Google’s search antitrust trial is wrapping up—here’s what we learned
- Thread starter JournalBot
- Start date
Maybe DoJ could make Google search worthless, by forcing them to add LLM-generated BS at the top of their search results.
Upvote
130
(133
/
-3)
Since Chromium itself is open source and freely licensed, the main draw here would be the name and user base, right?
But then you'd be on the hook for the ongoing development of the most widely used browser in the world which is neither easy or cheap. I don't know who would be able to afford and monetize it effectively.
I can see why companies like OpenAI would be interested but even their flagship product, which is presumably what they'd promote and use the browser data for, is already run at a loss.
But then you'd be on the hook for the ongoing development of the most widely used browser in the world which is neither easy or cheap. I don't know who would be able to afford and monetize it effectively.
I can see why companies like OpenAI would be interested but even their flagship product, which is presumably what they'd promote and use the browser data for, is already run at a loss.
Upvote
56
(56
/
0)
Upvote
-11
(17
/
-28)
Google can't fall far enough fast enough to correct for all the evil it has precipitated.
What ever happened to "do no harm"?
Oh, yeah. Right.
What ever happened to "do no harm"?
Oh, yeah. Right.
Upvote
10
(29
/
-19)
The half of Google without AdSense would go bankrupt. AdSense is the golden goose.
Upvote
67
(67
/
0)
The biggest effort is developing Chromium, not Chrome. Chrome is just a layer on top of Chromium with Google's services and use base. Microsoft basically does the same with Edge.
Technically, nobody could prevent Google to work on Chromium, it being open source. But, after selling Chrome, why would they do that?
Upvote
46
(46
/
0)
Upvote
62
(64
/
-2)
This is the best option in my opinion. After thinking about it, who would look after all the Chromebooks? All the schools and institutions that rely on Chromebooks would kinda be screwed surely?
Upvote
20
(20
/
0)
As far as I'm concerned, Google's ranking algorithm is awful. If you want AI and its attendant hallucinations, videos and pop culture, Google is the bomb. But if you want anything else, it is worthless. I search for a lot of physics and education research. But if Google sees a single word that also appears in pop culture, that's what I get instead of what I was searching for.
I mostly use alternative engines already. I like Qwant and I'm in the trial period of Kagi, which is starting to grow on me.
Y'all don't be evil, now.
Upvote
60
(61
/
-1)
Chrome the browser and ChromeOS are separate things, sharing the same name. ChromeOS is a heavily modified version of Gentoo Linux with Chrome the browser being one of its apps. There's no reason that these should not be separable. Being Linux and thereby being open source, anyone can acquire the Chromium source code and modify it however they want. In effect, anyone can make Chromebooks and it is the problem of whoever owns Chrome the browser to insure it works on those. In other words, pretty much like Windows and Mac except for the open source bit.
Upvote
11
(12
/
-1)
Let google keep Chrome, that is not what is used to leverage control. Rip Chromium from their hands, that is the true control point that Google use to push all other browsers to do as Google wants. It is how they are forcing other browsers to GIMP ad blocking for example.
Chromium needs to be run by a non profit, maybe funded by all the downstream users of the project. ALL of the tracking, advertising hooks and any Google specific shite needs to be gutted so it becomes "just a browser" used as a base to build on.
Then the likes of Google can limit blocking in their browser etc but it leaves everyone else to compete on features at which point Chrome will lose market share unless Google actually compete
Chromium needs to be run by a non profit, maybe funded by all the downstream users of the project. ALL of the tracking, advertising hooks and any Google specific shite needs to be gutted so it becomes "just a browser" used as a base to build on.
Then the likes of Google can limit blocking in their browser etc but it leaves everyone else to compete on features at which point Chrome will lose market share unless Google actually compete
Upvote
34
(39
/
-5)
It will suck if some loser company like Yahoo acquired Chrome at the same time Firefox was killed.
Upvote
52
(54
/
-2)
If the problem is that Google has abused its position in search, strip it of its patent protection for anything to do with search. This seems to me to be the best remedy for any abusive company. Just strip away the government protections that allow them to maintain an uncontested position.
Also - Making Google sell off Chrome would be a BIG loss to internet users. Pretty much anyone who would buy it would monetize it in a way that would be detrimental to the entire Internet, especially if Firefox is unable to survive without Google's payments.The amount any buyer would have to spend for Chrome would pretty much mandate enshitification.
Also - Making Google sell off Chrome would be a BIG loss to internet users. Pretty much anyone who would buy it would monetize it in a way that would be detrimental to the entire Internet, especially if Firefox is unable to survive without Google's payments.The amount any buyer would have to spend for Chrome would pretty much mandate enshitification.
Upvote
12
(21
/
-9)
Well, this argument is bullshit:
They shouldn't be running Chrome. They can develop it.
The Mozilla foundation does just fine with what they have, and they're not even well monetized.
"Big difference in user base!", you say?
OTHER than customer support, I'd argue that the same resources that go into Firefox can be used for Chrome. Chrome having a fuckton more users doesn't mean shit if the products do the same things. You develop the PRODUCT. Not the customer base.
And from what I gather (though I could be wrong), Google Chrome is Google Chrome everywhere. Same shit, different devices. Google Chrome Mobile would be Google Chrome Mobile everywhere. Chrome for Apple would be Chrome for Apple everywhere.
Firefox runs on all those OS's, too. Mozilla is an ant compared to Google's herd of elephants. And Firefox is actively updated across all platforms.
So, no, there's no valid reason why a considerably smaller, much less well funded (AKA profitable) company can't run Chrome unless they're as big or well funded as Google.
Upvote
-3
(8
/
-11)
Upvote
3
(3
/
0)
Chromium is already open source and Microsoft is the largest user after Chrome. Right now Google is funding almost all of Chromium. Why do you think things would change as a non-profit? Microsoft could contribute cash and engineers to the Chromium effort right now and they aren't doing it, making it a non-profit isn't going to change that.Let google keep Chrome, that is not what is used to leverage control. Rip Chromium from their hands, that is the true control point that Google use to push all other browsers to do as Google wants. It is how they are forcing other browsers to GIMP ad blocking for example.
Chromium needs to be run by a non profit, maybe funded by all the downstream users of the project. ALL of the tracking, advertising hooks and any Google specific shite needs to be gutted so it becomes "just a browser" used as a base to build on.
Then the likes of Google can limit blocking in their browser etc but it leaves everyone else to compete on features at which point Chrome will lose market share unless Google actually compete
The problem here is that all of the big players are dependent on ad revenue and they ALL want ad blocking nerfed.
Upvote
24
(25
/
-1)
One remedy I would like to see is for the web index to be pushed out into a non-profit which would provide every one access for a fee (enough to run the non-profit and pay for the crawlers). That would stop hundreds of companies from all crawling the web independently and wasting vast server resources.
Upvote
19
(19
/
0)
Exactly. The only real remedy here is to divest google ads. They can keep everything else, or keep ads and lose everything else.
Upvote
4
(4
/
0)
I love Firefox and ad-block it to a crazy extant. Kinda worried about Mozilla staying an independent entity if Google got their fingers in the pie.
Upvote
20
(20
/
0)
Firefox would be fine, the currently Mozilla leadership would just quit.
Upvote
-2
(3
/
-5)
Without google ads isnt the rest worthless though? I mean from a financial pov.
Upvote
5
(6
/
-1)
Frosty Grin
Ars Legatus Legionis
Most of their revenue is a handout from Google. They're not an example of independent success.
Upvote
32
(32
/
0)
J.C. Helios
Ars Scholae Palatinae
Twentieth-century kids, prepare to slap your Yahoo Yodel Button to mark the improbable birth of Yahoo Chrome!
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QKA5ePZLZRg
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QKA5ePZLZRg
Upvote
8
(8
/
0)
The end of Google payouts to Firefox is not the end of Firefox; it is the end of a cushy CEO paycheck and extraneous "revenue-seeking" adventurism for Mozilla.
As a multi-decade Moz user, I would welcome refocused effort on the core principles behind a open source, user-ONLY mission without the weird advert partnerships and subscription features that have been cropping up like mushrooms.
Lean it out. I need TRON. Not user first... user ONLY
As a multi-decade Moz user, I would welcome refocused effort on the core principles behind a open source, user-ONLY mission without the weird advert partnerships and subscription features that have been cropping up like mushrooms.
Lean it out. I need TRON. Not user first... user ONLY
Upvote
5
(13
/
-8)
Upvote
33
(33
/
0)
Once Google has a long steady product someone want to kill it 
I really don't think all the solution proposed are fair to Google or to the market.
Google open sourced chrome, it created it and helped to standardize the web and others to freely have a good base for a browsers ... It found a way to have all advantages without penalizing others.
This isn't a monopoly behaviour.
Google has very good positions in the search/ads but it isn't a real monopoly because people have a choice.
You cannot criminalise cocacola because most of people love it
A fair trial should scale all the aspect of the behaviour of a company.
I really don't think all the solution proposed are fair to Google or to the market.
Google open sourced chrome, it created it and helped to standardize the web and others to freely have a good base for a browsers ... It found a way to have all advantages without penalizing others.
This isn't a monopoly behaviour.
Google has very good positions in the search/ads but it isn't a real monopoly because people have a choice.
You cannot criminalise cocacola because most of people love it
A fair trial should scale all the aspect of the behaviour of a company.
Upvote
-17
(5
/
-22)
Nothing will happen to Google and this is a complete waste of time, money, and resources. Sigh.
Upvote
-16
(0
/
-16)
Maybe I'm missing something here, but I still don't understand what is with the whole "you've abused search so we want you to sell off Chome" logic. Chrome doesn't have much to do with it's search business. While there is a small overlap, there isn't enough that I see to justify this. To me it seems like if it told Apple that due to it's monopoly practices with the iOS app store, they need to sell off it's macOS unit. Sure, there is some overlap in these two parts of Apple, but not enough to see this as a justification.
I'm not saying nothing should be done to Google here, but let the punishment reflect the crime.
I'm not saying nothing should be done to Google here, but let the punishment reflect the crime.
Upvote
4
(7
/
-3)
Chromium is already being shepherded by Microsoft these days. Selling off chrome means someone gets Chromium because all of the google-esque integrations become useless without the rest of Google.
Selling the search business would be a mixed bag because the search business makes Google money based on ads. SEO isn't really huge income.
Ad business? That's what's going to scare me because a company like palantir would snap that up in a heartbeat and privacy forevermore will no longer exist in any form.
I'm not saying Google is a saint, but I will say that divesting chunks of Google serve little if any real-world benefit to individuals.
Selling the search business would be a mixed bag because the search business makes Google money based on ads. SEO isn't really huge income.
Ad business? That's what's going to scare me because a company like palantir would snap that up in a heartbeat and privacy forevermore will no longer exist in any form.
I'm not saying Google is a saint, but I will say that divesting chunks of Google serve little if any real-world benefit to individuals.
Upvote
2
(5
/
-3)
I also don't see the market benefit in the remedy. And further, in the history of software I've not seen a more natural alignment between a company and a product it produces--and moves a collection of related technologies forward in an economically stable+viable way for common benefit. If anyone has more detail and insight related to this I'd appreciate the links and insight.
While the DOJ might see Chrome as market infrastructure, it seems relatively accessible given Brave and others derive their products from the same (or seem to). Android divestiture seems to make more sense. Or likely having remedies that specifically speak to the instrumentation these provide. The other exclusive agreements prohibition and data sharing agreements make sense to me as solutions.
It's interesting to see this at a time when search is falling for the company. And the follow-on quarters I'll be curious to see if the company can continue to optimize into whatever is coming next in the market separate from the antitrust results. There are quite a few warning signs in their products, quarterly results and market position.
Last edited:
Upvote
11
(11
/
0)
"Do no harm" is from the doctor's code. You are thinking of "Don't be evil" which was Google's motto, until they decided they actually wanted to be evil after all.
Upvote
22
(22
/
0)
Google has to be made to divest Chrome. The fact that they are baking into Chrome features like Manifest 3 which disables effective Ad blocking, which is then automatically incorporated into other browsers based on Chrome just demonstrates how they are using their dominance to undermine web standards to the detriment of us all.
Upvote
17
(18
/
-1)
I believe the court's plan is to ensure that Google search is not the default choice anywhere. They are going to stop the payments to Apple which will result in Apple selling the default position in Safari to someone else -- Bing or an AI player. Then if Chrome is sold, the buyer is certainly going to replace default search with their own scheme - be it Yahoo or OpenAI.
Where the court is wrong in this is that the majority of users are just going to set the default back to Google. As bad as Google's search is, right now the others are even worse. Of course there will be a chunk of users who don't know enough to change their default settings, or simply don't use search enough to care.
Something I have not heard mentioned lately.,,, if Google is forced to sell off Chrome will the court bar them from reentering the browser business using Chromium as a base? The earliest version of the remedy proposal included a ten year ban on Google making another browser. What is the status of that now?
Upvote
10
(11
/
-1)
Its now up to the judge to decide if thats a reasonable (and legal) solution.
Last edited:
Upvote
3
(3
/
0)
Chromium is open source. wahahahahahah. In theory yes but Google control it and do you really think Google would left someone submit changes that say bring MV2 back into play or any other change that would effect ad revenue? Really?
NOT all the browsers built off Chromium are ad based companies. There simply needs to be charter for the controlling body that manages chromium.
Whatever the outcome it would be hard to see how It WILL be worse than single controlling company that removed the company moto of "Don't be evil". Google have proven time and time again they are NOT trust worthy, they are a scummy company that wants to impose what is good for it onto everyone and chromium is that tool, they need to be kerb stomped.
And if the outcome is the total collapse of chromium, would that really be bad. Make companies pick up the pieces of their browsers and work on them separate from each other. Might even create some ACTUAL competition for a change.
The current situation is just shite, needs change.
Upvote
2
(3
/
-1)