Comment by bitmasher9
1 year ago
I disagree. I think Google Chrome has a unique anti-compeitive advantage similar to 1990s Microsoft in bundling their web browser (chrome) on the world’s most popular operating system (android). The biggest difference is now that barrier to entry for generating a web engine is significantly higher than it ever has been, and over the years many of the competitors have given up on the pursuit. At the same time, there are more web users than ever before, and the web is a bigger part of daily life than ever before.
I might not be so worried if there weren’t clear privacy considerations with surfing the web and Chrome has no incentive to minimize it because of the ad-tech revenue Google generates.
And how will selling Chrome and then Google forking Chromium and Google employees continuing to submit patches and/or developing the fork fix anything?
Is the DOJ going to forbid Chromium from accepting Google employee patches and forbid Google from using or forking Chromium? What if someone else forks Chromium, will Google also be forbidden from contributing to or using that fork? Is the DOJ going to forbid Google from using any web browsers?
P.S. the Chromium organization is controlled by Google, which is separate from the Chrome brand/product. Is the DOJ also going to force Google to "sell" or divest that?
I don’t have the legal chops to know, but as part of the judgment couldn’t Google be forbidden from developing a browser or influencing the development of other organizations’ browsers so long as it holds products/services that constitute a conflict of interest?
That is the DOJ’s proposal, yes.