While I understand your point, it sounds dangerously like we're proposing that we outlaw winning in a capitalist system where customers choose the winners. Don't dare let your product achieve a 70%+ market share or you'll be forced to sell it.
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
nobody can make a business out of a web browser, because its a money losing business.
chrome exists because of google ads.
safari is subsidized by apple's expensive hardware.
firefox only exists because of the money they get from google.
edge is like a ****** version of chrome to leverage Microsoft's other businesses.
thats like 99% of the browser market share, and anyone that tries to charge, is going to
end up a bit player.
nobody wants to pay for things like this. so if they cut off firefox cash and force the sale of chrome we might well end up with edge on windows and safari on apple platforms, and nothing else.
explain to me how thats good for competition?
chrome exists because of google ads.
safari is subsidized by apple's expensive hardware.
firefox only exists because of the money they get from google.
edge is like a ****** version of chrome to leverage Microsoft's other businesses.
thats like 99% of the browser market share, and anyone that tries to charge, is going to
end up a bit player.
nobody wants to pay for things like this. so if they cut off firefox cash and force the sale of chrome we might well end up with edge on windows and safari on apple platforms, and nothing else.
explain to me how thats good for competition?
The DOJ is trying to figure out something... Google has had the search market locked up for over 20 years, and the nearest competitor is only getting 5% of the pie. As mentioned earlier in this thread, Chrome is just the new internet explorer. The only reason Chrome doesn’t have more usage is because iPhones in particular are driving up Safari usage. YouTube is around 80% market share, with Vimeo taking the next 15%. Google Docs is ubiquitous among US schools. Android is the dominant mobile operating system in the world (~70%).
Google controls A LOT, and they are not going to willingly hand over their dominant position because they care about ingenuity and competition. All of these services were intentionally weaved within one another so it would be extremely difficult to split. If you break Google into its dominant businesses, they would all need to survive with independent management, financials, and business models. Many contracts would likely need to be renegotiated in instances where more than one segment are involved. It would be a mess, and that’s exactly how it was designed.
Forcing Google to sell Chrome seems like a petty conquest, but it may be the lowest hanging fruit which allows the DOJ to claim any sort of victory.
Google controls A LOT, and they are not going to willingly hand over their dominant position because they care about ingenuity and competition. All of these services were intentionally weaved within one another so it would be extremely difficult to split. If you break Google into its dominant businesses, they would all need to survive with independent management, financials, and business models. Many contracts would likely need to be renegotiated in instances where more than one segment are involved. It would be a mess, and that’s exactly how it was designed.
Forcing Google to sell Chrome seems like a petty conquest, but it may be the lowest hanging fruit which allows the DOJ to claim any sort of victory.
No it's not. And that you think it is must arise from something your harboring against the responsibility an organization (like Google) has to the society that supports it.
Google exists only because the taxpayers of the US funded the development of the internet, and that taxpayers around the world continue to keep international telecommunications open and defended.
If any company wants to use that to offer services then fine, but such a company is not above being held accountable by citizens in whatever polity said company operates.
That's silly.
YouTube is an advertising agency and like the "free" TV in the US via over-the-air transmission, the whole point of "free" is to sell advertisements.
That's just malicious glibertarianism.
And your recounting of history is highly skewed.
Seems like that'd make them more desperate and ruthless. The Search management would still have to monetize search. This could stifle innovation since companies would be fighting to survive; things like Apple's Apple T.V. 'hobby' or willingness to take a crack at developing an Apple Car might not get R&D resources. We need some big companies with deep pockets free to invest in areas that aren't their main current focus. What's the point in taking big risks when even if you do hit a home run the government will take it away from you?
And then they'd be stuck competing against Bing, which is backed by Microsoft. So in time Microsoft would be the power player in search.
Let's say it was a Google/Bing 50/50 duopoly. How do you believe things would be different in practical daily use?
If the nearest competitor only gets 5% of the pie, is that not in large part because the public user base awarded them that? I get that there is power in being the default search engine on iPhones, for example, but these things can be changed if that's what the people want. It seems most people really don't care.
I get your point about societal infrastructural prerequisites, but Google did a whole lot to achieve the success it has become. It exists because of smart people making smart choices and building on success.
No comparable. Android and Chrome are not core businesses to Google in the same way that iPhone sales are to Apple. This would be more like Apple being forced to sell off the App Store, for example.
I pay for youtube premium and have no adds. They can charge you anything they want just like hbo etc.
Well we now know the government antitrust actions have been a sham. They aren't making Apple or Google comply with the Sherman act. the internet is controlled by this duopoly, it is appalling and in blatent violation of Sherman-Cartwright. But somehow every action for 20 years gets tossed by federal judges under instruction to find 'flaws in relevant sherman markets.' It becomes so obvious the entire EU had to enact the DMA..so DOJ launches bogus lawsuits with no real teeth. Action would be forcing open the iPhone ecosystem and placing real competition in search . The dems love the Silicon Valley companies it is a symbiotic relationship. welcome to 1984 . you've all been duped for 2 decades and the world is now TikTok.
They don't sell user data. That's what makes them valuable. They sell access to users in google platforms based on the data that google holds. If google were selling the data, they wouldn't be able to keep selling their ad and search services to companies.
So Google would probably support a ban on selling user data, since they don't do it.
Who's going to buy, Microsoft? If so, how is that any better than the status quo.
Sure people can use other browsers, but they don’t. Now that Edge is gone, the only competition they have for desktop browsers is Safari and Firefox. Safari is only on Apple devices but even if we count them with Firefox, that’s only about 15%. The other 85% is some version of Google Chrome.
Even saying this, I really don’t like this move. I feel like the government shouldn’t be forcing any company to sell part of their assets. Maybe some regulation as to what Google does with our personal data, but it feels a bit overreaching for them to determine who should own what part of their company.
Moral of the story if your company gets too big spread it out and share it to many others so big bro can't come and kill you off. Ma bell break up sounds like to me .
They need to work on googles advertising data collection system on that more than the browser.
Anywhere you go google ads is upon you. Used to be called spying and was illegal or malware.
They need to work on googles advertising data collection system on that more than the browser.
Anywhere you go google ads is upon you. Used to be called spying and was illegal or malware.
I suspect Apple is crippling WebKit on purpose to force devs to make apps to sell in the app store instead of making web apps. Apple can't take 30% of web apps.
It will never be that “good“ considering the ground work still needs to be done somehow and those require people. That’s a cut of 75% of jobs, most of which I’d believe are essential workers rather than higher up managers who makes up a bulkier share of salary cost and smaller numbers of people.
We will have to see.
Damn EU! Why can’t Apple just leave this dictatorship and let iOS be safe.
What, we are talking about Google?
Well, still a hell of a unio…
What, it’s not the EU but US?
But… I mean, what can I do now with my emotional breakout?
The facts in this article contradict my beautiful view of the world, where Apple is the innocent lamb and everything else is the evil EU. It can't be that the land of freedom, heaven on earth, is suddenly the evil one here.
/s
What, we are talking about Google?
Well, still a hell of a unio…
What, it’s not the EU but US?
But… I mean, what can I do now with my emotional breakout?
The facts in this article contradict my beautiful view of the world, where Apple is the innocent lamb and everything else is the evil EU. It can't be that the land of freedom, heaven on earth, is suddenly the evil one here.
/s
Early on maybe. Nowadays it‘s because the inertia is too strong to overcome, and people use Chrome because that’s the only browser that works 99% of the time, rather than others who works 60%? 80%? 50%? Of the time? (I am looking at you, Safari)
Google Has done a great deal of good and bad to make Chrome what they are today, and it’s not because everyone likes it.
That's right, but don't forget who Google was the biggest donor to campaign.