Sidebar Sidebar
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

mrochester said:
Correct. Clearly highly anticompetitive.
Click to expand...
Funny enough, google pixel phones allows you to install AOSP Android, unlike Apple, which doesn’t allow you to do anything with your purchased iphone (and trying to do the same with their AS Macs).

And if you want anticompetitive actions, show me a browser in ios that its using its own proper engine, instead of safari.

Or sideloading non approved apps and stores.

I'm not making excuses for Google, but that link above also works to remind us that Amazon did try to steal Android from under Google with such actions.


The truth is, none of these corporations are saints and as i said, the only reason we are at this point is because someone is paying the DOJ or someone higher.
 
Last edited:
ProbablyDylan said:
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.
Click to expand...
That's lowest denominator thinking.
 
jjwwqq said:
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?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you mean by "fixed that supposed problem." The remedy to break up Microsoft was later overturned on appeal and other aspects were largely short term.

As far as Windows U.S. market share, it's much lower today.
 
neomorpheus said:
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.
Click to expand...

How "way worse" it was is debatable. However, the fact remains that options existed for consumers and computer makers and none of it prevents (or prevented) a company from being declared a monopoly.
 
I think the DoJ wants two things to happen:

1. The Chromium code project (along with Chrome itself) has to be separated out.
2. Android operations has to be separated out.
 
SactoGuy18 said:
I think the DoJ wants two things to happen:

1. The Chromium code project (along with Chrome itself) has to be separated out.
2. Android operations has to be separated out.
Click to expand...
for #2 DoJ should just have them divest the play store.
 
Sometimes there seems to be resentment against big companies becoming too prominent in what some consider too many things, which is understandable though not necessarily a moral justification to break them up (an issue that came up with Microsoft in the past). Ironically successful diversification appears key to the longterm prosperity of many.

I recall when Amazon was an online bookstore seen as an alternative to Barnes & Noble. Walmart was already diverse and got into groceries and has a strong online presence; Kmart is practically extinct. Ditto Sears. Best Buy sells a pretty diverse lineup - office equipment, computer and electronics equipment, appliances, etc..., and somehow clawed their way through when a number of consumer electronics competitors fell by the wayside or are little thought of anymore.

Time is not kind to the narrowly focused and 'one trick pony' types. As much as people fear the abuses of functional monopolies, on the other side there is benefit to be had from large, stable, standard-setting/reinforcing companies with broad reach.

Prohibiting anti-competitive contractual requirements makes sense. Breaking up companies to keep them from being too big in too many things can backfire.

By way of analogy, I've heard a soda company such as Coke-a-Cola or Pepsi may contract as a supplier with a restaurant chain to be the exclusive soda supplier. If that becomes a monopolistic issue then outlaw the exclusivity requirement, but don't tell somebody they've got to spin off Dr. Pepper, etc...
 
webkit said:
I'm not sure what you mean by "fixed that supposed problem." The remedy to break up Microsoft was later overturned on appeal and other aspects were largely short term.

As far as Windows U.S. market share, it's much lower today.
Click to expand...
That's what I meant. Natural economic cycles and activities ultimately break up monopolies - my recollection is that this was one of the arguments in favor of Microsoft at the time. The Microsoft monopoly was the "supposed problem".
 
jive turkey said:
No, they aren't. One thing that is obvious from listening to pundits and reading message boards is that almost no one has a clue what a true monopoly is. We are living in an increasingly anti-intellectual and anti-rational age, making people suspectible to emotional manipulation and politcal stunts, which is exactly what this is.

And I have no love for Alphabet so I don't use any of their products, ever. I also don't use services that rely on Google (be it search, browser, whatever). Which come to think of it, goes to show they are not a monopoly.
Click to expand...
Monopoly these days just means, “A thing I don’t like.” No one even looks up “monopoly” because they don’t care if they’re not using it right (with some not using it correctly intentionally because it’s against a thing/company they don’t like).
 
  • Like
Reactions: jive turkey and vantelimus
paradox00 said:
At what point do you draw the line for a monopoly?
Click to expand...
Monopoly:
1. the exclusive possession or control of the supply of or trade in a commodity or service.

That’s literally where one should draw the line for a monopoly. The only legal actions that have so far been successful acruelly avoid using “monopoly” as they’d be one dictionary away from a fairly solid challenge. The EU used and the UK is using newly created terms that essentially just means “non-Regional Tech companies”.
 
diamond.g said:
Youtube would probably be bought out by someone. Can't imagine advertisements cover the cost of storing and serving as much video as Youtube serves.
Click to expand...
Scale works in their favor.

It's estimated YT makes ~30B/year in revenue. That's on par with Netflix and Netflix is ~$400B company. Even though a YT will likely have less profit than a Netflix day 1, my guess is a stand a lone YT would be worth more because a) they have more users and b) all the AI companies including Google will want access to all the content that gets uploaded.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back