The reason the DOJ acted against Microsoft was due to its practice of using preferential pricing arrangements to induce computer manufacturers to pay for a windows license for every PC they sold, regardless of which OS the buyer wanted to run. At the time, if you wanted an x86 machine running Linux, you most likely paid for a Windows license and then wiped Windows and installed Linux.
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
The reason the DOJ acted against Microsoft was due to its practice of using preferential pricing arrangements to induce computer manufacturers to pay for a windows license for every PC they sold, regardless of which OS the buyer wanted to run. At the time, if you wanted an x86 machine running Linux, you most likely paid for a Windows license and then wiped Windows and installed Linux.
I've no problem with Google making money by serving ads.
The problem is that while they were telling everyone that they would never serve ads, they were building an ad server for their search engine. I know because someone inside Google asked me if I was interested in heading up their project at the time.
So, my problem is not with their business model. It is with public deception while pretending to "Do No Evil."
I would hope we can agree that knowingly making false marketing claims is evil.
That's because no company would devote resources to make a browser that only works in one market.
Because Microsoft was barred from this behavior as a result of their antitrust consent decree. As I said earlier!
By the time those conditions expired for MS the computing landscape had dramatically changed. It changed in the way that MS was attempting to prevent. Meaning, the Internet was allowed to grow into its own viable platform and a wide variety of new technology was created as a result.
For many of Google's early years many MS employees went to Google. It is no surprise that Google carried over many of MS' monopolistic practices as a result...
There was a time when the slogan of Google was "do no evil". That was man moons ago and before they settled on becoming what they are now.
Lastly, it isn't exactly clear MS lost the battle. Google's search Monopoly was and to challenge until now. Google has let its main revenue source, advertising, rot its search engine to the core. So most users are now searching on sites like Amazon and advertisers are increasingly spending and having better returns on platforms like TikTok. That doesn't mean the government is "too late" though. When MS went through their antitrust battle many were skeptical anything could be done to reduce Microsoft's iron grip on computing. We're now witnessing the fact that it wasn't too late.
You're also very young and likely very unaware of the cut throat tactics computing companies play to kill of competition. Knowing that the government will be slow to respond and by the time they do you'll be too strong to completely destroy. For instance, MS got many of their early major products while working under contract to write software for others. They would then steal the code and release the product on their own, like SQL Server which they were hired to port to Windows by Sybase...
Microsoft SQL Server - Wikipedia
But I won't be able to give you a crash course on computing history in this thread...
That was one of the "anticompetitive behavior" matters. Others included activities like tying IE to Windows, giving IE away for "free" (when Netscape had largely been charging for Navigator), discouraging Windows computer OEMs from offering or pre-installing alternative browsers like Netscape Navigator, etc.
At first glance it felt like “lots of government employees reacting to your comment!”.
Google or any other US company should not be told to spin off or break offf any of their products or sub divisions unless there is a permanent rule that says China cannot buy those spun off assets.
Haha, well that would end up well. My bet would be that some investment funds would buy it. And we all know how that ends up.And I would say it wouldn't be so bad. We could use some new browser on the market
The worst kind of people. The kind of people who steal billions from the public with scams, crypto, spacs, takeovers. Buy politicians, put the absolutely worst kind of people in power, and then destroy public assets and regulations in the name of "freedom" and "change".
I think this is overall a good idea, but, that said... with the Chromium base being open source anyway, is it really warranted, isn't it a bit over-reach?
And going further, who would even buy it? They will get a few minor paint-licks on top of what is already a free open-source project. How much will that extra source code cost, millions? What is it actually worth above and beyond the Chromium developers already have? Pennies, I guess. Those minor paint-licks all generate revenue for a search giant. A search giant who will then be a competitor. What good is it to anyone else?
Unless another search giant takes it and just runs the exact same tracking and advertising model and none of us are better off. Whoo!
And going further, who would even buy it? They will get a few minor paint-licks on top of what is already a free open-source project. How much will that extra source code cost, millions? What is it actually worth above and beyond the Chromium developers already have? Pennies, I guess. Those minor paint-licks all generate revenue for a search giant. A search giant who will then be a competitor. What good is it to anyone else?
Unless another search giant takes it and just runs the exact same tracking and advertising model and none of us are better off. Whoo!
It's an interesting question; what's the end game here?
It seems big name web browsers are freeware because the public is accustomed to having them so, so the Netscape Navigator model is defunct. Therefore big name web browsers must be funded via profits made on other products, mainly by private companies who invest their wealth rather than throw it away, so they expect to use any major browser they own for their personal benefit.
If Google has to toss aside Chrome, it either goes to a competitor who will use it for personal advantage, or it falls by the wayside and Microsoft's Edge dominates, used to Microsoft's advantage.
So then what? Do you outlaw major enterprise ownership of web browsers? Is the goal a market dominated by open source browsers? If so, a couple of thoughts:
1.) Linux has yet to displace Windows and MacOS from desktop predominance. There is a reliable polish, well-executed fullness of features, etc..., that seems to favor commercial software products over even free alternatives (so we have Windows, MacOS, Microsoft Office ap.s, etc...).
2.) It's already been claimed earlier in this discussion that Mozilla would be in dire trouble without an infusion of money from Google. So even a 'free software community' with open source contributors needs a major infusion of money from private enterprise, I take it?
Google plays a role in crowding Microsoft out from dominating so broadly.
It stands to reason that the only company willing to acquire Chrome would be planning to use it to harvest user data for advertising as well. In this regard, how is the user any better off parking their personal data with another third party compared to Google?Haha, well that would end up well. My bet would be that some investment funds would buy it. And we all know how that ends up.
It doesn't feel like making a standalone browser is a sustainable business model. Firefox is around only because Google pays them to stick around. If this lawsuit goes through, what incentive is there for Google to continue paying money to Firefox if it no longer fulfils their objectives? And if Firefox goes away, won't that just leave users with even less choice, exactly the opposite of what this lawsuit was intended to accomplish?
This is the issue I have with this lawsuit. If you dig deep enough, there are definitely issues with Google, but at the same time, it's not a crime, nor is it Google's fault for making such a good product that everyone flocks to it. The DoJ is simply using this lawsuit as an excuse to carve up a company they don't like, which sounds suspiciously much like a witch-hunt. They want to diminish and destroy the value of something which has already been built, with zero consideration of what this all means for the end user.
Which also explains my bugbear about the DMA. There are issues with Apple, but it's clear the EU does not care about consumers. They are simply jealous of the success of US tech giants, and it's telling that the remedies being proposed are aimed more at stemming their power than it is about improving the end user experience.
And the people cheering this on, you will not get your promised utopia either.
That proves nothing. It’s quite easy to change your default search engine - just go to to your browser’s settings and specify the search engine you want to use. I don’t use Chrome, because I prefer not to use Google products. I use Firefox, and I can use any search engine I can find. I manually added Brave as my preferred search engine.
The fact that many people choose not to switch from Google search does not prove that they are acting monopolistically. I don’t like Google, but labelling them monopolstic is lowest common denominator thinking.
And that was wrong then. The statcounter graph of current desktop OS market share today looks very similar to the one for search - I thought the antitrust action against Microsoft fixed that supposed problem?
It proves that 90% of searches go through Google. If we refer to the FTC's guidance on this;
Google is a monopolist in search. Any questions?
Ask around your workplace to see how many people actually know how to do this, you might be surprised.
There's a reason Google pushes Chrome so hard - the normal person has no idea how to change the default search engine in Edge / Firefox / Safari / Whatever, and Google is the default in Chrome.
Installing a new browser is funnily easier than changing the default search engine.
It was way worse than that.
MS would threaten OEM's with losing their Windows licenses if they dared in selling systems with another OS installed.
Thats how they killed BeOS on PC, same for GEOS, OS/2 and others.
Granted, some of those OS's had help from their parent companies, like OS/2, which did lots of stupid mistakes.
The funny thing is, they became one because their product was superior and people actually went to them for it. Nobody was forced.
I have plenty of experience since I manage a IT support team and what those people do is ask one of us to switch to Google. This is because we standardized on Edge (do to AD integration) and the first ticket would be "replaced this garbage Bing and give me back Google"
Edge defaults to Bing and Windows has it hardcoded, so you will love that.
I have seen Firefox OOTB installs with something else that its not Google.
It might be a couple of steps more, but a quick Google search provided this:
- Open Chrome.
- Click the three-dot menu icon in the top-right corner of the window.
- Select "Settings" from the context menu.
- Scroll down to the "Search Engine" section and click the arrow to open the drop-down menu.
- Choose one of the search engines from the list.
Hence why I find the proposed actions from the DOJ really weird.
Hell, knowing that our government is literally the best that money can buy (hint bribes), I would not be surprised that MS and others have some serious money under the table for this to get this far.
Because there are way worse companies that deserve to be broken up and they are not even mentioned.
They don’t know because they don’t care and can’t be bothered to figure it out. In this day and age of de facto ‘YouTube for Dummies’ how-to videos on seemingly nearly everything, if they cared and wanted to, they could.
Don’t forget Google was guilty of the same behaviour. They contractually forced OEMs to only make Android(TM) phones and prevented them from making phones with a forked version of Android. This prevented competitors to Android(TM) from emerging and further bolstered Google’s monopoly on user data and advertising.
I thought the issue is that you cannot pick what google services you offer, it is all or none. I’m not sure why/how Google could prevent someone from using AOSP, if they are willing to forgo GAPS.
Google contractually prevented OEMs from doing that. If they shipped one phone with a forked version of Android they lost access to Android(TM). It was an all or nothing deal and Google held all the power, and abused it ruthlessly. They are called anti-fragmentation agreements.
Report: Google will graciously let Android OEMs build Amazon Fire devices
Pressure from EU regulators makes Google accept Android forks, at least for TVs.
arstechnica.com
Ah I understand. All the phone models sold had to be Android or none of them could be.
