Comment by JumpCrisscross
6 days ago
> only reason I still use Chrome is because I already use other Google products and they integrate well together
This is the point. Google's products integrate with Chrome better than non-Google products. Including its ad platform.
I'm failing to see why "this product we built from the ground up integrates better with our other tools" is an anti trust problem
Isn't that what we want companies to do?
I have two frustrations with this kind of decision:
1. It's not clear to me that the judge has any interest in creating value. 2. It does feel a bit like being punished for success.
It's one thing when it's ill-gotten success, eg via coercive contracts (like Android has with play services), and we should aggressively deal with that sort of contract! However, what often seems to happen in these types of cases is the judge identifies a behavior they dislike and bans it without really considering more targeting / surgical treatments
The problem is not that it integrates well with google products, the problem is that they are preventing other products from integrating as well.
Do you think there's a solution that could reasonably be enforced in order to fix that problem?
7 replies →
Monopolies are bad for us. It's as simple as that really.
> It does feel a bit like being punished for success.
Nobody is being punished. Punishment would be like "you're going to prison because the thing you started turned into a monopoly". That's not what is happening. It's more like "whoops, you created a monopoly, time to reset, but you get to keep everything you reaped so far".
Why are monopolies bad? In general, monopolies are bad because they can leverage their power in ways that are worse for consumers - ie they make the usual market functions break down. (If the market continued to work correctly, consumers would be able to switch to a competitor)
There are many cases where we like monopolies because it's more efficient to only have one entity do a thing (eg build infrastructure)
It's useful to correctly punish illegal things monopolies do, but in this case, google has created a browser that is good! Better than alternatives!
If you spin that browser off, it will need to figure out how to monetize. It will get worse due to that monetization effort.
Google has other services that would be competitive without Google: drive, YouTube are easy examples.
If we made them spin off Gmail just because Google is too big, that doesn't make sense! Gmail is useful to Google in its current form, but there's no way it's pulling in significant profit (possibly as part of drive - I'm not certain).
You can't just pick a company you don't like and attack it with a hatchet. That's worse for consumers than the thing you're attacking, and the number one rule here should be for regulators to make things better, not worse!
I tend to agree. I struggle to understand how a company runs a browser product without being eventually seen as a monopoly. They’re making a unique product ecosystem of browser and apps, just like everyone else, no need to keep coming down on whoever is successful at it. People can vote with their feet and use a dozen other options.
> I struggle to understand how a company runs a browser product without being eventually seen as a monopoly.
Just like for example how a car company can make cars without being a monopoly. Not the best example, but we’re so used to a monopoly it’s tough to imagine what a competitive browser market would look like.
1 reply →
They didn't build it from the ground up
There is essentially no WebKit (not to mention KHTML) code remaining in Chrome.
Fair correction, but they didn't acquire the most popular browser company or something
Chrome allows Google to control the web platform to benefit their Ads business.
1) does it though? It seems like the Google-specific parts of it are pretty ancillary to the whole experience
2) how is it different to Apples integration with Safari?
> 1) does it though? It seems like the Google-specific parts of it are pretty ancillary to the whole experience
You're unwittingly describing the textbook definition of anticompetitive practices only made possible by abusing a dominant position.
> 2) how is it different to Apples integration with Safari?
Safari does not represent >65% of all web traffic. Also, there's the major liability of having a single ad company controlling the browser that the average internet user uses to browse the web.
You literally can’t use your mouse to copy/paste in google docs if you’re using Firefox. If that isn’t anticompetitive, I don’t know what is.
4 replies →
> how is it different to Apples integration with Safari?
It’s not, other than Google has a way larger market share (especially if you count Edge/Opera/Brave/etc.) and has been (ab)using that position to push web standards in a direction that favors their business and that other browser vendors have to follow to keep up.
If Safari had Chrome’s market share and was throwing their weight around like Google does and Microsoft did with IE, it’d be the same argument and I’d also personally support forcing them to divest it.
Safari is the #2 browser behind Chrome. It's about 55% to 30%, so while Chrome has a larger market share, it's not an order of magnitude larger.
Really the main difference is that Apple has a captive audience on iOS and no incentives to improve so they don't do anything with it.
6 replies →
Nothing more evil than pushing standards and even sharing the source code. How dare they...
13 replies →
> how is it different to Apples integration with Safari?
Apple hasn't been found to have a monopoly like Google has [1].
[1] https://apnews.com/article/google-antitrust-search-engine-ve...
Found to be is doing far too much work given the DOJ lawsuit that it has a monopoly (2546 points, 8 months ago, 2623 comments) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39778999
3 replies →
The DOJ is weird. They're so concerned with whether or not a company is a monopoly, not whether or not they're abusing their power.
Look at the EU, levying multiple billion dollar fines against Apple. But in the US, Apple is free to abuse customers since their market share is a few % short of a monopoly...
2 replies →
2) consumers cannot use products like Safari as their exclusive web browser. The web has decided that Chrome is the only browser worth supporting and the world needs to keep Chrome at-the-ready for when the alternative browser eventually breaks.
For example, Chrome has replaced IE as the corporate browser, due to the integrations with Workspace accounts and Authentication mechanisms. In order to use the fingerID on my/employer's macbook pro, I have to give my employer root/sync access to Google Chrome.
"The web has decided that Chrome is the only browser worth supporting…"
That only tells me that governments can no longer leave technical aspects of the internet (standards/APIs, etc.) to market forces. There are many historical precedents for such action such as flight/aircraft, RF spectrum management, road and maritime regulations, health/food standards, etc. There's a myriad of them.
Regulations would enforce interoperability and uniformity. To say this would stifle innovation is nonsense, it would be like saying that road rules and maritime law have stifled the development of motor vehicles and shipbuilding.
I use Safari as my exclusive web browser without issue.
2 replies →
> For example, Chrome has replaced IE as the corporate browser
Strange, thought it was Edge, as it integrates with MS products much better. Must be an US thing then.
1 reply →
> 2) how is it different to Apples integration with Safari?
It's only different in the share of the overall market they hold - and it's notable that the EU has already acted to break Apple's monopoly over specifically the iOS browser market.
The EU wrote an entirely new law that designated companies like Apple as 'gate keepers'.
3 replies →
re: 1) logging into a Google domain in a chrome browser, logs the browser into the Google account [auto-profile-login] [gSignin], and by default, syncs browser history to the cloud, cloud-readable [gSync]. Google's own docs describe that you can add a passphrase "so Google can't read it". While Google can read it, they have an arguable duty to shareholders to read it.
- [auto-profile-login]: https://support.google.com/chrome/answer/165139?hl=en
> Keep your info private with a passphrase With a passphrase, you can use Google's cloud to store and sync your Chrome data without letting Google read it.
Thank you appealing to reasonable expectations, but Google, as their own docs make clear, ties uses together quite aggressively^W conveniently.
2) Whatabout Apple and Safari? Apple doesn't offer an email service supported in part by scanning email content for ads.
Apple has gone to some lengths to engineer a system where they can credibly(-ish) claim to "protect your privacy when you browse the web in Safari," [Apple private relay].
- [Apple private relay]: https://support.apple.com/en-us/102602
Google re-engineers their browser to prevent ad-blockers from working.
But where is the consumer benefit?
Much better privacy protection and ad blocking.
There's really no rational reason for third-party cookies to still exist. The only reason they're still around is because an advertising company's browser has like 97% market share.
>Much better privacy protection and ad blocking.
The order doesn't mandate that. It mandates google SELL the data it has collected on people to third parties.
There are also privacy focussed, ad blocking focussed alternatives trivially available on the market....and people are not choosing them.
Any company which buys Chrome (Microsoft?) will have just as strong an incentive as Google to track people and run ads.
FWIW, Chrome has a 66% market share: https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share
======
Disliking a company doesn't justify any arbitrary policy against that company
4 replies →
The same cookies that Google tried to eliminate but couldn't get traction from anyone else?
2 replies →
Perhaps if chrome finally fails people will move to better things, like servo https://github.com/servo/servo.
It would be nice to have a completely open source browser that can be built with a simple one liner from cargo. Having several thousands of eyes on the code daily to check for telemetry violations, privacy issues, security, and performance daily in mostly a single language, small, and well structured browser repo would be phenomenal compared to the disjoint jumbled messes we have today.
Better for who? I use Chrome because the experience has been the best for me.
2 replies →
Wouldn't consumer like it if they could use Google services on any browser with the same experience without having to give up other browsers? I use firefox mainly but I have to use Chrome when I use Google Meet because Google provide more features and better performance when you are on Chrome (intentionally, not because of other browsers limitations)
consumer benefit is not the end all of antitrust.
This is from the DOJ's page on the Clayton Act, where they give two statements of purpose for the antitrust law.
>This law aims to promote fair competition and prevent unfair business practices that could harm consumers. It prohibits certain actions that might restrict competition, like tying agreements, predatory pricing, and mergers that could lessen competition.
>The Antitrust Division enforces federal antitrust and competition laws. These laws prohibit anticompetitive conduct and mergers that deprive American consumers, taxpayers, and workers of the benefits of competition.
Both are aimed squarely at consumer benefit. Restrictions on anticompetitive behaviour and mergers *where those things impact consumer benefit.*.
Mergers and actions against competitors are obviously allowed in the normal course of business.
Lots of people have other ideas about what kind of antitrust law they'd like to see, but such a law has not passed the US Congress.
https://www.justice.gov/atr/antitrust-laws-and-you#:~:text=T....
5 replies →
It has been since the Reagan era, but before that antitrust law had teeth
It literally is
What would you say is the end all of antitrust if not consumer benefit?
3 replies →
Innovation. Google has no competition and so has no incentive to innovate for consumer benefit.
More future competition and innovation.
In what? How to extract more personal information from the consumer and sell more ads?
[dead]
Out of all the parts of Google that take advantage of integration to pump up ad revenues, I'd say Chrome is the least of them?
If we're serious about this, separate search and ads. Force ads-Google to pay search-Google for data on the open market, and let other people pay for the same data, make it transparent, and let consumers see exactly what's happening.
While we're at it, separate Google's display ad network from its RTB facilities, basically carving DoubleClick back out again.
Then watch the stock tumble.