← Back to context

Comment by m463

6 days ago

What if this browser killed lots of other viable browsers because it was "free" (yet supported by and supporting a monopoly)?

You never get to compare the products that never got to exist.

related, I think google supported firefox to have a "viable" competitor to chrome and prevent monopoly scrutiny.

11 comments

m463

Reply
eterevsky  6 days ago

It sounds like you want to artificially make the dominant product worse (i.e. non-free) just to make the life of competitors easier.

  • xdennis  5 days ago

    Why are you saying that like it's a bad thing? That's what antitrust means. Chrome is free because it's unfairly subsidized by Google Search. Standard Oil was also cheaper because it was a monopoly.

    • eterevsky  3 days ago

      Because for that to make sense you need to have some strong evidence that the resulting status quo will be better for consumers than the present situation. You don't break monopolies just for the sake of breaking monopolies. You do that to avoid locking into some suboptimal outcomes for consumers.

  • roenxi  6 days ago

    And noting that Chrome doesn't have anything close to a monopoly - people can use any browser they like. Having >90% of the market doesn't make it a monopoly, it just makes it good. It is the last sort of product people should be attacking, Chrome is a free market success story and Google's strategy is an exemplar of good corporate citizenship.

    • croes  6 days ago

      Didn’t Google change YouTube to hinder Edge?

      At first it was a free market success story, now it’s not