Chrome, the perfect antitrust villain?
alexdanco.com
Chrome, the perfect antitrust villain?
1–10 of 153 posts
Re: Chrome, the perfect antitrust villain?
#2Honestly it would be pretty incredible for Chrome to be split out of Google, and I for one would love to see that happen.
Re: Chrome, the perfect antitrust villain?
#3This is an interesting, and relatively fair, article. There are two big issues with it's reasoning though.
First, chrome isn't yet close to IEs peak dominance. Ie peaked at over 90% market share.
Second, DRM isn't necessary for watching video, it's needed for watching certain liscenced video. In practice, this means Netflix and streamed televison. You can still watch YouTube just fine, minus YouTube red originals, without widevine. Is a browser that keeps you off Netflix so bad for google?
Re: Chrome, the perfect antitrust villain?
#4This is an interesting, and relatively fair, article. There are two big issues with it's reasoning though. First, chrome isn't yet close to IEs peak dominance. Ie peaked at over 90% market share. Second, DRM isn't necessary for watching video, it's needed for watching certain liscenced video. In practice, this means Netflix and streamed televison. You can still watch YouTube just fine, minus YouTube red originals, wi…
Amp. Amp is what really scares me about the future of web browsing in chrome.
Re: Chrome, the perfect antitrust villain?
#5This is an interesting, and relatively fair, article. There are two big issues with it's reasoning though. First, chrome isn't yet close to IEs peak dominance. Ie peaked at over 90% market share. Second, DRM isn't necessary for watching video, it's needed for watching certain liscenced video. In practice, this means Netflix and streamed televison. You can still watch YouTube just fine, minus YouTube red originals, wi…
It's pretty much all the paid media on the internet. Spotify, Hulu, netflix, cable providers, amazon, etc.
I guess if you literally only watch free YouTube videos it's not a problem? Totally not an anti-trust issue...
Re: Chrome, the perfect antitrust villain?
#6This is an interesting, and relatively fair, article. There are two big issues with it's reasoning though. First, chrome isn't yet close to IEs peak dominance. Ie peaked at over 90% market share. Second, DRM isn't necessary for watching video, it's needed for watching certain liscenced video. In practice, this means Netflix and streamed televison. You can still watch YouTube just fine, minus YouTube red originals, wi…
Amp. Amp is what really scares me about the future of web browsing in chrome.
Pardon my ignorance, but could you elaborate?
What is Amp, and why is it so scary?
Re: Chrome, the perfect antitrust villain?
#7I don't faintly see the logic in this!
The proof is in the pudding on Chrome's tangible open source impact:
1. V8 is used in a multitude of projects, node being the most impact-ful. And node has changed desktop (with electron and CLI apps), server and developer workflow
2. Brave, Edge, Opera are just some of the WideVine licensed Chromium based browsers
On the contrary, iOS has banned almost every tenet of common sense general purpose computing:
1. Safari for iOS is purposefully crippled to drive devs and users to it's app store
2. App store has fluid, whimsical, retroactively applied approval laws, ahem whims.
3. It's a general purpose computer that you can own the hardware of, but need the manufacturer's consent to run software on. You know, like needing your fridge maker's approval for the groceries you stock in it.
4. They purposefully stymie competition:
- Spotify, Google-Maps, etc. are denied APIs that give competing Apple offerings an edge.
- 30% tax on external apps again gives Apple's competing offerings unfair edge
- Complete ban on Just-In-Time compiled code and alternate browser engines is intentional - to stymie features and quality to a default of "below Apple's competing offerings"
How one rationalizes Chrome to be more "anti-trust-y" is contrary to logic
Re: Chrome, the perfect antitrust villain?
#8Honestly it would be pretty incredible for Chrome to be split out of Google, and I for one would love to see that happen.
In what possible way would Chrome make money as a standalone company without utterly alienating its userbase?
Chrome is subsidized by the rest of Google.
Re: Chrome, the perfect antitrust villain?
#9Honestly it would be pretty incredible for Chrome to be split out of Google, and I for one would love to see that happen.
In what possible way would Chrome make money as a standalone company without utterly alienating its userbase? Chrome is subsidized by the rest of Google.
Only in the same way that Gmail and Android are "subsidized" by Google. They're sources of data and play directly into how they generate revenue.
I agree that without those motivations it would be hard to fund these projects without them going paid or taking donations, but I take issue with calling them "subsidized".
Re: Chrome, the perfect antitrust villain?
#10I don't faintly see the logic in this! The proof is in the pudding on Chrome's tangible open source impact: 1. V8 is used in a multitude of projects, node being the most impact-ful. And node has changed desktop (with electron and CLI apps), server and developer workflow 2. Brave, Edge, Opera are just some of the WideVine licensed Chromium based browsers On the contrary, iOS has banned almost every tenet of common sen…
> Brave, Edge, Opera are just some of the WideVine licensed Chromium based browsers
Today I learned: the new Edge has both WideVine and PlayReady. I figured they'd just go with PlayReady and be done with it - does WideVine have any real advantages?
https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/microsoft/chromium-mic...
https://www.ghacks.net/2019/04/03/chromium-based-microsoft-e...