US Regulators Seek To Break Up Google, Forcing Chrome Sale (apnews.com) 144
In a 23-page document (PDF) filed late Wednesday, U.S. regulators asked a federal judge to break up Google after a court found the tech giant of maintaining an abusive monopoly through its dominant search engine. As punishment, the DOJ calls for a sale of Google's Chrome browser and restrictions to prevent Android from favoring its own search engine. The Associated Press reports: Although regulators stopped short of demanding Google sell Android too, they asserted the judge should make it clear the company could still be required to divest its smartphone operating system if its oversight committee continues to see evidence of misconduct. [...] The Washington, D.C. court hearings on Google's punishment are scheduled to begin in April and Mehta is aiming to issue his final decision before Labor Day. If [U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta] embraces the government's recommendations, Google would be forced to sell its 16-year-old Chrome browser within six months of the final ruling. But the company certainly would appeal any punishment, potentially prolonging a legal tussle that has dragged on for more than four years.
Besides seeking a Chrome spinoff and a corralling of the Android software, the Justice Department wants the judge to ban Google from forging multibillion-dollar deals to lock in its dominant search engine as the default option on Apple's iPhone and other devices. It would also ban Google from favoring its own services, such as YouTube or its recently-launched artificial intelligence platform, Gemini. Regulators also want Google to license the search index data it collects from people's queries to its rivals, giving them a better chance at competing with the tech giant. On the commercial side of its search engine, Google would be required to provide more transparency into how it sets the prices that advertisers pay to be listed near the top of some targeted search results. The measures, if they are ordered, threaten to upend a business expected to generate more than $300 billion in revenue this year. "The playing field is not level because of Google's conduct, and Google's quality reflects the ill-gotten gains of an advantage illegally acquired," the Justice Department asserted in its recommendations. "The remedy must close this gap and deprive Google of these advantages."
Besides seeking a Chrome spinoff and a corralling of the Android software, the Justice Department wants the judge to ban Google from forging multibillion-dollar deals to lock in its dominant search engine as the default option on Apple's iPhone and other devices. It would also ban Google from favoring its own services, such as YouTube or its recently-launched artificial intelligence platform, Gemini. Regulators also want Google to license the search index data it collects from people's queries to its rivals, giving them a better chance at competing with the tech giant. On the commercial side of its search engine, Google would be required to provide more transparency into how it sets the prices that advertisers pay to be listed near the top of some targeted search results. The measures, if they are ordered, threaten to upend a business expected to generate more than $300 billion in revenue this year. "The playing field is not level because of Google's conduct, and Google's quality reflects the ill-gotten gains of an advantage illegally acquired," the Justice Department asserted in its recommendations. "The remedy must close this gap and deprive Google of these advantages."
Just buy some advertising over on X.com (Score:3, Interesting)
Jokes aside there are already several companies looking to advertise back on Twitter even though none of their concerns about their advertisements being displayed next to extremist content have been addressed...
I am not going to hold my breath for any antitrust law enforcement in the next 4 years. We will be extremely lucky if the grocery store mergers going on fail because if they don't expect all of our grocery bills to go up 20 or 30%.
We were warned we just didn't listen.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Companies have only one concern - to make as much money as possible.
They pulled out of Twitter because they thought that people would not like if their ads were displayed "next to extremist content". Because Trump won the election, the same companies decided that maybe the opinions of people are different and now are also trying to suck up to Musk.
The same companies would display a Swastika on their logo or wherever if they thought it would get them more money.
Careful don't pull a muscle (Score:3)
It's bribes. They're bribing Donald Trump through Elon musk. And it's not even quid pro quo. Donald Trump has made it clear he intends to use the federal government as a weapon.
You know this of course. But for some crazy ass reason you and people like you are okay with that.
It'll bite you in the ass of course. If you're younger or if
Re:Careful don't pull a muscle (Score:4, Interesting)
I am not in the US. I am in a country that is close to Russia and if Russia wins in Ukraine, Putin may come for us next, even though my country is a NATO member.
As for the tariffs - I see it as "do it now or do it later but more expensive", just like Germany with gas. Germany had a chance to build LNG terminals slowly and possibly cheaper to have an alternative source for the gas, but they decided to wait until Putin invaded Ukraine a second time (since the occupation of Crimea only prompted Germany to build a new pipeline to Russia). Then they paid through the nose for the gas while also rushing the building of LNG terminals before Putin closed the valve.
Same with manufacturing in China. All is great right now, China provides cheap stuff. Until China decides to invade Taiwan or whatever and then all manufacturing will have to return to the US overnight, because either the US will impose sanctions on China or China will just kick out the American companies while keeping their factories. So, the US has to get the factories back slowly before the time comes to do it quickly.
Wow, not used to you guys admitting it (Score:2)
Anyway, tariffs protect local business *if* you have one. The US doesn't. We shipped all that overseas. So all tariffs do is make everything more expensive, increase inflation, cause the federal reserve to hike interest rates which gets people fired (that's by design, that's how interest rate hikes "fight" inflation)
Tariffs aren't get
Re: (Score:1)
One of the big reasons I voted for Trump is so that I won't have to watch my kids get drafted to fight in some world war started over a former eastern European shit hole, or the Western European shit hole for that matter.
Then you really should have, at some point in your life, looked at history and how the world actually works when nationalist demagogues get into power. You helped to do the one thing which had repeatedly shown to maximize the chance of a war that will cause your children get drafted.
Of course you're against standing up to a bully, if you were, you wouldn't have voted for Trump. Enjoy getting your lunch money taken!
Re: (Score:2)
I am not going to hold my breath for any antitrust law enforcement in the next 4 years.
Trump will be more than happy to use the Justice department in a vindictive way against companies he doesn't like.
Re: (Score:2)
There will be "anti-trust" enforcement against anyone who competes with Musk's businesses.
Re:Just buy some advertising over on X.com (Score:4, Funny)
What's the difference between a conservative and a liberal?
Liberals want to make the country successful and know they need immigrants to do it. (declining birth rates, aging population, etc)
Conservatives want to make the country so bad that the immigrants don't want to come.
Re: (Score:2)
Liberals want to make the country successful and know they need immigrants to do it. (declining birth rates, aging population, etc)
Birth rates are severely depressed because there is no hope for anything other than wage slavery with fiscal responsibilities far larger than their petty wages can compensate for.
The caged bird does not sing.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: Just buy some advertising over on X.com (Score:2)
Yet you're willing to trade orders of magnitude more Palestinians to get a handful of Hamas.
72% of them support Hamas, so not a valid comparison. That's like asking why we bombed so many "innocent" Germans to get a handful of Nazis.
Re:Just buy some advertising over on X.com (Score:5, Interesting)
You are using the stupid terminology used by the media here. You are actually missing that there are three primary ways to look at things:
Conservatives really fall into two main areas, social conservatives, who look at things from a social policy perspective, but you also get fiscal conservatives who are more focused on economics and not being wasteful. At this point, the Republicans have given up on being fiscally conservative, because even when they want to cut the budget for this and that, they have NO problem spending a ton of money on the military, and when $2 trillion goes missing over a ten year period from the Department of Defense that can not be tracked down(misappropriated money), you NEVER see the Republicans make a major push to find out where all that money went. Republicans on the whole may claim to be conservative as well, but they don't have a problem with any Republican that is caught doing anything illegal or doing things like cheating on their wife with hookers or drugs or even getting into homosexual relationships, because they don't want to lose any political power in Washington.
Next, you talk about "Liberals". If you think about it, a liberal is someone who allows people to be different, and that even means that liberals can really support conservatives, because people are allowed to have different opinions, lifestyles, or sexual preferences. Liberals really don't stand for much, except for letting people be or do just about anything, as long as it doesn't break the law or harm others.
And then, the group that most of the Democrats that control the DNC hate more than Republicans, the progressives. Progressives are what many conservatives think about when they say they hate liberals, even though there are huge differences. Progressives look at the ideals most have for what would make the world a better place. Equality, the "American Dream" where if you work hard you can eventually be able to afford to buy your own home, and to get ahead based on merit. No one should be held back by society purely based on race, ethnic group, or gender. If the cost of living goes up, wages should go up, just because employees should be able to afford to live. This also means investigating why costs go up, and if it's just greed by the wealthy, then things should change to try to get prices to go down by various means.
Comparing Republicans to Democrats in politics, yea, up until 2016 there wasn't much of a difference, both sides favored the wealthy over the working class and poor when it came to politics. But, progressives are the ones trying to get government back to actively trying to make things better for EVERYONE, and liberal and conservative politicians HATE them, because stopping corruption means their system of bribes and kickbacks wouldn't be as easy to allow payoffs to politicians.
Re: (Score:3)
At this point, the Republicans have given up on being fiscally conservative, because even when they want to cut the budget for this and that, they have NO problem spending a ton of money on the military, and when $2 trillion goes missing over a ten year period from the Department of Defense that can not be tracked down(misappropriated money), you NEVER see the Republicans make a major push to find out where all that money went.
Republicans are fiscally conservative... For anything that benefits only you. If there is something in it for them, ideally a lucrative contract or some free money, they are fiscally all for it.
Even the mass deportations are as much about the opportunity to get government contracts as about getting rid of Democrat voters and pandering to their base.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Violating freedom of contract is not "better for everyone".
DoubleClick? (Score:5, Interesting)
Why Chrome and not DoubleClick - I feel like the adtech and tracking services cause at least as much abuse of privacy as the browser...
Re: (Score:2)
No -the question is, why Google and Microsoft, but not Apple?
Re:DoubleClick? (Score:5, Interesting)
Speaking only from personal anecdote; Apple has zero impact on my daily life. I can count the number of times I have had to interact/deal with Apple products and services in the past year on one hand. Apple's bullshit is only a problem for people who have bought into their ecosystem.
It is literally impossible for me to go about my typical day without dealing with Google's and/or Microsoft's bullshit. They are both much more deeply entrenched in every aspect of society and industry, and consequently much more of a problem.
=Smidge=
Re: (Score:2)
Apple's monopoly also affects people like me, who have family and friends that use Apple products, while I don't. There are many ways Apple makes it difficult to exchange things with them, as simple as videos and pictures via text.
I'm happy Apple's antics don't affect you. Some of us aren't so lucky.
Monopoly [Re:DoubleClick?] (Score:2)
Apple's monopoly also affects people like me, who have family and friends that use Apple products, while I don't.
The fact that you don't indicates that Apple is not a monopoly. If they were a monopoly, they would be the only source for the products you use.
The post you are responding to clarifies what a monopoly is:
It is literally impossible for me to go about my typical day without dealing with Google's and/or Microsoft's bullshit. They are both much more deeply entrenched in every aspect of society and industry
If you can't avoid dealing with them, that's a monopoly.
Re: (Score:2)
If you want to be pedantic, you are correct, Apple is not a monopoly. If "monopoly" means there is absolutely only one of anything, then there is no such thing as a monopoly anywhere, of any kind, because there is always another choice, however small and unuseful that other choice might be.
Antitrust laws cover monopolies, duopolies, and oligopolies, because they all have similar detrimental impacts on the market.
So to be pedantic, Apple and Google form a smartphone and app *duopoly." The effects are the sam
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry about your acquaintances, but they bought into the ecosystem. It's on you that you allow it to be your problem too.
However, next time you are dealing with basically any business, or virtually any web-related activity, or even a scary number of computer programs/apps you might run (hint: Chromium), you are dealing with Google/Microsoft in some form. It is absolutely inescapable.
=Smidge=
Re: (Score:2)
It's on you that you allow it to be your problem too.
How exactly do I "fix" the problems with receiving videos or photos from them? I can't just "stop allowing" that to be a problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple isn't getting off the hook, the DOJ is suing them for antitrust violations too.
https://www.npr.org/2024/09/20... [npr.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Because Apple keeps to itself. If you're involved with its ecosystem, you can avoid Apple. Apple has the original WebKit engine, Google forked it for Chromium (and called it blink) and Microsoft used that fork as well. So while Apple may be the OG browser engine, it's only used on Apple's devices.
Likewise, Apple doesn't provide stuff to third parties - you cannot run (officially) iOS on a non-Apple phone. Or run macOS on a non-Apple computer. Ever
Re: (Score:3)
Why Chrome and not DoubleClick
Completely agree. I was really hoping that the outcome of this DOJ ruling would be mandating that Google split off their advertising business.
The bundling of advertising and all their other products is the specific reason that the other products have gotten so anti-consumer and shitty. Whether it's Search, or Gmail, or YouTube, or Chrome -- the driving force behind all their development is "How do we maximize advertising revenue, regardless of the cost to user enjoyment, privacy, security, or safety?".
If
Chrome needs to be on it's own and full adblock ne (Score:1)
Chrome needs to be on it's own and full adblock needs to be allowed
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
It's called Vivaldi browser actually, something you can download and install completely offline and not hiding behind a shady web installer.
Brave? Vivaldi? [Re:Chrome needs to be on it's...] (Score:2)
https://itsfoss.com/brave-vs-v... [itsfoss.com]
https://www.softwareadvice.com... [softwareadvice.com]
https://discuss.privacyguides.... [privacyguides.net]
https://www.askwoody.com/forum... [askwoody.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. Brave is indeed the best adblock system out there.
Re: (Score:1)
Better than Firefox + uBlockOrigin? I've yet to find a better combo.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, actually. I also use FireFox+uBlockOrigin. That combo still allows all those pesky OAuth login popups everywhere, Brave does not.
Entirely bogus (Score:1, Interesting)
Google just has to cook up some delays until the new administration takes over and dismisses the case. Besides, Google is a "monopoly" by consumer choice, not because there are no alternatives. This isn't like the old railroad and oil monopolies that were screwing over the farmers
+1 (Score:2)
At some point monopoly has been redefined from there being one company completely dominant in an entire industry with no real alternatives, to one company having significant market share in certain market sectors along with several others, sometimes in markets they have created themselves.
Exactly who would buy Chrome? (Score:5, Insightful)
Outside of any potential technical difficulties of selling Chrome (code base, licensing, patents, etc. Presumably Chrome as a 'brand' would also be packaged, and so on) just who do they expect would *buy* it? And who gets to set the price?
One also suspects that if foreign companies attempted to buy Chrome, there would be protests/lawsuits/whatever.
Or rather, if someone bought Chrome, how would the purchaser expect to make money with Chrome? Charge for it? Or do... exactly what Google is doing now? And if there is no way to make a profit from the purchase, why would anyone be interested in buying Chrome?
Re: (Score:2)
Blink is open source, Chrome is most certainly not. That said, a lot of the values you get by using Chrome is Blink of course.
Re: (Score:2)
Same way all the other browser vendors do. Take money to be the default search engine, integrate crapware and ads. Maybe install Bonzi Buddy along side it.
The best option would be to spin it off as a non-profit.
Re: (Score:2)
I think this is an important point. Google finds value in Chrome, because they use it to indirectly support their advertising and data gathering businesses. If Chrome belonged to someone else, it is difficult to see what value it would have. Unless, of course, the buyer cut a deal with Google, to support Google's advertising and data gathering businesses. :-/
Honestly, I think this proposal is a back-door attempt by Google to prevent a much more serious (and much needed) breakup. Google (or rather Alphabet)
Re:Exactly who would buy Chrome? (Score:5, Insightful)
I think this is an important point. Google finds value in Chrome, because they use it to indirectly support their advertising and data gathering businesses. If Chrome belonged to someone else, it is difficult to see what value it would have. Unless, of course, the buyer cut a deal with Google, to support Google's advertising and data gathering businesses. :-/
Google also finds value in Chrome because Android has to have a browser, and at the time it was created, the only other browser that would have been usable as a mobile browser was Safari. Google worked with their direct operating system competitor to make WebKit a platform that was good enough as a mobile browser, and used that platform as the basis for Chrome.
The sad reality is that there is no money in web browsers. They're a money pit. Users won't tolerate browsers that inject ads, and for the most part, users won't pay for web browsers, so there's no viable funding source except for the money that browsers get from making Google the default search engine. As a result, Google basically funds development of Chrome, Firefox, and Safari, almost singlehandedly.
It isn't entirely selfless, of course. Without browsers, Google Search wouldn't be all that useful. So keeping browser development going does support Google's interests, but it has nothing to do with ads, except to the extent that ads pay the bills for Search.
I'm really not sure why the DOJ thinks anyone else would want Chrome. The best possible outcome would be Google spinning off Chrome into a separate company, but continuing to pay huge sums of money to that company for the purposes of keeping Chrome from instantly going bankrupt, and I'm really not sure what good that would do anyone. As long as Google is funding it, they'll still end up doing Google's bidding, and I don't see any realistic alternative, because almost nobody but Google has the deep pockets necessary to fund it, and almost nobody else has the motivation to do so, either, as evidenced by ~86% of Mozilla's annual budget coming from Google.
I mean... unless they think they can get Google to finance it with enough money that the resulting company can survive on the interest/stock market gains alone, who in their right minds would take Chrome? It would be as smart a business deal as buying 23andMe.
Re: (Score:2)
Android has to have a browser, and at the time it was created, the only other browser that would have been usable as a mobile browser was Safari.
Sounds like someone completely forgot about the existence of Opera Mobile [arstechnica.com], the browser that HTC started installing by default on WinMo phones to make web browsing tolerable. Dare I say it...OM10 was actually better than the contemporary version of Safari on the iPhone, so Google absolutely could have used it on Android if they wanted. ...but the better variant of your point is that Chrome was needed on the desktop, more than in the mobile space. Firefox provided Windows users an alternative to IE6, but I th
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like someone completely forgot about the existence of Opera Mobile [arstechnica.com], the browser that HTC started installing by default on WinMo phones to make web browsing tolerable.
To be fair, even that review said it wasn't as good as Mobile Safari. :-)
but the better variant of your point is that Chrome was needed on the desktop, more than in the mobile space. Firefox provided Windows users an alternative to IE6, but I think Google was a bit more forward thinking there.
Meh. Safari existed on Windows, as did Firefox. Having another browser on the desktop wasn't strictly needed at that point. At best, it was a nice-to-have.
Lots of the things we take for granted in web browsers now, were provided by plugins back then. It wasn't so much the *browser* that needed improvement, but the fact that most users needed some unholy combination of ActiveX, Flash, Shockwave, Java, Realplayer, and Windows Media Player to do the things that websites do today *without* those things.
Yeah, but the only reason it was absolutely necessary to kill those plugins was because they were battery killers on mobile devices with their tiny batteries. For desktop use, battery consumption reduction has always been more of a nice-to-have.
Now, I'll definitely agree that it's basically impossible to *sell* a browser anymore
I would argue that this has always
Re:Exactly who would buy Chrome? (Score:4, Interesting)
Before Chrome, Google didn't have their own browser and just sent huge amounts of money to Firefox. Bringing the browser in house led to some innovation, but it also led to some abuse of power.
The only major browser focused company who has managed to stay alive and independent was/is almost entirely funded by Google. The other browsers with decent share (Edge, Safari) are all bundled with a platform just like Chrome is bundled with Android and ChromeOS. Any other browsers are just slight variations on Firefox or Chromium that couldn't survive without those projects.
It seems silly to allow Microsoft and Apple to bundle their own webkit based browsers with their platforms and then require Google to divest Chrome and not to have a browser at all. Plus how do you spin off Chrome (or any browser really) and not have it 100% dependant on a partnership with Google/Alphabet?
I'm not sure what the answer is. Google is definitely abusing their position to support their ad and search business, so something should be done about it. Apple rejects some of Google's additions because they're not an ad business and want to protect the privacy of their users, so that is great. They also purposefully hold back additions that would allow the browser to be a full-fledged application platform that would allow people to sidestep their app store (and therefore their cut). The browser space is a mess of competing corporate agendas.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple rejects some of Google's additions because they're not an ad business
Apple is now an ad business, too, FWIW. It's a fairly small portion of their revenue, but Apple's ad business is growing fast, expected to reach $11B in 2024, and $14B by 2026.
Re: (Score:2)
Obviously, Google doesn't sell Chrome. Google uses it to ensure that its other businesses, like DoubleClick and Search, retain their own monopolies.
Re: (Score:3)
Beyond that, what do they expect Google to do afterward? OK, they lose ownership of Chrome and Chromium. But they can fork Chromium the next day, create their own Google Platinum browser and release it maybe a week later.
Re: (Score:2)
Outside of any potential technical difficulties of selling Chrome (code base, licensing, patents, etc. Presumably Chrome as a 'brand' would also be packaged, and so on) just who do they expect would *buy* it? And who gets to set the price?
One also suspects that if foreign companies attempted to buy Chrome, there would be protests/lawsuits/whatever.
Or rather, if someone bought Chrome, how would the purchaser expect to make money with Chrome? Charge for it? Or do... exactly what Google is doing now? And if there is no way to make a profit from the purchase, why would anyone be interested in buying Chrome?
I doubt anything much comes of this, but...
The way breakups work now? Some subsidiary arm of Google, not easily traced back to Google, or Alphabet, would take over. Probably under some amalgamation of names of competitors. Like Bravefox, or Operafire or some shit, trying to tie it to these other browsers that sorta/kinda have a market share. Then, in a few years, they'll be reabsorbed into the parent company, and proles will be whining about how much better it was when they were under their own name.
Nobody'
To whom? (Score:2)
What sort of for-profit company would want to develop a web browser? Excluding Google of course. :)
Microsoft going to buy it?
Re: To whom? (Score:1)
I'll buy it for a 10x multiple of annual expected profit.
This will all go away in a few months. (Score:1, Troll)
Once the orange dorito takes over.
Re:This will all go away in a few months. (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Alphabet will wait... (Score:1)
Alphabet will wait until Trump takes office, sign a consent decree, and then the Justice Department will agree. Shades of Microsoft...
JoskK.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
DoJ destroying what's left of the market (Score:3)
There are two consumer electronic ecosystems at the moment, Google's and Apple's. With Google's ecosystem losing ground due to poor integration and control (ChromeOS should have stayed a proper operating system with local applications, web only is too limited, Google should have full control over Android software&updates similar to ChromeOS) and because being an advertising first company will always relegate them to the low end.
Apple's ecosystem is especially dangerous because the vertical integration defacto precludes competition in an increasing number of markets. They hoover up winners through acquisitions, make it part of the ecosystem and the barrier to entry gets a little higher again ... this is completely unsustainable.
Removing Google will just accelerate Apple's damage. Either change something fundamental about the consumer electronic market (ban hardware vertical integration for instance) or leave Google alone for now, their vertical integration of services and advertising to create barriers to entry is what allows them to compete with Apple and keep some competition in hardware going for now.
Re: (Score:2)
ChromeOS should have stayed a proper operating system with local applications, web only is too limited
Locally cached HTML5/Javasript/WebASM aren't exactly limited. The problem is that they didn't jump into making web sites act like local apps sooner. Nobody wants a device that just runs Chrome with 100 tabs. They want an OS with a visual metaphor separating each "app" (like the Windows task bar). They do have this, but they didn't really push it on Windows or Mac so people have to relearn a lot to go to a ChromeOS device.
Don't force them to sell, force them to change... (Score:2)
Instead of forcing Google to sell Chrome, they should instead force Google to change Chrome. Force Google to restore the features used by ad blockers. Force Google to stop the "wouldn't you rather use Chrome" messages you get if you visit certain Google websites with alternative browsers. Force Google to remove features added to Chrome that benefit its own services at the expense of others.
Now do Amazon, Apple, and Microsoft (Score:2)
If you're going after Google, go after the other monopolies: Amazon, Apple, and Microsoft. At the same time, while you're at it, go after Visa and Mastercard, which have 80% market dominance and a 50% gross margin on credit card swipes and terminal fees as well as processing.
Breaking up is hard to do. (Score:2)
I'm going to make the same argument that I made with Microsoft back in the day.
If you spin off Chrome, you now have 2 companies that are monopolies. Only one is in search and one is in web browsers, and nothing sort of direct litigation will stop them from having a cordial relationship. Hell, it's even easier to see here since they already split themself up into separate subsidiaries when they decided to become Alphabet and were clearly preparing for a breakup.
The best approach would be identical to what w
Re: (Score:2)
Search choice is already there: https://www.google.com/chrome/... [google.com]
Re: (Score:1)
::chuckles in American:: Choice?? Big tech knows better than me, the ignorant American consumer!
Geez, right-wing idiots (Score:3)
Y'all like monopolies. But I thought you liked the "free market".You can't have both.
And M$ bundled its browser to illegally kill competition by other browsers who'd been out first... and Internet Exploder was a disaster (ask someone who actually had to code to allow it to work with *any* other browser).
But maybe they should do more... https://pluralistic.net/2024/1... [pluralistic.net]
The naming of parts is a delicate matter (Score:2)
When breaking up of Microsoft was considered, it was suggested that the two parts be called MICROS~1 and MICROS~2. What should the pieces of Google be called?
G o o o o o o o o g l e ?
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
Re:Didn't they try this with Microsoft (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Didn't they try this with Microsoft (Score:4, Insightful)
M$ completely succeeded there. Firefox is not the reason why Internet Explorer faded. We can thank Google's support for W3C standards across it deployments and toolkits for bringing that about. And later IPhone/Android drove it to fruition.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: Didn't they try this with Microsoft (Score:2)
So that's Google's fault? I knew it
Re: (Score:2)
I think the success of Chrome had more to do with its improvements in javascript performance. Chrome changed the game on js performance and made Web 2.0 possible.
I don't think anyone would disagree that Chrome's early releases were technological achievements that pushed browsers forward and prioritized performance. That was the carrot.
The problem is that since then, Google's Chrome project has taken pages directly out of Microsoft's Internet Explorer playbook:
- Bundled with their operating system.
- Bundled with other Google software.
- Bundled with third party software in exchange for money.
- Extends published standards with Chrome-only features.
- Abuses market domi
Wrong way to divide Google (Score:2)
Google should be divided into 4 companies with the stipulation that each company cannot get more than 25% of its revenue from any combination of the other formerly Google companies by 2028.
1. Search and everything else with the stipulation that everything else cannot send more than 10% of its search traffic to Google search
2. Youtube
3. Advertising
4. Cloud
Re: (Score:2)
Firefox is not the reason why Internet Explorer faded. We can thank Google's support for W3C standards across it deployments and toolkits for bringing that about.
The general Internet-using public didn't give two shits about web standards. What they cared about was that Chrome was fast and responsive and had tabs, while IE was stuck with an overbuilt rendering engine that moved like mud.
Re: (Score:2)
The general Internet-using public didn't give two shits about web standards. What they cared about was that Chrome was fast and responsive and had tabs, while IE was stuck with an overbuilt rendering engine that moved like mud.
Very much this. Early Chrome wasn't without it's flaws, but it WORKED and it was fast. I'm fuzzy on the details and can't be arsed to look up the timeline, but IIRC IE7 was being pushed out and the flaming heap that was IE8 was being forced upon us enterprise Windows users. Both browsers had matured to the Hot Garbage phase of early 2000's software.
Despite the whining of the rest of my IT department, who would only support IE, I switched to Chrome about a week after public release and haven't looked back. I
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
It amazes me that, surrounded by people who ostensibly care about actual functionality, people like you still try to reduce things to just your personal political understanding of things, not even realizing that you show your priorities in the process.
Re:Didn't they try this with Microsoft (Score:5, Informative)
Much different. With Microsoft it was that they were including it as the only default browser. With Google it's because they're making changes to Chrome that block other advertising technologies, while being very specific to allow for their own.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Didn't they try this with Microsoft (Score:4, Insightful)
But Apple including Safari by default in iOS and forcing all other browsers to use its engine is A-OK!
iOS has a 60% market share in smartphones. Google has a 90% market share in search.
Anti-monopoly laws don't apply if you're not a monopoly.
Also, 30% of iPhone users have Chrome installed as their primary browser.
Disclaimer: I have Chrome installed on my iPhone. I don't use Safari.
Re: (Score:2)
The "Chrome" you have installed is basically just a skin, it's all WebKit (Safari's engine) under the hood.
Re: (Score:3)
Is that 60% global or US?
U.S.
Globally, iPhone is about 18%.
The FTC/DOJ doesn't care about global market share.
The "Chrome" you have installed is basically just a skin, it's all WebKit (Safari's engine) under the hood.
Re: Didn't they try this with Microsoft (Score:1)
Itâ(TM)s not just a skin. It is a spyware skin so they can collect data on you.
Re: (Score:2)
When you think about global phone usage, you have to take into account that India and China have a SHIT TON of poor people that are all forced to use some cheap and bogus Russian/Chinese spy-phone, where WhatsApp is an absolute necessity.
Re: Didn't they try this with Microsoft (Score:2)
Anti monopoly laws are a subset of antitrust laws, they are not the entirety.
Re: (Score:2)
Anti-monopoly laws don't apply if you're not a monopoly.
Go read the Sherman Act again and see how many times the word "monopoly" appears. Go ahead. I'll wait.
Only a tiny fraction of antitrust law has anything to do with monopolies, and even the parts that do include attempting to monopolize as a violation of the law. Being a monopoly is basically not a requirement for anything, with the exception of a single clause, if memory serves.
Also, 30% of iPhone users have Chrome installed as their primary browser.
No, 30% of iPhone users have a thin skin on WebKit that synchronizes bookmarks and similar with desktop Chrome.
Disclaimer: I have Chrome installed on my iPhone. I don't use Safari.
That browser you'
Re: Didn't they try this with Microsoft (Score:3)
You use Safari every time you use chrome on an iPhone. You didn't even know that?
Re: (Score:2)
Apple has already been forced to allow changing the default browser, and soon there will be alternative Appstores. It's not as if the regulators don't know about Apple.
Re: (Score:2)
With Google it's because they're making changes to Chrome that block other advertising technologies, while being very specific to allow for their own.
Except they aren't doing that. The proposed privacy sandbox stuff would work the same for other advertising networks as it does for Google's.
Re: (Score:2)
They're doing it because they've already made those changes and it'd mean costing the competition billions while they adapt. It's anti-competitive moves over and over.
It would also limit analytics for those other than Google, which also controls the largest analytics platform out there and can match those up with their ad data, where competitors can't do the same.
Re: (Score:2)
They're doing it because they've already made those changes and it'd mean costing the competition billions while they adapt. It's anti-competitive moves over and over.
It's really not. I know some of the people involved, and they're doing it because they want to enable privacy without destroying the ad business. Yes, the rest of the industry would have to adapt to a model that doesn't give them access to user data. Boo hoo for them.
It would also limit analytics for those other than Google
No, the privacy sandbox would not change analytics, except to make it impossible for Google to match up analytics with advertising data, since the scheme would make individual users unidentifiable and keep all of then cross-site history data
Re: (Score:2)
Bwahahahahahahahaha! Google doesn't give a flying f*** about privacy. This is about blocking competition.
Google's own current setup of AdWords and Analytics allows them to match profiles easily and track cross-site history. Heck, it's how they offer multi-touch attribution their competitors can't.
Google cares about profitability, not privacy. Their ad business is and always has been about collecting as much information about each user as possible. Gmail was created to index your email. Maps was created to t
Re: (Score:2)
No, it was a tying arrangement. I don't recall what the DOJ was seeking in that one, but it could have been to spin off the browser into a separate company. Though I'm not sure what remedy the DOJ would gain by separating chrome from google given it's open source, and the same can't be said of internet explorer. What would they sell? The trademark? The update servers and private keys? And what stops them from making another chromium fork?
Re: (Score:2)
because they didn't like their browser?
Well, did anyone on God's green earth like it?
Re: (Score:2)
I liked it! Sort of...
During the win9x years I had a mid-range pentium with 16meg of ram and IE3/4/5 ran well in a way that Netscape Communicator absolutely did not. Yes, it was a clusterfuck of badly implemented web standards and I got a drive by ActiveX a few times, but the alternative was barely usable to me so I lived with the rot for a number of years until I discovered Opera. That had ads in the toolbar but it was fast and low memory, again in a way that Netscape wasn't.
And let's not forget what Firef
Re: (Score:2)
The solution is stupid. If search is the problem, then break up search. Like literally fragment the company into a bunch of copies of itself so it is forced to compete against itself. And invalidate all patents the company has so none of the "children" own those either. Have some other safeguards so they don't just form back together in 10 years (or 50, or whatever, see the "Baby Bells" and such).
Competition is what causes good things in Capitalism. Don't just take away the way they're abusing somethi