U.S. DoJ Wants Google to Sell Chrome Browser

[Wando64]

I double your bid.

Damn, I was going to raise it by $1
You have money to waste...

 

[klittle32]

This is nuts. In any event, I find myself using Perplexity and ChatGPT more and more for queries I would normally use Google for. The company’s dominance in search may become a moot point in short order.

 

[Wando64]

This is nuts. In any event, I find myself using Perplexity and ChatGPT more and more for queries I would normally use Google for. The company’s dominance in search may become a moot point in short order.

I also use Perplexity a lot, but ChatGPT? Nope. I caught it far too many times making up stuff.

At least with Perplexity everything is referenced and you can check and make your mind up.

 

[LogicalApex]

It’s ironic how the only true monopoly (the US govt) is going after all these so called monopolies when they can’t even balance the budget.

History has shown that even the most powerful companies that seemed indomitable at the time will eventually succumb to competitors and new innovations (IBM, Intel, Eastman Kodak, Sears, GM, etc.).

The best thing for consumers is to get rid of the govt bureaucracy, corruption, constant meddling, and stifling regulations (which hurts smaller players and helps the big companies). It’s time to drain the swamp. Bring in the wrecking ball known as DOGE, I say. It will literally reduce the cost of everything and dramatically increase competition.

Government are not corporations serving a free market. Trying to see the two as the same and expecting them to operate the same is silly.

The job of the government is to regulate the market to ensure competition. Without competition companies will choke off the market until it dies. Capitalism isn't complex. Each individual company is trying its hardest to grow as much as possible to kill off all of its competitors and become the market king. That's good for the company and bad for the market (society). The job of the government is to make sure the market is best served not the interests of companies.

Sadly, people don't understand economics and we get views like yours to the detriment of all of us.

 

[fp99]

Sell them to who? Amazon or Facebook?

Sell to SpaceX...lol

 

[HazeAndHahmahneez]

Why is a company being punished for doing a good job? Clearly they are doing something right and just what people want, otherwise they never would have gotten so big in the first place.

hmmm not necessarily doing "something right"....what if what's "right" is actually wrong and they're deceptive, egregious and unflinching in netting user data etc...thats right but mostly, it's wrong...

Alternative engines are not that terrible compared to google compared to a few years ago. Mostly because google search got way worse since the ai crap came in.

Unironically, that's the reason I've bought my first iphone. To get rid of android.

Because they are evil, manipulative and have too much power. There have been multiple occasions when they've used search results to hide their competition.

PREACH!!!

IDK why people use Chrome. I'm honestly shocked the company I work for has it.. I feel like it data mines everything I type into it.

probably does smh....ppl use it because convenience and small mindedness and Facebook connection stuff

Chrome on android ironically is trash.

explain?....also, if not chrome what would be the best browser to use for a google pixel or a samsung ultra phone?

I'd rather they be forced to sell off YouTube

the day they got bought were my early days of google disdain so I think I just made a small groan not the Darth Vader yell it'd be today lol

Have relatives I’ve tried to get off Chrome for years.

They don’t use Chrome because it’s any good, they use it “Because there are things on Facebook that only work with it”. 🙄🤦‍♂️

(IMO making another great reason to ditch both Chrome and FB!)

PREACH!

Google and Chrome set a lot of web standards and do have control over the browser, advertising, and extensions. Now that google is pushing manifest v3 all chrome AND chromium browsers can no longer use Adblock extensions. edge uses chromium and the combined share of chrome and edge gives them monopolistic ability.

hmmm fascinating

Search, the browser, and Android, and it's all subsidized by ads. How does anyone compete with that monopoly? Android never had a chance on its own. The search ad money snowballed.

I honestly think that the only way to get away from the hot garbage that search has become, is to create a conglomerate made up of all the big players to fund a state-of-the-art, ad-free search/browser. That's the only way. Otherwise, it's just a manipulated game to be gamed. Somewhere that you can actually find things. Just as we despise Junk mail and telemarketers, we need a clean slate. Something new. Reward the content creators whose sites they crawl for information instead of just enriching themselves from t. All this SEO nonsense has to go. It has to be a nonprofit funded by Apple, Microsoft, and others to create a safe place from the nonsense.

fascinating. great "what ifs" here

Right but chrome is able to use to use the backing of google to enforce web standards for everyone. If it didn’t affect open web standards sure. But google has a hand in every aspect of the internet. Their power alongside apple needs to be reduced. We can’t keep allowing oligopolies to take over every institution of our lives. Techno feudalism is end stage capitalism. Keep an open mind. Respect your opinion.

alongside apple? in what way is apple getting too powerful? they sell a phone that is closed in and you cannot use other stores on it......end of story....

Remember the days of the old Alta Vista search engine and google came onto the scene and their motto was "Do No Evil"?

nope, do not remember that, that's insane....

Google should start charging 29.95 a month to use Gmail and YouTube that will shut the doj up

no, I think the beef here is how smoogle is getting massive not just that they're massive...hiope that makes sense

I'd disagree. I'm a web developer and many like me would prefer key technologies for the web like browsers to be open source and focused on standards.

Google has turned Chrome in many ways to what IE was in the old days. Pushing against open web standards. Promoting proprietary standards to the determent of an open web.

Chrome is only as popular as it is as Google either pays for it or forces it as a default in as many places as they can. Again, just like IE of old...

fascinating love these inside takes!

It’s ironic how the only true monopoly (the US govt) is going after all these so called monopolies when they can’t even balance the budget.

History has shown that even the most powerful companies that seemed indomitable at the time will eventually succumb to competitors and new innovations (IBM, Intel, Eastman Kodak, Sears, GM, etc.).

The best thing for consumers is to get rid of the govt bureaucracy, corruption, constant meddling, and stifling regulations (which hurts smaller players and helps the big companies). It’s time to drain the swamp. Bring in the wrecking ball known as DOGE, I say. It will literally reduce the cost of everything and dramatically increase competition.

hmmmm...really wish we had a "thinking" emoji....

Copilot and chatgpt will kill google. I never go to google anymore I just use copilot.

PREACH!!!

Any business must monetize to remain in business. Data mining, ads, I like Google free to the end user at the point of use. Same with FaceBook. If they operated like some people wish, they'd have to charge a fee. If that system were as popular as the noise would suggest it should be, there ought to be paid subscription alternatives. And yet...silence.

Ironically, Google is a big part of the anti-monopoly environment here. I recall when Apple was a footnote and Microsoft seemed bent on dominance in any segment of the software industry that looked lucrative, plus they were out to dominate on smartphones, too, I believe. They made Internet Explorer free to undermine Netscape, which crumpled.

Now we have 2 major smartphone platforms to choose from and a host of web browsers and search engines.

In capitalism, companies strive to 'win' and when they succeed in advancing their position they leverage their assets to improve their position further.


I'm curious about this. Which web standards (I'm not being nitpicky) and if Chrome didn't do this, what do you think the real world results would be?

Common web standard standardization sounds like it would help make web pages consistently render correctly in a range of browsers and discourage fragmentation of the market.

love the history stuff

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?

hmmm

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.

I bet google is into everything (like amazon etc) and they're building apartments/homes/offices all with freakin....spy hardware inside SMH

That's just malicious glibertarianism.

And your recounting of history is highly skewed.

haha

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.

sources?...

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.

PREACH!!!

This make no sense. Chrome isn't really a stand alone business, and anyone big enough to buy it would trigger more anti-trust issues. What the DoJ should do is force Google to divest YouTube.

that'd be the day...

This is soooooooo not going to help ANYTHING. First they forced MS to decouple IE from Windows. MS did. Which allowed Chrome and FireFox to grow. Back then we also had Opera (now a Chromium browser), IE (now replaced by a Chromium browser) and Safari (no longer on Windows). Now we have Chrome (-ium) and FireFox (and Safari on Mac / iOS ). Google also pays Mozilla and Apple millions per year to be the default search engine.

If you sell of Chrome, it's development will slow down. And there will be A LOT more ads in the browser. (Since there is no primary revenue stream coming from Google). If Google isn't allowed to sponser Mozilla then FireFox development will stop entirely. In the end one of the Chromium forks will replace Chrome, and then well.. we're back at Edge / Microsoft. And everything will start again.

So in the end for the consumer:
1. No more FireFox or a lot of ads in the browser.
2. A lot more ads in Chrome.
3. Microsoft taking over the web with Edge, repeating IE6.

No, this is not going to work. There is always going to be one browser that the majority of the population uses. And that browser will require a major development budget to keep safe. Which would always lead into what happed with IE6 or now with Chrome. And everytime you force a change, it will have an affect on other browsers as well. This went from bad to terrible and it's going to get a lot worse.

LOVE the history stuff here...

No problem in Google having Chrome as I know it - but that it keeps asking me if I'm sure I want to continue on Safari when googling something on my iPhone - THAT should stop!

wait what's happening exactly?

Like webp. A huge pain in the behind as a user, but google prioritizes pages implementing it over the ones who doesn't.

Yeah, sounds like, but since google deleted the "don't be evil" part.

lol

That's why I think forcing it to sell youtube would be a better first step. Then make algorithms controlling feeds and recommendations turned off by default everywhere - youtube, facebook, insta. Outlaw discriminating users based on their choices - like what instagram does. Finally, forbid companies from collecting and storing any user data that's not required by law or for the service they provide to the users.

hmmm...thatd be great, but would neva happen...cant see it

So they are going after Google..hmmm...I wonder if Google will do as well as Gates did with the antitrust suit against Microsoft. Truth is that Microsoft was guilty as all hell but got away with it. IBM previously was not so lucky and was forced to sell a part of itself for the very same reason.

fascinating history stuff here interesting, thanks

Nobody should use Chrome. The Chromium browser engine works great and fast, but there are tons of third party browsers that use that engine while collection MUCH less user data than Chrome and requiring less RAM. My main browser is Vivaldi for example. It is very customizable and has a built in ad blocker. That is something Chrome will never have, as ads are the main business of Google. The whole reason why Chrome was developed is collecting data for personalized ads.

Brave also is a great browser and even Opera has some nice feature. You should only use Google products when there is no clearly better alternative. Google Earth for example does not have a good alternative. I never understood though why some people still use Google Mail. We know for years that Google even "reads" emails to collect data for personalized ads.

I tried Chrome once and it struggled when I opened twenty of so tabs. At Vivaldi I have usually 100 tabs open on three screens.

yeah google earth is the one app I sort of miss...

Maybe the DoJ would not go after Google chrome if Google was able to control itself in the data collection of people's information because Google is well known for harvesting the personal data off users and selling that data to advertisers and universities and other institutions that carry out data studies. Also, how much personal data is Google collecting from companies and businesses when they use Google chrome in the work place.

The huge majority of computer users knew that in days gone by free web browsers were funded by ad's. The problem is as the years went by, the makers of free web browsers started to increase how many ad's were in the browser. Then came along Google with it's Chrome browser, not only putting ad's in the browser but also using the browser to collect data from it's users and selling that collected data to others.

People are finally getting fed up of all this personal data collection and they want it to stop because it causes untold problems when 3rd parties hack into unprotected data servers to steal the data of millions of people with these people finding themselves the victims of identify theft.

interesting

Makes no sense to part Chrome from Alphabet.

IF they want to address the real issue, they will have to provide people with proper rights to privacy and enforce the inclusion of integrated functionality and a sanction regime which properly caretakes that.

Most governments share tech`s lust for access to personal/private info, thus they`ll never do that.

wow...

A lot of tech runs off of Google and their money, that people don't realize. I can't stand Google and won't run any of their software but I do understand how much they contribute to the tech industry as a whole. Even a lot of what WebKit is today, is because of what Google put into it when it was the engine behind Chrome. WebKit slowed down a lot after Google forked it to make their own engine.

Google engineers also find security holes in Apple's software a lot and contribute to a lot of other technology as well.

And one other note: Chrome is the new IE. It is getting so bad that some sites, services and even certain apps force everyone to use Chrome in order to use it. They say it is the only browser that can do "x", whatever x ends up being at the time. I find it is more lazy developers than any lack in other browsers like Safari and Firefox.

fun read...are you a tech insider?

Both Chrome and Edge are basically spyware, but Edge is not even trying to hide it. Using it feels like dipping your hand into a pool filled with piranhas, there’s ten different MS services nipping at you immediately. It’s needy and very vocal about what it’s trying to sell you. Edge is a chromium browser anyway, so why not just use chrome.

wow thanks for testing it out for me haha

There's no such thing as a right size government. Governments are made up of many branches, each with their own duty, and their size grows and shrinks depending on what's going on nationwide and internationally.

The US government seems to be extremely weak on taking action against organised crime, oligarchy, financial scams, and many lawmakers are easy to purchase. The government is always overstretched because the country is so large that the number of crimes is extremely high.

I don't agree that Chrome needs to be sold though. The main action that Google needs to take is to stop selling ad space to scammers.

hmmm interesting

I also use Perplexity a lot, but ChatGPT? Nope. I caught it far too many times making up stuff.

At least with Perplexity everything is referenced and you can check and make your mind up.

care to share any examples of "making stuff up"? peace

Government are not corporations serving a free market. Trying to see the two as the same and expecting them to operate the same is silly.

The job of the government is to regulate the market to ensure competition. Without competition companies will choke off the market until it dies. Capitalism isn't complex. Each individual company is trying its hardest to grow as much as possible to kill off all of its competitors and become the market king. That's good for the company and bad for the market (society). The job of the government is to make sure the market is best served not the interests of companies.

Sadly, people don't understand economics and we get views like yours to the detriment of all of us.

fascinating.

 

[jjwwqq]

With plenty of options available other than Google search, how in the world can the (present) DOJ claim that Google has a search monopoly?

 

[Karma*Police]

That's just malicious glibertarianism.

And your recounting of history is highly skewed.

What recounting of history?

 

[Morgenland]

The issue is that Google effectively controls the web standards. Virtually every web site and web app is designed to work on Chrome first, and often exclusively (i.e. only by luck on Safari and Firefox). Other browser vendors have no leverage against Google, and can only try to emulate Chrome as closely as possible. Microsoft gave up on maintaining their own browser engine and switched Edge to Chromium. The only other browser engine with relevant market share is Safari’s WebKit, and that’s strictly limited to Apple devices.

A very simplified (and therefore incorrect) view of things. You obviously don't create web content.

 

[ProbablyDylan]

With plenty of options available other than Google search, how in the world can the (present) DOJ claim that Google has a search monopoly?

The numbers speak for themselves.

 

[Morgenland]

View attachment 2453350

The numbers speak for themselves.

The rookies don't care about stats and knowledge, they have other orientations. It's going to be really sad.

 

[jimbobb24]

This is a bad option. Instead make them publish their algorithm. Or make them transparent about how much pressure they apply to their algorithm for their desired outcomes. Or be more transparent with how their ads work. Selling Chrome is pointless.

 

[jimbobb24]

We are in for an interesting four years. This type of "free speech" attack on tech companies goes back a number of years. If the DOJ under Gaetz aligned with the FCC under Carr uses this approach, we could see real damage done to these companies. [Note: There's no political value judgment in what I said.]

Facebook colluded with the govt to suppress views the govt didnt like. It's not unusual for the public to look at that and say....what going on? Other stuff is far less tenable as free speech....but a clear violation seems to have happened.

 

[phrehdd]

Anyone remember the days of Microsoft's Frontpage? A web page developing tool that added facets that not all browsers could read but of course, Microsoft's own browser could. This was a nightmare for many and it was also a challenge when Microsoft's Internet Explorer was a free offering which further created a semi closed system of browser and web pages. What a nasty bit of business that was. We are in some respects lucky that Google Chrome hasn't done anything to dictate how pages are created. The catch is, they could likely do so if they wanted.

 

[Karma*Police]

Government are not corporations serving a free market. Trying to see the two as the same and expecting them to operate the same is silly.

The job of the government is to regulate the market to ensure competition. Without competition companies will choke off the market until it dies. Capitalism isn't complex. Each individual company is trying its hardest to grow as much as possible to kill off all of its competitors and become the market king. That's good for the company and bad for the market (society). The job of the government is to make sure the market is best served not the interests of companies.

Sadly, people don't understand economics and we get views like yours to the detriment of all of us.

I think you‘re responding to the wrong post cos I never said gov’t’s and corporations are the same. My post essentially stated that government over-reach (that doesn’t mean zero regulation) stifles markets and there are unintended consequences to a few bureaucrats thinking they know better than the markets.

Competition will exist with and without governments. It has throughout all of human history. There’s nothing inherently wrong with monopolies so long as they serve the consumers’ interests. If they don’t, competitors will rise to take their place as we’ve witnessed throughout history. In many cases, the reason why big companies stay big is because of gov’t corruption.

I would argue it’s people like you who believe that these all-wise, incorruptible gov’t bureaucrats should intervene in every aspect of our lives that has led to the detriment of us all, where 1 out of 10 people now work for the gov’t and individuals and corporations are taxed to death while bankrupting the country. Here’s some simple economics… when the gov’t is spending more to pay down the interest on debt than they are on the military, that’s a serious problem.

 

[grkm3]

This is like telling apple they are to big and must sell there iPhone to another company.

 

[webkit]

With plenty of options available other than Google search, how in the world can the (present) DOJ claim that Google has a search monopoly?

Just because options exist doesn't mean a company can't be declared a monopoly. For example, Microsoft was declared a monopoly with Windows 25 years ago despite there being alternatives like Linux, Mac OS, BeOS, OS/2, DR-OS, etc.

 

[Nekronos]

Government are not corporations serving a free market. Trying to see the two as the same and expecting them to operate the same is silly.

The job of the government is to regulate the market to ensure competition. Without competition companies will choke off the market until it dies. Capitalism isn't complex. Each individual company is trying its hardest to grow as much as possible to kill off all of its competitors and become the market king. That's good for the company and bad for the market (society). The job of the government is to make sure the market is best served not the interests of companies.

Sadly, people don't understand economics and we get views like yours to the detriment of all of us.

The job of the government is not inherently to regular the market or ensure competition, it's to serve the people and if it's the people's wish that all or a specific market is regulated by the government THEN that becomes the government's job...when the government does step in or provides services, it is often as a monopoly or monopolistic.

A truly free market, free of regulation, generally regulates itself. A lack of competition does not inherently lead to a company choking off the market until it dies, as you mentioned while any business is interested in increasing market share and in doing so rooting out competitors - that process isn't always or necessarily anti-competitive or even bad for a market/society when that business does so naturally by offering a superior service/product. Monopolistic or near monopolistic companies can exist where society/consumers end up with a net positive - while government regulation or overreach can often cause worse outcomes for society than monopolistic companies and oligopolies would have had they been left alone.

What's really bad is when you have corrupt entities like Martin Shkreli who obtained an exclusive license and abused the price inelasticity of the corresponding product - the government and its byproduct regulated entities are not immune from the same corruption.

 

[ghanwani]

That would effectively outlaw very high success in a nation known to value capitalism, free markets and liberty. America...where you can't be too successful. Scary thought. Not a slogan I care to see catch on.

I wish I could believe this statement. There is nothing free about our markets. Without government intervention, all of our big banks would be insolvent.

 

[jole]

Google should start charging 29.95 a month to use Gmail and YouTube that will shut the doj up

Commercial versions of those already cost close to that:

• YouTube Premium $14
• Google Workspace $6

Total $20 a month

Whether ad-supported versions are less expensive is a question of how much your time is worth.

 

[jwdsail]

The United States Department of Justice wants Google to sell off its Chrome browser as part of an ongoing antitrust lawsuit, reports Bloomberg. Earlier this year, Google was found to have a search monopoly, and antitrust regulators have since been deciding on the actions that should be taken to address Google's anticompetitive practices.

The DoJ plans to ask the court to force Google to sell Chrome, which is the most popular web browser in the world by a wide margin. Chrome's integration with Google Search and other Google products has been cited as one of the factors limiting search competition.

Regulators also want Google to uncouple the Android operating system from other products like Google Search and the Google Play Store, both of which are apps installed on Android devices by default. It's not clear how unbundling Android from Google Play would work as Google Play is the Android app store. he DoJ initially wanted Google to sell off Android entirely, but has since backed off of that suggestion.

The DoJ will recommend that Google be required to license data and syndicate results from Google Search without restrictions. Bloomberg suggests that syndication would allow rival search engines and AI startups to improve their quality, while the data feed would let others build their own search indexes. Google could also be required to share more data with advertisers, with advertisers given more control over where their ads appear.

Google will be prevented from entering into exclusive deals such as the deal that it has with Apple to make Google the default Safari search engine. Google paid Apple $20 billion in 2022 to be the Safari default.

Google is appealing the antitrust, while the judge overseeing the case plans to hold a two-week hearing in April 2025 to go over what changes Google has to make to address anticompetitive search behavior. From there, a final ruling is set to be issued in August 2025.

Article Link: U.S. DoJ Wants Google to Sell Chrome Browser

I hate Google, but... Good grief.

Yes, continue to ignore the massive consolidation and market manipulation/abuse of monopoly power in the food industry, the chickens literally coming home to roost from decades of deregulation (it's not inflation)...

Focus on things people really care about. Like, web browsers, apps stores, video game company mergers...

SMFH.

 

[drrich2]

The issue is that Google effectively controls the web standards. Virtually every web site and web app is designed to work on Chrome first, and often exclusively (i.e. only by luck on Safari and Firefox). Other browser vendors have no leverage against Google, and can only try to emulate Chrome as closely as possible.

That's inevitable and it's also good. A web designer will design for the market share leader, be it Chrome, Edge or whatever. He's going to focus on one by necessity. That market leader essentially becomes/sets a standard.

That's a good thing! Soon, most anybody who wants to see that website properly knows what browser to use that will work. Doesn't mean they'll use it, but they know what to do if need be.

Other browser makers know they need to effectively mirror that browser's capability to render web pages properly. Therefore most people can view most pages properly.

This is preferable to, oh, say, 10 different web browsers with equal market share.

Capitalism isn't complex. Each individual company is trying its hardest to grow as much as possible to kill off all of its competitors and become the market king. That's good for the company and bad for the market (society).

It's a bit more complex than that. I get your point in that one could liken it to a game of Monopoly, and in nature generally 2 animals in the same area don't occupy exactly the same niche, but competitive pressures often lead to diversification rather than extinction.

Windows rules but MacOS is still standing. iOS and Android are both strong. But here's an example that hits close to home for some in the U.S.: Walmart and Target.

Many cities have a Target and one or more Walmarts. They overlap and compete, yes, but they are quite different places. Target seems to aim for a mildly more upscale (mildly class conscious) demographic that values 'chic' stores with aisles that convey more sense of open space (which reminds me of Kmart), whereas Walmart caters to a 'we have scads of everything and pretty cheap' value shoppers. A co-worker once likened Walmart to a flea market.

Neither exterminates the other. They compete but their niches don't completely overlap. Similarly, if my wife and I were in Walmart anymore often they might charge us rent, but I often get 'Primenesia' - where I get enough stuff from Amazon I don't even know what's in a new box till I open it.

While it's true another company may not be able to completely duplicate everything Google does right down to prominent market share, that's okay. They can do some of what Google does in their own special way, while also working in spaces Google's not prominent.

That's a difference from Microsoft way back. Microsoft DOS gave way to Windows, fine. The Word competed with WordPerfect and Excel with Lotus 1-2-3, fine. Then they wrapped their productivity app.s into Office and learned the common interface to outcompete competitors in one package. Oooookay. They didn't want to risk somebody else dominating an important emerging platform, so they released Internet Explorer free that essentially wiped out Netscape Navigator. Quicken was the personal finance big brand, and MS brought out Microsoft Money to compete with that. It seemed like Microsoft was determined to dominate in everything that made much money related to computing, or might involve someone other than them dominating a new sector (hence Windows Phone, and the Zune).

Google has its fingers in some different pies, but they don't seem bent on dominating everything. There was a wonderful comic years ago that said E.T. (the cute yet turd-like alien from the movie way back) in the movie was cute, but E.T. all over your home (the comic showed a restroom with E.T. heads on the wallpaper, toilet paper, etc...) is not. For awhile, it looked like Microsoft was determined to be the 'E.T.' of the computing world.

 

[MRMSFC]

You're forgetting that JD Vance is in favor of breaking up Alphabet

https://www.barrons.com/articles/jd-vance-break-up-google-stock-c58423c7

JD Vance Wants to Break Up Google. That Could Help the Stock.

July 18, 2024

JD Vance, the Ohio senator and Republican vice-presidential nominee, wants to break up Alphabet, Google’s parent. That might not be so bad for shareholders.

“Absolutely,” was Vance’s answer when Fox News anchor Maria Bartiromo asked him in March whether Alphabet should be broken up. “This is one of the most dangerous companies in the world.”

Vance believes Google searches don’t display information fairly. “We’ve got to break this company up,” he said. “I actually think you hear growing calls…from across the political spectrum recognizing that Google is too big, too powerful, and they use their market power to control American politics.”

With the odds of a second Trump term higher in recent days, the chances that Vance could press that agenda are growing.


And with Matt Gaetz as the person whom Trump wants to be AG and in charge of of the DoJ, none of the big tech companies are completely safe.

https://www.barrons.com/articles/matt-gaetz-trump-pick-attorney-general-226abe2a

Matt Gaetz Is Trump’s Pick for Attorney General. He’s an Aggressive Antitrust Advocate.

Nov 13, 2024

Matt Gaetz is Donald Trump’s choice for attorney general, the president-elect said in a post on Truth Social on Wednesday. The Florida congressman has been an advocate of aggressive antitrust enforcement, potentially making him a thorn in the side of Big Tech companies like Amazon.com, Meta Platforms, and Alphabet’s Google.

Gaetz would be tasked with leading the Department of Justice as Trump seeks to permanently quash criminal investigations into his conduct, which he has described as the “partisan weaponization” of the justice system.

In the past, Gaetz has found common ground with Democrats wary of the power of Big Tech companies. He has lauded some antitrust enforcement actions brought by regulators such as Federal Trade Commission Chair Lina Khan, appointed by President Joe Biden. He also said he supported Khan’s move to prohibit most noncompete clauses as a “vindication of economic freedom and free enterprise.”




Hello, alexjholland. I'd like you to meet JD Vance. JD Vance, I'd like you to meet alexjholland. Alex is interested in your ideas for breaking up Alphabet.

Nice to see bipartisanship isn’t dead, though unexpected.

The problem with breaking up Alphabet is that ad revenue is basically their only source of good income. Other projects operate at losses and often go nowhere.

Breaking up Meta is something that I’m salivating at the prospect of though.

 

[jwdsail]

The coupling of Chrome with Google’s search and services (and Android devices) has adverse market effects, which is what counts.

I hate Google, but this is a reach.

It's not like anyone is prevented from changing the default search engine on any browser? It takes less than 30 seconds.

And it's not like they change the setting back to Google with updates, forcing users to change it back to what they prefer.

And, even many of the less than tech capable users know to ask? It's literally one of the first things the majority of my customers ask, "Did you change the search engine for me when you set up my new (computer, phone, etc)?"

They could require Google to force the choice, and list all the search engine options in a random order at the time of setup/first launch?

And, considering the rise of ChatGPT and other AI assistants, Google's search, er ad business is already in trouble. This is ten years too late to the party...

And, considering all of that, this is over-kill.

 

[drrich2]

For example, Microsoft was declared a monopoly with Windows 25 years ago despite there being alternatives like Linux, Mac OS, BeOS, OS/2, DR-OS, etc.

The dynamics are different. Those operating systems you mention were mostly found on a computer that only had the one. Due to software availability and inter-operability concerns may people felt a practical necessity to go with the market leader (e.g.: Windows). OS/2 Never really reached a critical mass of 3rd party software availability.

The Mac managed to communicate a compelling enough message of special value to survive and eventually thrive (despite some dark times). Linux remains out there, open source, widely used in some things but on the consumer desktop a small marketshare holder.

On the other hand, if you are on a Windows or a Mac today, you can use various search engines and web browsers, and switch freely amongst them. This is nowhere near the nerve wracking investment/commitment of buying a Mac over a Windows computer back in the 1990's, etc...