Welcome to Google’s nightmare: US reveals plan to destroy search monopoly
- Thread starter JournalBot
- Start date
While there needs to be something done with Google/Alphabet...that last sentence in the article shouldn't be what we are hoping for. One super huge tech company get's slapped down so another super huge tech company can save us from anti-trust issues?? I get that they are different markets, but the reality is that two behemoths controlling a market is usually no better than one. Make it make sense.
Upvote
211
(227
/
-16)
That sounds like an excellent argument for doing it tbh.
When an entire market will be greatly disrupted if one company has to stop predatory practices that just means that market is in thrall to a predator.
Let's maybe not ignore that fact that they're trying to hook kids on their services because it might be a little work to let them do stuff at school on a computer.
Upvote
295
(350
/
-55)
Maybe Pichai will get the boot, finally. he's run google's reputation through the mud with consumers but investors like money so he kept his job.
on another note, my prediction is Musk/X buys chrome.
on another note, my prediction is Musk/X buys chrome.
Upvote
186
(196
/
-10)
That's... exactly the point of the case and proposed remedies?? Everyone jumping on the Chromium bandwagon. Default search deals with $$ payments. Apple not getting into web search despite liking first-party solutions.
Upvote
175
(183
/
-8)
I'm all for breaking up Google, but this seems an obtuse way to go about it. Who would buy Chrome and, more importantly, why? The only market for it is selling user data to tech and advertising companies like...I don't know...Google? Seems like a pretty small win. Make them sell off search or ads.
Upvote
199
(212
/
-13)
And who exactly do you think is going to buy and maintain Chrome? How are they going to monetize it?
Upvote
133
(152
/
-19)
I’m so intrigued by how a sale of chrome would even work in practice. Chromium is OSS. I’m sure almost entirely maintained by Google. So if Google does sell Chrome what happens with chromium? Would saying Google engineers can’t work on that anymore be a 1st amendment violation (if code == speech)? If the DOJ is able to legally stop Google from working on chromium, does that set the browser back years as the project scrambles to build up maintainers who will actually understand it he code base?
I’m wondering if the better idea is to force chromium and chrome to be spun off into a foundation (perhaps Apache, Linux, or something new) and remove google from having sole control over the direction.
I’m wondering if the better idea is to force chromium and chrome to be spun off into a foundation (perhaps Apache, Linux, or something new) and remove google from having sole control over the direction.
Upvote
56
(82
/
-26)
Google search is terrible compared to what it used to be. Monetization is clearly their #1 priority. Quality search results and being user friendly are distant 2nd and 3rds. Chrome is fine, but it's not "great" when compared to both Edge (re-skinned Chromium) and Firefox.
note: I've never used "Chrome" outside of trying to solve random issues while logged into a random Windows box. I only really use Chromium on Linux for MS Teams since MS doesn't allow Teams Voice calls in Teams on Firefox. So, I don't really know how much shit Google piles on top of that to make Chrome, but I doubt they make it "better" and Chromium is fine. It's not however leaps and bounds better than Firefox.
Upvote
141
(166
/
-25)
If I understand correctly, ChromeOS is mostly just Chrome. If Chrome is spun off, it's likely to be spun off together with ChromeOS. ChromeOS without Chrome makes no sense. ChromeOS's new home would also likely inherit with it the security infrastructure, as again that would be worthless without ChromeOS. It's all one package, economically speaking. Your ChromeOS devices would stop being Google devices, but you'd still be able to administer them through whatever entity ends up owning Chrome.
Upvote
67
(74
/
-7)
Yeah. Definitely seems like search and/or ads should be their own things. Those being independent of the browser (and Android) would force a fair change in motivations. Unfortunately that's not the remedy sought. And we might not get any remedy in the end...
Upvote
67
(68
/
-1)
Upvote
65
(76
/
-11)
I don't see why someone has to buy it. They just have to divest it. It being worth $0 on the open market is fine.
Upvote
2
(40
/
-38)
Upvote
20
(20
/
0)
LOL at the thought of Google giving any sort of a shit about privacy. One of the only companies I'd believe less if they said that is Facebook.
Upvote
81
(102
/
-21)
Upvote
14
(62
/
-48)
https://www.androidauthority.com/chrome-os-becoming-android-3500661/
Seems like Google is already getting ahead of this by planning to merge Chrome OS into Android. That would protect Chrome OS/Chromebooks from a possible Chrome divestment.
Upvote
35
(39
/
-4)
Awesome. This makes me even more excited. But I know it's not happening.
Upvote
-19
(7
/
-26)
Boradcom. They'll monetize it by issuing a new build that fixes a number of 0-days (even if they have to create them first) and charging $10 per individually-serialized install on day 1.
Upvote
35
(44
/
-9)
This seems like an argument for doing it. Nothing prevents ChromeOS (assuming it wasn’t included) from paying for valuable software development like anyone else, but having to justify it on merits and charge what it costs to build the product rather than having ads subsidize it would both allow competition and also make a better product.
For example, Google has avoided privacy features in Chrome because advertisers don’t want them but I’d bet 100% of school districts would say their students should have more privacy.
Upvote
60
(74
/
-14)
Upvote
23
(71
/
-48)
How about killing the data collection market by giving users control over what data is collected on them EVERYWHERE? Applying that to all parties would be fair...it just blows up an entire business model.
Of course that would also screw the government's ability to skirt surveillance restrictions through buying data instead of acquiring it directly, so it will never happen.
Upvote
88
(93
/
-5)
While all of this is current news at the moment, the administration change means it means nothing at this point.
Everything could change come 2025. I only see the upcoming people busting monopolies if they have an axe to grind, otherwise they'll be cozy and milk it for what they can, and given geopolitics, they may want to wield Google as a giant corporate sword too.
Everything could change come 2025. I only see the upcoming people busting monopolies if they have an axe to grind, otherwise they'll be cozy and milk it for what they can, and given geopolitics, they may want to wield Google as a giant corporate sword too.
Upvote
5
(16
/
-11)
It's been a while, but anyone remember Cuil from the 2000's? That was excellent - I replaced Google with it entirely until they shut down. Qwant can be solid if you're in Europe. Searx was an open-source meta-search engine that tapped results from multiple search engines at once and could give excellent results, but of course that was shut down fairly quickly. There are dozens more examples I could give. The technology exists, it's been seen before and implemented, but none of them exist today BECAUSE OF GOOGLE'S MONOPOLY.
People don't seem to understand that the messy, crappy period after breaking up a monopoly is GOOD, actually, where new and existing companies fight for market share. That's a necessary process and is part of a real, free market where the best (whatever that is) comes out on top.
Upvote
81
(89
/
-8)
Upvote
110
(117
/
-7)
Yup, of course! Everyone with information in the US is too thoroughly wedded to not give a damn about privacy or anything (except maybe finance?), so there's an impossible hill to overcome without unpopular-to-campaign-contributor-businesses legislation somehow being successful. There's no impetus for a US GDPR and lots of hate for the concept, so maybe the state patchwork of privacy laws gets us somewhere someday. An opt-in required system is a loooooonnnngggg way off, though.
Upvote
27
(27
/
0)
Because Google is abusing their market position to push Chrome which spies on you whether you like it or not. They use your browsing habits as a data source even in incognito mode. It's not a conspiracy they're quite proud of it and have openly talked about it as a legitimate feature.
And actually? There aren't really alternatives anymore. Google abused their market position on search to push Chrome to the point where there are three browser engines actually in use anymore: Chromium, WebKit in Safari and whatever Firefox's is. Even Microsoft gave up and Edge is built on Chromium now. All the other third party browsers are also Chromium.
We have a very real risk where web standards get dictated by Chrome and everything becomes Chrome-specific to the point where other browsers don't work with most websites. Just like what Microsoft did with IE in the 90s.
If you like Chrome as a browser, that's fine. But don't use your like of it to defend a megacorp that doesn't care about you. Drop that emotional connection you have from back when it felt like Chrome saved us all from IE.
I get it and I too used to love Chrome for that reason. But the critics who said, "we shouldn't be trusting Google, I'm sticking with Firefox," well...they were right. Maybe they weren't right back then, but it became true.
Just like the privacy nutters. It didn't USED to be reasonable to think you'd actually need to hide from US three letter agencies. Pre-9/11, pre-Patriot Act bullshit, US intel agencies were actually thought to be fairly responsible. Everyone knew they held onto 0 days in secret to use as tools in cyber warfare. But the community largely felt that they weren't overstepping and they weren't going around doing dragnet surveillance and spying on people without warrants. They used to follow the process correctly.
And then it changed. And now it's worse as we have an incoming administration that wants to actively police what people say. And a Supreme Court that may go ahead and try to invalidate constitutional amendments, calling them unconstitutional. That should literally be impossible but the norms have broken down so far that if SCOTUS just said, "the constitution is bunk, we need a constitutional convention, we have the power to do this because we said so," no one would stop them.
The first amendment is on the fucking line and it's because of corporate influence and lobbying that this whole thing went to shit over the past two decades.
And here you are, being a pathetic little fanboy and worshipping Google because you hate "M$" or some shit. Stop trying to suck the dicks of the people who want you to be their literal slaves.
Upvote
46
(92
/
-46)