?

It's insanely expensive to do video streaming, hence why Google invests a lot in the new compression formats today, WEBP, Brotli, AV1.

Do you just expect them to just do all of this for free?

Re: DOJ will push Google to sell off Chrome

#992

Post by globular-toast »

wrsh07 wrote: post #876
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> only reason I still use Chrome is because I already use other Google products and they integrate well together This is the point. Google's products integrate with Chrome better than non-Google products. Including its ad platform.

I'm failing to see why "this product we built from the ground up integrates better with our other tools" is an anti trust problem Isn't that what we want companies to do? I have two frustrations with this kind of decision: 1. It's not clear to me that the judge has any interest in creating value. 2. It does feel a bit like being punished for success. It's one thing when it's ill-gotten success, eg via coercive contra…

Monopolies are bad for us. It's as simple as that really.

> It does feel a bit like being punished for success.

Nobody is being punished. Punishment would be like "you're going to prison because the thing you started turned into a monopoly". That's not what is happening. It's more like "whoops, you created a monopoly, time to reset, but you get to keep everything you reaped so far".

Re: DOJ will push Google to sell off Chrome

#993

Post by chucke1992 »

ikeashark wrote: post #991
chucke1992 wrote: post #543

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google has to be dismantled in parts one way or another - too much control over search and Youtube to the point where they are able to enforce Chrome standards that prevent adblocks from working.

> Youtube to the point where they are able to enforce Chrome standards that prevent adblocks from working. Youtube needs to profitable somehow, and advertisers are the best way to do this. If Youtube couldn't generate the revenue through advertising, what else can they do? It's insanely expensive to do video streaming, hence why Google invests a lot in the new compression formats today, WEBP, Brotli, AV1. Do you just…

No, but with big market share comes big responsibility.

Video streaming is extremely unprofitable sure, but in its care it tries to leverage its market share with Chrome browser to benefit. And you are not allowed to do that when your market share is big.

Re: DOJ will push Google to sell off Chrome

#996

Post by m3kw9 »

nl wrote: post #702
ThePhysicist wrote: post #481

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple doesn't have a similar position in any space though, or do they? In terms of market share they're not even the biggest player in the smartphone market, they sit below 20 % (the most profitable 20 % though). Google, in comparison, absolutely dominates the search and ad markets and sucks all oxygen out of them to keep any competition from springing up by controlling distribution and limiting choice. They e.g. pai…

Apple has 57% of the US phone market: https://www.oberlo.com/statistics/us-smartphone-market-share

just because they have a high percentage, it doesn't mean they should be pushed to divest it. Google is likely found to be severely abusing it's powers beyond what you can actually see on the surface

Re: DOJ will push Google to sell off Chrome

#997

Post by wrsh07 »

globular-toast wrote: post #992
wrsh07 wrote: post #876

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm failing to see why "this product we built from the ground up integrates better with our other tools" is an anti trust problem Isn't that what we want companies to do? I have two frustrations with this kind of decision: 1. It's not clear to me that the judge has any interest in creating value. 2. It does feel a bit like being punished for success. It's one thing when it's ill-gotten success, eg via coercive contra…

Monopolies are bad for us. It's as simple as that really. > It does feel a bit like being punished for success. Nobody is being punished. Punishment would be like "you're going to prison because the thing you started turned into a monopoly". That's not what is happening. It's more like "whoops, you created a monopoly, time to reset, but you get to keep everything you reaped so far".

Why are monopolies bad? In general, monopolies are bad because they can leverage their power in ways that are worse for consumers - ie they make the usual market functions break down. (If the market continued to work correctly, consumers would be able to switch to a competitor)

There are many cases where we like monopolies because it's more efficient to only have one entity do a thing (eg build infrastructure)

It's useful to correctly punish illegal things monopolies do, but in this case, google has created a browser that is good! Better than alternatives!

If you spin that browser off, it will need to figure out how to monetize. It will get worse due to that monetization effort.

Google has other services that would be competitive without Google: drive, YouTube are easy examples.

If we made them spin off Gmail just because Google is too big, that doesn't make sense! Gmail is useful to Google in its current form, but there's no way it's pulling in significant profit (possibly as part of drive - I'm not certain).

You can't just pick a company you don't like and attack it with a hatchet. That's worse for consumers than the thing you're attacking, and the number one rule here should be for regulators to make things better, not worse!

Re: DOJ will push Google to sell off Chrome

#998

Post by jldugger »

curiouscat321 wrote: post #5

Who would possibly buy Chrome? Letting any of the large tech companies purchase it (the only possible buyers) would just give someone else monopolistic power. Chrome can’t exist as a standalone business without being even more consumer hostile.

Would you buy an IPO of Chrome? The key supplier of like half of Google's searches? Seems like a no brainer.

Re: DOJ will push Google to sell off Chrome

#1000

Post by 71bw »

nzach wrote: post #557
simiones wrote: post #522

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What other solution do you have in mind? Legislation about architecture decisions taken in software products seems preferable? In principle there is nothing wrong for example with a shared account for multiple products from the same company, many even prefer it. The problem only appears when this gets concentrated into too much power and can be leveraged in ways that distort the market and hurt consumers.

> Legislation about architecture decisions taken in software products seems preferable? To me this option seems more practical. And we already have some precedence for this kind of solution. For aviation we have entities like EASA issuing standards like ED-109 and for healthcare we have the HL7 organization issuing the HL7 standard. Another example in the healthcare industry is the DICOM standard created by the NEMA…

> and for healthcare we have the HL7 organization issuing the HL7 standard. Another example in the healthcare industry is the DICOM standard created by the NEMA organization.

If only anyone fully respected the standards instead of everyone implementing their own twist...

Post reply on HN