This is great news: the government can force Google to sell Chrome to Microsoft, and then we can go back to 20 years ago when everyone was basically forced to use IE6. Or they can force them to sell to Apple, and everyone will be forced to use Macs and iPhones. And, of course, the government won't have a problem with those companies having a browser monopoly and tying it to their other HW/SW.
My version of the dream is the EU funding a non-profit organization whose _only_ goal, and mandate is to develop and maintain the open web browser like Firefox in a “user. Privacy first” focus.
I is also dream about EU suspending all their “green sustainability” efforts and focus on one thing and do it well. The one thing? Lay new high speed tracks and create a “European Rail” entity that is not merely a composition of national rail organizations. There should be _one_ organization, funded by the EU responsible for high speed tracks between all major cities. Amsterdam, Brussels, Paris, Barcelona, Madrid, Lisbon, Frankfurt, Vienna, Zurich, Rome, Prague, Berlin, Warsaw, Hamburg, Copenhagen, Stockholm,Helsinki, Oslo - imagine all reachable by high speed train who tickets you could buy from one entity, and runs like clockwork.
I mean, obviously you are just making this up and attacking a straw man - the court is not going to order Google to sell the browser to Microsoft.
Lots of companies would probably be interested. None of them will be companies that possess a monopoly on search, because Google is the only one who has that.
It will lead to more competition in search. Google will not be able to prop up their search monopoly by being the default engine in Chrome anymore. They'll have to compete with, at a minimum, whoever buys it and immediately changes the default.
A more likely remedy than selling off the browser (or maybe both will happen) is that Google won't be able to set all your defaults for everything to Google anymore. This will create breathing room for other companies to market competing services and make money.
This is all good stuff for everyone who doesn't work at Google, which is 99.999999% of us even on Hacker News
It's not a strawman, and you made your own strawman too by putting words in my mouth. I never said they'd force Google to sell to Microsoft specifically. You clearly haven't thought very clearly about how this would work. How exactly would a buyer make money from Chrome? Think about that for a few minutes and then maybe you'll understand why Microsoft is the most likely buyer, with Apple the next most likely.
One possibility is that Chrome could be acquired and run by a consortium of companies, similar to how the C++ programming language is governed. In the C++ model, a committee with representatives from various organizations works collaboratively on proposals, agreeing on features and then implementing them. A similar approach for Chrome could involve major tech companies forming a consortium to collectively manage and develop the browser while adhering to agreed-upon principles and priorities.
Is it the number of ads that's really the problem? The limit right now is "how much users will put up with".
I think of the targeting as the key problem. Not even necessarily the results of the targeted ads, but the process that they have to go through to do the targeting. They gather up a lot of your personal habits, and there's a ton of real evil that can be done with that. The ads are merely a large nuisance, but the loss of privacy is potentially devastating.
Yeah, I'd hate to see that. I have a feeling it would start drifting towards "use Chrome with our kernel module, or we'll block you from half the internet".
Something needs to be done; Google's mission is at odds to good browser development, and having an effective monopoly with the world using a single browser is not good for users even without the advertising conflict of interest.
Who would be able to buy it in a way that did align with good browser development?
People really like getting their web browser for free. If they're not paying for it with money, the developers will have to recoup costs some other way. In general, that's not going to be something that benefits users.
I suppose they could set up a not-for-profit that takes donations. I think that's how Mozilla works, but I don't think it's working very well.
I'd love for there to be some other brilliant idea. But thus far, we've been stuck on "money, advertising, or your data" as the only ways to make revenue.
>effective monopoly with the world using a single browser
I've got at least five browsers on the laptop - chrome, firefox, safari, orion and edge. I alternate between firefox and chrome depending on which works best for that I'm doing. Not sure how that's a monopoly? I use chrome most because it works best. Choosing the best amongst competing options seems kind of the opposite to a monopoly.
The only place I feel monopolistic behaviour is on the phone where apple try to push me to use safari rather than chrome.
Readit News
Meanwhile, working towards a somewhat healthier and competitive landscape on browsers is more than welcome.
(Yes I'm a dreamer)
I is also dream about EU suspending all their “green sustainability” efforts and focus on one thing and do it well. The one thing? Lay new high speed tracks and create a “European Rail” entity that is not merely a composition of national rail organizations. There should be _one_ organization, funded by the EU responsible for high speed tracks between all major cities. Amsterdam, Brussels, Paris, Barcelona, Madrid, Lisbon, Frankfurt, Vienna, Zurich, Rome, Prague, Berlin, Warsaw, Hamburg, Copenhagen, Stockholm,Helsinki, Oslo - imagine all reachable by high speed train who tickets you could buy from one entity, and runs like clockwork.
Lots of companies would probably be interested. None of them will be companies that possess a monopoly on search, because Google is the only one who has that.
It will lead to more competition in search. Google will not be able to prop up their search monopoly by being the default engine in Chrome anymore. They'll have to compete with, at a minimum, whoever buys it and immediately changes the default.
A more likely remedy than selling off the browser (or maybe both will happen) is that Google won't be able to set all your defaults for everything to Google anymore. This will create breathing room for other companies to market competing services and make money.
This is all good stuff for everyone who doesn't work at Google, which is 99.999999% of us even on Hacker News
Not to mention ahistorical. Frequently, monopoly breakups just resulted in new companies formed.
But pretty much yes. Chrome is a very large, very expensive product to develop with very unclear profit perspective once disassociated from Google.
All this other stuff won't make any diff cause its all about how much Attention they are allowed to capture, steal, buy, sell and waste.
I think of the targeting as the key problem. Not even necessarily the results of the targeted ads, but the process that they have to go through to do the targeting. They gather up a lot of your personal habits, and there's a ton of real evil that can be done with that. The ads are merely a large nuisance, but the loss of privacy is potentially devastating.
If so, limiting the ad count won't help.
Extensions API needs more granular controls and to remain functional
1. Placement and deliberate confusion
2. No liability for viruses or scams
3. Creepy spying/tracking
People really like getting their web browser for free. If they're not paying for it with money, the developers will have to recoup costs some other way. In general, that's not going to be something that benefits users.
I suppose they could set up a not-for-profit that takes donations. I think that's how Mozilla works, but I don't think it's working very well.
I'd love for there to be some other brilliant idea. But thus far, we've been stuck on "money, advertising, or your data" as the only ways to make revenue.
I've got at least five browsers on the laptop - chrome, firefox, safari, orion and edge. I alternate between firefox and chrome depending on which works best for that I'm doing. Not sure how that's a monopoly? I use chrome most because it works best. Choosing the best amongst competing options seems kind of the opposite to a monopoly.
The only place I feel monopolistic behaviour is on the phone where apple try to push me to use safari rather than chrome.
I wonder if there's an age-related split in public opinion that matches those events.
Google formed to break the m$/apple monopoly over the ecosystem and now theyre jealous of google successes.
Next