Comment by user3939382
1 year ago
If you look carefully at the Chromium project, it’s made up of teams that specialize in different components. The majority of the members of those teams are in turn Google employees. Presumably they have the best qualifications to be on those teams. I don’t see how a DOJ decision against Google would change any of that. Ban Google employees from participating in the project? And then who would replace them?
But we are not discussing Chromium. Google’s browser is Chrome, and that product has search exclusivity deals that have been deemed monopolistic.
Google could divest the Chrome product and keep contributing to Chromium, but the value proposition is really unclear when that OSS investment doesn’t buy you billions of dollars of browser lock-in value.
Thus why the Linux Foundation is gunning for Chromium. (When do we rename the Linux Foundation? Only 3.2% of their revenue goes to Linux development these days...)
https://www.linuxfoundation.org/press/linux-foundation-annou...
https://www.linuxfoundation.org/supporters-of-chromium-based...
> Several leading organizations have already pledged their support for the initiative, including Google, Meta, Microsoft, and Opera.
Doesn't read like a takeover attempt to me...
Off topic, but why is the Linux Foundation website asking me to allow cookies for "Targeted Advertising"?
My question is, even if they do sell off Chrome, wouldn't Google just create another "Chrome" using the Chromium and use its monopolistic power to push it on everyone? What am I missing here?
It doesn't sound like this would solve the issue..
Are you assuming the people crafting remedies haven't thought of this? You should tell them immediately!!! LOL. of course they've thought through that and will have a "you can't just rebuild it" clause in the remedy. This isn't hard unless you're trying to make it hard and I'm not sure why anyone would want to do that except to side with Big Tech over consumers trying to muddy the waters and convince others it's all just too darned hard to do anything about so we should let our betters in Big Tech continue dictating our lives.
Presumably part of the court order is that they can't just do the same thing again without suffering the same (or worse) consequences.
Forcing Chrome and other Chromium-based browsers to move to Manifest v3, i.e. deleting the ability from the browser to have good adblockers, is incredibly valuable to Google.
I was just forced to switch from uBO to uBO lite because of this. I can't see any difference in behavior, and now the extension doesn't need unlimited permissions.
1 reply →
Same way it worked in the past with monopolies like Ma Bell?
Those teams can keep working on Chrome, they'll just have to fall under some new kind of separate Chrome Inc. structure instead of under Google Inc., and Google will have to sell most of its shares of Chrome Inc. to third parties.
Splitting off Chrome really isn't the problem. Making the new Chrome Inc. profitable without accepting bribes from big tech, on the other hand...
Yes, that's sort of the problem. An independent Chrome probably wouldn't be profitable. This is essentially just forcing Google to fire the Chrome developers.
I love how people in this thread just unilaterally declare and accept as fact that you can't possibly turn the monopolistic browser and browser engine powering millions of devices and with billions of users into a profitable business. Aim low I guess?
6 replies →
Microsoft has a customized version of Chrome. Don't they already pay for it?
6 replies →
>This is essentially just forcing Google to fire the Chrome developers.
To be fair, Google could reassign them to something else. Firing everybody will be Google's decision that wasn't forced on them.
4 replies →
Think about difference between Brave and Chrome. Both Chromium browsers but Brave is much less intrusive and exploitative of user data. More Brave and less Chrome would allow average user greater privacy and less reliance on large corporations perhaps
Not sure this is the company we want to put our trust in: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brave_(web_browser)#Controvers...
Brave makes a profit because they don't pay for developing the browser.
I really doubt Brave is profitable. They have taken a lot of VC money.
They also do really shady things with affiliate links and their scheme to hijack ad revenue from websites.
> Presumably they have the best qualifications to be on those teams.
What exactly are "best qualifications?" More simply are you assuming that myself and Google share a definition of "best qualified?" I genuinely don't believe that we do.
> And then who would replace them?
People working for a different company. Is your case that without Google no one would make web browsers?
All the people who work on Chrome would go with it.
I am not sure why you are being downvoted. This just means existing OS monopolies of Apple and Microsoft are given entire control of their kingdoms with no web landscape to challenge them a teeny tiny bit.
Firefox seems to do fine without Google employees.
Are they?
“When you upload or input information through Firefox, you hereby grant us a nonexclusive, royalty-free, worldwide license to use that information to help you navigate, experience, and interact with online content as you indicate with your use of Firefox.”
How long is Firefox going to be held to a standard that none of the other vendors are realistically held to?
They change their ToS in an unfavorable way and yes I think it’s criticism they need to hear.
However, has Chrome, Brave (I don’t look favorably on their cryptocurrency initiatives) Edge , Safari etc. been held to the same, in practice? Why isn’t Chrome barraged with negative sentiment the same way? It has far worse ToS policies (which doesn’t make Firefox “right” or “just”)
Because if that is upsetting then using Chrome should be outright enraging, yet people hardly mention it’s consistent anti user behavior as often as people jump on Mozilla and a Firefox for anything they do that is seen as unfavorable
2 replies →
I believe that has been changed to something more like:
“You give Mozilla the rights necessary to operate Firefox. This includes processing your data as we describe in the Firefox Privacy Notice. It also includes a nonexclusive, royalty-free, worldwide license for the purpose of doing as you request with the content you input in Firefox. This does not give Mozilla any ownership in that content.”
What's the issue here?
Firefox has been in decline for many years, sadly.
Indeed, it has not had even one moment of market share growth since about 8 months after Google Chrome was first released.