Welcome to Google’s nightmare: US reveals plan to destroy search monopoly
- Thread starter JournalBot
- Start date
I watched small publishers like LowEndMac wither and die as google cratered advertising rate payouts, especially when they slashed them around the 2008 recession and never returned the payouts to sustainable levels, all while just pocketing the growing amounts they were getting from advertisers
Upvote
5
(7
/
-2)
Oh, so now DOJ wants to apply laws.
How long until Google declares "presidential immunity" and buys a favorable verdict from the supreme emperors?
How long until Google declares "presidential immunity" and buys a favorable verdict from the supreme emperors?
Upvote
-15
(1
/
-16)
I'm honestly not all that convinced Apple has the appetite to wade into this market even if this happens. They do have an interest in growing their services business, sure, but they don't seem particularly keen on free or even freemium services for the most part, beyond things like the basic tier of iCloud acting as a value add for the devices.
I guess they could pitch the Search along similar lines and bundle it up in the Siri/Apple Intelligence sphere, but I don't think it really has all that much of an appeal on its own, unless they can demonstrate dramatically better results than the competition.
Two whole menu screens. Oh gosh, oh no.
I set up an Android phone earlier this year. I had to go through at least a dozen setup screens in the process, some of which were more or less just Google (and/or Samsung) pushing their own stuff on me.
I think we'll cope with a couple of ballot screens for browsers and search engines, Google.
I mean, they wouldn't get to buy it because at least one of the major global regulatory bodies would nuke the idea from orbit. But it is pretty funny to think about.
But regardless, there's plenty of companies who would want to own Chrome for all sorts of reasons. It's a massively used and well known product. Even if you ran it into the ground, you could make bank off doing so for a few years from the sheer inertia. Which is a pretty good shorthand indication of why Google's monopolistic practices got them in hot water here.
I guess they could pitch the Search along similar lines and bundle it up in the Siri/Apple Intelligence sphere, but I don't think it really has all that much of an appeal on its own, unless they can demonstrate dramatically better results than the competition.
It's extremely funny to me that Walker actually thought that incredibly dull and benign sounding scenario was sufficient to be punctuated by "we wish we were making this up" like it sounded absolutely batshit.
Two whole menu screens. Oh gosh, oh no.
I set up an Android phone earlier this year. I had to go through at least a dozen setup screens in the process, some of which were more or less just Google (and/or Samsung) pushing their own stuff on me.
I think we'll cope with a couple of ballot screens for browsers and search engines, Google.
Because that's not why people use them, mostly because neither is actually that good any more. People use them because they used to be good and inertia from that and the defaulting keeps people from considering alternatives. Even people who aren't tech enthusiasts have noticed that Google Search is increasingly bad. They might not have chosen to go elsewhere yet, but you hear the same grumbles about the quality of results creeping into conversations. If they were presented with a decision point to change, more and more people would probably roll the dice on DuckDuckGo, Qwant, Bing or something else. Certainly not all, but people didn't all switch to Google and Chrome at the same times either.
Microsoft, for one. For the same reasons Google wants to keep it.
I mean, they wouldn't get to buy it because at least one of the major global regulatory bodies would nuke the idea from orbit. But it is pretty funny to think about.
But regardless, there's plenty of companies who would want to own Chrome for all sorts of reasons. It's a massively used and well known product. Even if you ran it into the ground, you could make bank off doing so for a few years from the sheer inertia. Which is a pretty good shorthand indication of why Google's monopolistic practices got them in hot water here.
Yes, I can envision things that would suck even worse than the world we're in right now too, but why would anyone want to spend time contemplating an even worse timeline than we're already living?
Upvote
3
(6
/
-3)
Can I just point out that searX is still alive and kicking. It is my default search engine
https://searx.space/
Upvote
1
(1
/
0)
If you want to use a different search engine to Google go use one the same for alternative browsers or email providers.
No one least of all Google is stopping anyone from switching.
Look at how everyone with PC's switched to Chorme from IE by choice back in the day.
Most people do not care who provides the free to use browser, search engine or email client they use which is why they don't switch.
Upvote
-5
(4
/
-9)
The article is incorrect. The proposal says “divest”, not “sell”.
Edit: Someone already pointed this out.
Upvote
0
(2
/
-2)
Absolutely. Kick him out of every company but one. He's been illegally stealing from one company to help another for years. Kick him out. Let him choose which company to run.
Upvote
0
(3
/
-3)
Oh interesting! I mean it’s a logical place for Chrome OS to be, but I wonder what will happen with Chrome then. Would it still be the focus of anti monopoly measures?
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
Well banning that will decrease Apple's revenue (I wonder if it's part of service revenue?) but won't do much else since if you give every iPhone user a choice screen they will all still choose Google.
Upvote
-1
(2
/
-3)
How is that functionally different? What value does Chrome have as a standalone business in an environment when the only possible company paying for search placement is Microsoft?
Upvote
-2
(3
/
-5)
Firefox, Opera, Vivaldi, Pale Moon - These are all examples of standalone browsers. Being paid for search placement isn’t the only way to make money.
The goal is to stop Google from self preferencing.
Last edited:
Upvote
4
(7
/
-3)
Statistical
Ars Legatus Legionis
HAAAAAHHAAA
Oh wait you are serious? Let me laugh some more. HAAAAAHHAA
Google and privacy is an oxymoron. Google has been making changes to ensure ad blockers and anti-tracking plugins won't work properly because PRIVACY would be less profitable for google.
Upvote
8
(13
/
-5)
Upvote
1
(1
/
0)
Really? I guess you don’t know the DOJ’s Anti-trust website has a section dedicated to defense contractors.
For example: https://www.justice.gov/atr/case-document/file/1296616/dl?inline
Edit: Looking at your post history you must have a relationship with Google.
Last edited:
Upvote
7
(9
/
-2)
Somewhat, yes. Familiarity does tend to rule with people. And Google knows this.
Having started browsing the Internet with AOL at first, I wasn't really using Explorer or Netscape at the time. When I realized AOL wasn't "the internet", I went with Netscape, because I liked the way it worked more than IE.
Netscape morphed into Firefox, and that's mostly where I've been since. There was a time about ten years ago that I had issues with Netflix and Firefox, but that was only for 6 months, and I used Chrome for Netflix only. Then once Firefox was back up to snuff, I uninstalled Chrome.
All that said, I stick with Firefox because it is touted for its privacy. I could have had a better "user experience" if I used Explorer, or Edge, or Chrome (according to their respective makers), but all of those are invasive of my privacy, and I have never really trusted any of the entities responsible for those browsers. I like the Mozilla foundation for their advocacy of user privacy.
If that changed, I'd dump Firefox for something who respects privacy.
So in that regard, what's familiar isn't always why people would use something. The majority, yes. They'll keep using invasive products because most people seem to have no shits to give about their online privacy. They don't really "get" how bad that is for them, and their online experience.
I'd be cheering this news if it weren't for the fact the fascist terrorists are taking over again and undoing all of this. So I'm decidedly "who the fuck cares?" because it will not come to past in the foreseeable future.
Upvote
7
(7
/
0)
I'm pretty adamantly anti-corporatist. There's a lot I hate about modern life that I blame on greedy corporations that have abused their position in the market. But having to change the default search engine, which is literally easier than the obfuscated process of cancelling a subscription to most services, is soooo so far down that list. Call me a corporate boot licker if you like but of all the problems caused by corporations that we could be tackling, this is a weird one to start with.
Upvote
-10
(3
/
-13)
The Sheep Look Up
Ars Praetorian
Bolded the operative part. You're referencing step 1 of the enshittification cycle. We're on step 3 transitioning into 4.
Upvote
6
(7
/
-1)
actually Bing copilot is great.
being able to ask a question and get an answer is better than scrolling through ads and top results don't necessarily have the information.
Upvote
-7
(1
/
-8)
Oh yes, ”those people are all so stupid “ trope. They don’t know how to use anything else or they’re just lazy.
Upvote
-12
(2
/
-14)
Chrome has been terrible ever since Google got distracted by self-driving-cars. there are so many better Browsers in Play store. personally i use Opera. Android won't let Chrome be uninstalled, yet it can be disabled.
Upvote
-10
(0
/
-10)
Why even build anything worthwhile? They're trying to turn our country into stagnant Europoors.
Upvote
-15
(2
/
-17)
Upvote
-1
(4
/
-5)
If I'm Chrome's product manager, I'd propose disabling search from address bar by default. If user types anything that's not an URL address, then prompt them to pick a search engine from a list of 20 something engines.
Every. Single. Time. No default.
Malicious compliance aside, I don't get how this ruling would affect Apple, though. Who else could pay as much as Google to be put as the default search engine on Safari? Or did DOJ also forbade Apple from renting out that spot?
Every. Single. Time. No default.
Malicious compliance aside, I don't get how this ruling would affect Apple, though. Who else could pay as much as Google to be put as the default search engine on Safari? Or did DOJ also forbade Apple from renting out that spot?
Upvote
-10
(1
/
-11)
Since Google rolled out their AI search, I've been using DuckDuckGo as my default search. Can't say I have any complaints.
As for Chrome I avoid it like the plague.
As for Chrome I avoid it like the plague.
Upvote
3
(3
/
0)
Its not about Chrome. Its about chromium. It needs to be stopped. Especially after v3. Still don't understand why people aren't switching to Firefox, new and scary?
Upvote
-2
(1
/
-3)
Never underestimate a users desire to do nothing.
Default is literally the only thing you need to do to win a market. It sounds incredibly stupid that it works, and it works every time.
See, you think changing the default is a simple mechanical task. The reality is that most people don't know how to evaluate the choice, but surely Apple would give me a good default - I'll just go with that. It's not that it's hard to check a different box, it's hard to evaluate what the best box to check is, so they avoid the problem and stick with the default.
Upvote
10
(10
/
0)
Apple can rent out that spot to Microsoft or ChatGPT.
My guess is Google will continue paying them in some other capacity and Apple will preserve Google as default.
Upvote
1
(1
/
0)
Who? Who cares. The problem here is Google abusing its market dominance. Maybe Adobe buys it.
Do a deal with MIcrosoft to make Bing the default search engine.
Upvote
1
(3
/
-2)
For a body with great power there seems a simple solution that could be imposed. Add a semantic tag to HTML that would have options like:
Commercial
Community
Science
Oblige all commercial sites to fill this tag.
Then force all browser makers to respect those tags in their search options. They would all say this would defund the web. It would oblige them to make seeing pages with commercial results more attractive to the user.
Commercial
Community
Science
Oblige all commercial sites to fill this tag.
Then force all browser makers to respect those tags in their search options. They would all say this would defund the web. It would oblige them to make seeing pages with commercial results more attractive to the user.
Upvote
-2
(1
/
-3)
I wondering what devices / platforms have Chrome, or bits of it, as vital components. Obviously, Google's Chrome web browser. Android? Chromebooks? Could this move seriously dent Google's ability to continue with those platforms as is?
Upvote
1
(1
/
0)
Why do people keep working in tribal with me or against me mindsets? Jesus fuck!
Do you know that it is entirely reasonable to think that google and chrome are good products that complement each other while thinking the monopoly is bad?
What it is entirely unreasonable is this sort of trend in this thread where everyone considers Google as garbage, completely surpassed by every other search engine. Let's be serious. That's not the case. Most search engines are just garbage compared to Google.
Google is a fantastic search engine, and chrome is a fantastic browser, and both changed the world not that long ago.
Is the monopoly good? No, monopolies are never good.
But let's not trivialize the problem. Capitalism runs on meritocracy, but it inherently produces these monopolies. Which in turn need to be destroyed, thus disregarding meritocracy.
It's just a trait of capitalism. And splitting Alphabet is probably a good thing. But this trend of talking about google like it's a shitty product is just a sociological case study rather than anything else.
Upvote
-7
(6
/
-13)
You obviously know nothing about the W3C standards process.
That may or may not extend to other areas.
Upvote
4
(5
/
-1)
The judge in this case was not working in the interest on browser users. The browsers users are the product, and the judge is looking out for other potential advertisers.
I use Chromium as a second Browser, because FF doesn't handle all sites. Chromium always handles every site, so far.
I use a Pihole so I don't actually see much advertising, like probably more than half the people here. I did discover Chome was using DNS to bypass my Pihole for 3rd party advertisements, and I had to put "google.dns" in the PiHole filter list to block that. The user setting for DoH had no effect on those ads. On the other hand, I do trust Google's software security.
If Chrome gets sold, what happens to Chromium? If, for example, someone similar to Musk buys Chrome, I would expect them to run it on a skeleton staff, monetize every scrap of PI in every way possible, and contribute absolutely nothing back to Chromium.
I see a very strong possibility that users are going to end up worse off, even if somebody else makes a killing. Google is the frenemy I know. I have every reason to expect loosing out on this deal, because the court is not working for the users, it is working for shadowy advertising brokers and their "free market" backers who want to find new and innovative ways to monitize and abuse user PI.
If the courts were working for the user we would have
It's not a coincidince that none of those were even mentioned.
I use Chromium as a second Browser, because FF doesn't handle all sites. Chromium always handles every site, so far.
I use a Pihole so I don't actually see much advertising, like probably more than half the people here. I did discover Chome was using DNS to bypass my Pihole for 3rd party advertisements, and I had to put "google.dns" in the PiHole filter list to block that. The user setting for DoH had no effect on those ads. On the other hand, I do trust Google's software security.
If Chrome gets sold, what happens to Chromium? If, for example, someone similar to Musk buys Chrome, I would expect them to run it on a skeleton staff, monetize every scrap of PI in every way possible, and contribute absolutely nothing back to Chromium.
I see a very strong possibility that users are going to end up worse off, even if somebody else makes a killing. Google is the frenemy I know. I have every reason to expect loosing out on this deal, because the court is not working for the users, it is working for shadowy advertising brokers and their "free market" backers who want to find new and innovative ways to monitize and abuse user PI.
If the courts were working for the user we would have
- Required Opt-in for users to release their PI
- A ban on Google payments to Apple and Samsung
- A requirement for some percentage of dual booting cellphones so non-Google-Android OS could run on most cellphones.
It's not a coincidince that none of those were even mentioned.
Last edited:
Upvote
-5
(2
/
-7)
Upvote
10
(10
/
0)