Isn’t Chromium itself open source? I would like an open standard on which browsers are based too, but I can’t see that happening unless the big players do it themselves.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
U.S. DoJ Wants Google to Sell Chrome Browser
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Which not everyone wants. It's not unlike the protest against website cookies. Some people understandably resented websites installing cookies on their computers. Okay. But now website after website I visit pops up an annoying dialogue box asking me about cookies. I'm glad people have choice in search engines, but not everyone wants to be forced to make a choice.
For the people who prefer their computer work like an appliance, albeit with customization options, defaults are a beautiful thing.
Antitrust/competition cases often involve different dynamics. My point was that the existence of alternatives does not mean a company (product) can't be a "monopoly" whether it be operating systems, browsers, search engines, telecommunications, social media or whatever.
Also, being a monopoly is not itself illegal. It's that combined with "anticompetitive behavior" that can create potential legal issues for a company.
I agree that Google Chrome definitely has too much influence over the web. But cutting off Firefox’s primary revenue stream (from making Google Search be Firefox’s default search engine) seems like a questionable move, though. I guess that will even out with Chrome maybe getting cut off from Google funding too?
I'm against this, and against what we see in the EU with Apple. I certainly understand that authorities need to prevent companies from buying up all their competitors and become a monopoly. But forcing a company to sell off one of its successful products or change its app store policies or open up its system… I think that's overreach. Chrome is dominant because people like it better than other browsers, not because Google has this or that policy. A company shouldn't be punished for being very successful, as long as this success wasn't obtained at the expense of the law.
Sure.
Ask for the patron saint of Castelfranco Emilia in Italy, or ask for the lyrics to the song “viento” by Pino Daniele.
Do the same with Google and compare, or just ask me.
By the way, to make it even more interesting, every time it gives you the answer to one of the above, ask ”are you sure?” for an apology and a completely different answer, also made up.
Repeat for hours of fun.
Is there any prominent web browser that is independently profitable/self-sustaining rather than being funded predominantly through monies generated from other products?
If there is not, and all major web browsers are the products of private companies, then it stands to reason each is considered an investment by the funding private company, which views the browser as an investment intended to turn a profit or convey a competitive advantage (and turn a profit).
If this is true, then any major browser will be used by its parent company for personal advantage. That's not Google being evil; that's a private company using its resources to make money, just as a competitor would do if that competitor's browser rose to take the marketshare crown.
For that reason I see efforts to force Google/Alphabet to sell off Chrome as wrong-headed. These browsers are one of the ways major tech. companies invest in the Internet and we benefit from that.
If there is not, and all major web browsers are the products of private companies, then it stands to reason each is considered an investment by the funding private company, which views the browser as an investment intended to turn a profit or convey a competitive advantage (and turn a profit).
If this is true, then any major browser will be used by its parent company for personal advantage. That's not Google being evil; that's a private company using its resources to make money, just as a competitor would do if that competitor's browser rose to take the marketshare crown.
For that reason I see efforts to force Google/Alphabet to sell off Chrome as wrong-headed. These browsers are one of the ways major tech. companies invest in the Internet and we benefit from that.
Apple and its platforms are still around only due to MS bailing out Apple. Microsoft didn't bail Apple out due to an abundance of charity though. Apple was bailed out to ensure there was another prominent platform available to lower some monopolistic pressure on Microsoft. Android is only possible due to the fallout of the DOJ Antitrust consent decree with Microsoft that severely limited their ability to use their Windows monopoly to crush competition. Remember, Microsoft was actively destroying the web via IE intentionally to ensure that the web couldn't threaten Windows dominance and licensing fees (after all if apps are in web browsers that can run just as well on Windows as they do on Mac then how do you ensure Windows users don't buy Macs?). You see the same pressures from Apple in how they tightly try to hold onto the App Store market on their platforms...
Smart companies try to keep the antitrust regulators off their backs by aiming for duopoly markets where they can use the concept of competition to limit the pressures on themselves... But that's all due to government's actually trying to ensure competition. Remove that and companies would go purely for monopolies and do whatever they could to stifle competition and rake in maximum rents.
For a clear example, Apple can be used. Apple has so far escaped antitrust scrutiny in the US as their marketshare is smaller. Allowing them to make a strong case that they aren't stifling the market. Let's exclude smartphones for the moment... Look at Apple "upgrade" pricing for its components. SSDs are marked up hundreds of percentage points. Their consumers are also unable to pick third party options as Apple has deliberately removed those options from their machines and where they've added it back they use proprietary standards to ensure third party options aren't viable. Even though the industry has very well established standards for I/O that are universally supported, open, and used...
Chrome is dominant because Google pays every OEM to make it the default browser of their devices. The power of the default is real.
Safari is also the dominant browser on Mac because... wait for it... it is the default browser. IE was the dominant browser in Windows for the same reason until Google started paying for the default rights.
Most computer users couldn't tell you what a browser is let alone which one they use...
Edge is default on Windows. Edge has only 5% market share while Chrome is at 65%.
Edge is default on Windows unless changed by an OEM.
The majority of OEM purchased PCs will actually default to Chrome out of the box. Few normal users are re-installing Windows with a clean base image not supplied by their OEM.
Most people acquire Windows through the purchase of a new computer and computer OEMs can (and do) pre-install Chrome and set it as the default.
Also, that 5% is for all platforms (desktop/laptop, tablet and mobile) but Windows really only has a presence on desktop/laptop. For desktop/laptop only, Edge's share is more like 13% to 14% global and 15% to 16% U.S. Still relatively low but not 5% low.
Why do those OEMs do that? Genuinely curious; I had no idea. Why would Dell, Asus, Acer, Hewlett Packard or Lenovo care which browser the end user defaults to?
My question isn't why is Chrome pre-installed (that sounds like a service offering choice some customers want, no objection), but rather why does the OEM make Chrome the default?
It also assumes that people do actually want to move away from Google chrome. Maybe the key reason why Google services are so popular is because they are actually pretty good. And if you want to hamper Google in order to give the competition a fighting chance, you just end up making the user experience way worse for users, all in the name of “fairness”.
Like yeah, maybe you get a few more browser choices, but what’s the point if they are all going to suck? That’s what this lawsuit feels like to me ultimately. There may be a legitimate issue with the dominance that Google wields in that they command the lion’s share of ad revenue in the industry, but the regulators sure as heck don’t seem to know how to go about rectifying the situation.
Last edited:
For a lot of mainstream folks, Google for Search is the 'safe choice,' endorsed by the mainstream (hence pretty good, as you said), much like Microsoft Word is for word processors. Not everyone wants to do a deep dive researching alternatives.
On another forum today, I mentioned that I had 'Googled' something. I don't believe ever in my life have I claimed to have 'Binged' anything.
I already explained why. Wheel barrels full of money.
Same reason Google is the default search engine on iOS. Google gives Apple $2B a year for that.
If the defaults didn’t matter I am sure Google would happily keep that money in its pocket.
Yes, and I remember their pledge to never serve ads also. "Do No Evil" is a sham, but people inside Google believe in it so firmly that they assume whatever Google does cannot be evil. It's kind of like when Richard Nixon said "If the president does it, it isn't illegal."
Actually, it is well known that the economic efficiency reputed to be a hallmark of capitalism fails under many real-world conditions. Monopoly and oligopoly are just two of the ways. That's why every developed country has anti-monopoly laws. The question isn't whether monopoly destroys the benefits people want from capitalism, it is where to draw the line to stop a monopoly from doing damage. Reasonable people can disagree on where the line should be. Arguing there should be no line is unreasonable.
Agreed, but the line in the other post I referred to said this - "Whenever a company's revenue reaches more than 0.5% (or some such number) of US GDP, it should be required to split."
It didn't stipulate - 'And engages in blatantly illegal anticompetitive practices effectively suppressing competition to entrench monopoly status,' or anything along those lines.
It basically said we should outlaw any U.S. company being allowed to have revenue in excess of some set % of U.S. GDP. It would outlaw a company making more than that on an ongoing basis.
Regarding your latter point, consider this claim:
So we have the issue of Google paying computer vendors and Apple to make their product the (easily changed) default search engine? Should that be legal to do?
It sounds not unlike the exclusivity contracts some soda makers make with restaurant chains (of often do you have a choice of both Coke and Pepsi products in a U.S. restaurant?).
I don't disagree that there's a line to be drawn somewhere between 'competitive' and 'anti-competitive.' I strongly disagree with breaking a company up for being too successful.
How else would they make money without charging end users? Any product viable for a long time has to contribute, directly or indirectly, to generating profit. From what I've seen, nobody likes ads, subscription fees, one time purchase costs, etc... None of us like paying for what we use, however it is we pay.
FaceBook and Google monetize their way, Apple monetizes its way. At least FB and G. aren't charging $1,200 for an upgrade to a 4-terabyte internal SSD...
These days it's hard to get everybody to agree on what evil even is.
IIRC, awhile back Microsoft seemed driven to gain market share for their Bing search engine. MS has very deep pockets. If simply paying off vendors to make Edge the default browser would be so effective, why didn't they do that?
For that matter, they could've made it a condition of discount Windows licensing costs to put Windows on the vendors' P.C.s.
Not only does Microsoft have very deep pockets, but an entrenched position in the computer industry they can leverage to benefit their products and services (just ask WordPerfect, Ami Pro, Lotus 1-2-3, Quatro Pro, Netscape Navigator, etc...).
So why isn't Bing a bigger deal? (Even if nobody wants to say 'I Binged <anything>)?