Explain how that would work. YouTube cannot exist without Google. It gets a free ride on Google infrastructure, software, and R&D including custom silicon. If it had to pay nondiscriminatory prices for network, compute, and storage then it simply would not exist. I can't see how that benefits the consumer.
In the case of Chrome, I imagine it's because Google has used its control over Chrome to add built in user tracking that reports only to Google, while simultaneously seeking to remove access to the cookies that Google's advertising competitors must have access to in order to compete.
Do anticompetitive things, win anticompetitive prizes.
Probably because the entire world gets its information through Chrome, and since Chrome is becoming increasingly anti adblock, the danger is that billions of people will now be force fed ads.
Besides, plenty of governments had similar hard-ons against MS & IE in the early 2000s, people just have very short memories in the digital age.
> Apple / Microsoft / Amazon / … skate by without getting the same beat-down.
Their time will come. Defending something bad by pointing at others and saying they are also doing it is typically low-effort reactionism.
There are ongoing antitrust lawsuits against Apple, Amazon, and potentially one coming for Microsoft Cloud business.
In any case, this is more whataboutism than anything. The fact that you perceive others as not being targeted doesn't mean that nothing should be done about Google's monopoly on Search.
I'm surprised to see so much confusion here. Google pays some kind of "market rate" to Apple to be default search engine on iOS, this change'll first and foremost result in them paying similarly to be default in Chrome.
Hopefully through that Google will end up with less influence to force anti-consumer decisions, like the recent adblock downgrades, on Chrome.
Fair enough, right? Of course all this is assuming decent oversight by DOJ, not allowing the sale to someone with monopolistic incentives of their own, e.g. Microsoft.
Just thinking: So, Google makes life easier for users by creating Chrome and getting us respite from IE. When they moved the web really forward and way faster than others (Edge/Opera switched to Chromium too) - the DOJ wants them to give it away. It's like raising an exceptional child only to be asked to be adopted when they grow to be an adult.
Your analogy isn’t accurate because the child wasn’t exceptional, it only exists a vehicle for maintaining Google’s ad dominance.
It’s like raising an exceptional child who is a criminal and having people come out of the woodwork saying “he was so good, he didn’t do anything wrong”
The removal of Manifest v2 support clearly shows there’s a conflict of interest there. The best thing for users is to allow ad blocking, but the best thing for Google is to not allow it. Since they’re choosing to impede/reduce those capabilities, we can clearly see who’s getting the benefit.
I know there are other arguments against Manifest v2, but they seem like parallel construction to justify the “real” reason.
Honestly, what would selling Chrome do for Google's search monopoly? I actually agree with a lot of the things the DOJ is requesting in there, but the Chrome part is a bit baffling to me and seems to come more from a "hell yeah break 'em up" vibe than actual remedy.
The best argument I could make is that owning chrome allows you to see the searches people make on Google in the address bar (and if you were unscrupulous, on Google's Search page as well)? Maybe that's strong enough?
I'm genuinely concerned as a lover of the web that this will slow the innovation we've seen in the space to a crawl. The web has grown so much since the bad old days in no small part due to Chrome. I wonder if Google's vested interest in growing the web (since as when the web grows, so does search and ads usage) would result in them investing in Firefox instead, but I strongly doubt it (at least, not to the same level).
Surprised this didn't reach the top of HN earlier.
This is outrageous from the DOJ, hopefully Google can appeal. Given how the Google ecosystem works together, I don't see how this doesn't hurt consumers in the end.
It's a huge blow to open source in practice. It means the government doesn't accept the business strategy of making excellent open source software as a complement to main business aims.
Who do you sell _Google_ Chrome to? This seems ill-advised. Who could possibly run it? Oracle? Broadcom? Is Elon Musk going to buy it and then we'll have X Browser?
None of these options seem likely to create anything better than what we have now.
On the upshot, Firefox is going to see a resurgence. Hey, maybe Mozilla buys it?
The exact opposite. Mozilla is no longer allowed to receive a payment from Google to be the default search engine, and that payment was 90% of their revenue
> Other remedies the government is asking the court to impose include prohibiting Google from offering money or anything of value to third parties — including Apple and other phone-makers — to make Google’s search engine the default
If this happens, Mozilla is going to be fighting for survival, it’s not going to be in a position to make acquisitions.
The point of antitrust action is exactly this, to destroy noncompetitive business models like chrome and allow true competition to thrive between actors in a free market. Given that you do not seem to understand the core point of antitrust i'm not sure you're in a position to judge it as ill advised.
gnabgib|1 year ago
exabrial|1 year ago
Hell yes. Next YouTube!
jeffbee|1 year ago
1vuio0pswjnm7|1 year ago
lawrenceyan|1 year ago
Somehow, Apple / Microsoft / Amazon / … skate by without getting the same beat-down.
GeekyBear|1 year ago
Do anticompetitive things, win anticompetitive prizes.
antisthenes|1 year ago
Besides, plenty of governments had similar hard-ons against MS & IE in the early 2000s, people just have very short memories in the digital age.
> Apple / Microsoft / Amazon / … skate by without getting the same beat-down.
Their time will come. Defending something bad by pointing at others and saying they are also doing it is typically low-effort reactionism.
strongpigeon|1 year ago
In any case, this is more whataboutism than anything. The fact that you perceive others as not being targeted doesn't mean that nothing should be done about Google's monopoly on Search.
robbiewxyz|1 year ago
Hopefully through that Google will end up with less influence to force anti-consumer decisions, like the recent adblock downgrades, on Chrome.
Fair enough, right? Of course all this is assuming decent oversight by DOJ, not allowing the sale to someone with monopolistic incentives of their own, e.g. Microsoft.
sangupta|1 year ago
chomp|1 year ago
It’s like raising an exceptional child who is a criminal and having people come out of the woodwork saying “he was so good, he didn’t do anything wrong”
orev|1 year ago
I know there are other arguments against Manifest v2, but they seem like parallel construction to justify the “real” reason.
strongpigeon|1 year ago
The best argument I could make is that owning chrome allows you to see the searches people make on Google in the address bar (and if you were unscrupulous, on Google's Search page as well)? Maybe that's strong enough?
I'm genuinely concerned as a lover of the web that this will slow the innovation we've seen in the space to a crawl. The web has grown so much since the bad old days in no small part due to Chrome. I wonder if Google's vested interest in growing the web (since as when the web grows, so does search and ads usage) would result in them investing in Firefox instead, but I strongly doubt it (at least, not to the same level).
deafpolygon|1 year ago
ChrisArchitect|1 year ago
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42201261
zoezoezoezoe|1 year ago
cm2012|1 year ago
This is outrageous from the DOJ, hopefully Google can appeal. Given how the Google ecosystem works together, I don't see how this doesn't hurt consumers in the end.
It's a huge blow to open source in practice. It means the government doesn't accept the business strategy of making excellent open source software as a complement to main business aims.
abirch|1 year ago
thisislife2|1 year ago
burningChrome|1 year ago
Its a silly notion, but I'm just thinking out loud.
2OEH8eoCRo0|1 year ago
branon|1 year ago
None of these options seem likely to create anything better than what we have now.
On the upshot, Firefox is going to see a resurgence. Hey, maybe Mozilla buys it?
jacobp100|1 year ago
JimDabell|1 year ago
If this happens, Mozilla is going to be fighting for survival, it’s not going to be in a position to make acquisitions.
LightHugger|1 year ago
DrBenCarson|1 year ago
unknown|1 year ago
[deleted]
2OEH8eoCRo0|1 year ago
unknown|1 year ago
[deleted]
unknown|1 year ago
[deleted]