28 ms·

Feds may target Google's Chrome browser for breakup

324 points by ssklash 6y ago

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
jimbob45 6y ago
That’s a bit myopic, isn’t it? Because Google essentially owns the development of FF even if they lose or are forced to spin off Chrome.
ashtonkem 6y ago
It’s not clear if chrome is really the heart of Google’s monopoly power, if it is a monopoly. It seems to me like the combination of being the ad network and the (non ad) content distribution & discovery network is the real issue. If I had to pick a thing to make Google give up, it would probably be YouTube and not Chrome.
- cookiengineer 6y ago
  > I had to pick a thing to make Google give up, it would probably be YouTube and not Chrome. Most people don't realize WHY google started to build their own web browser in the first place. It was actually because of google docs. Google wanted to dominate the office software sector, and Microsoft didn't let them on Windows. Therefore Google had to change the platform - to the web. Regarding ad networks: google analytics is used among around 84.1% of websites. If that is not a monopoly, then I don't know what is. The rest is like a couple of pedestrians on the street that don't have a car already. I mean, you cannot justify that this should be allowed. Not a single country on the planet should have access to THAT much data, and much less a single company without any moral obligations because they don't even pay taxes in the countries they are operating in.
  - GoOnThenDoTell 6y ago
    What was the action that prevented a Google-docs-on-windows?
    - wiredearp 6y ago
      Internet Explorer.
      - lstamour 6y ago
        They could have contributed to Firefox... more than just monetarily, I mean. They used their dominant position in search etc to push Chrome out to the masses... They had, in fact, previously pushed Firefox. I remember cheering at this point: https://www.searchenginejournal.com/mozilla-firefox-on-google-homepage/3333/ https://www.searchenginejournal.com/mozilla-firefox-on-googl...
        dfabulich 6y ago
        Firefox's architecture at the time was years behind WebKit. People forget how much faster and better Chrome was when it launched in 2008. Google was able to build Chrome in-house faster and at lower cost than it would have been to rewrite Firefox from scratch under Mozilla governance. They would have had to convince Mozilla to do all of this stuff. https://www.google.com/googlebooks/chrome/index.html https://www.google.com/googlebooks/chrome/index.html
        Yoric 6y ago
        No, Chrome was not faster at the time. It was slower on all speed benchmarks. However, it was more responsive thanks to smart UX design and implementation. The real advantage of WebKit (or KHTML) was that it was way, way, way easier to embed than Gecko. That made experimenting much easier. > They would have had to convince Mozilla to do all of this stuff. https://www.google.com/googlebooks/chrome/index.html https://www.google.com/googlebooks/chrome/index.html People tend to forget that the Chrome team was initially a Firefox team paid by Google to work on "the chrome" (which has always been the name of the back-end of Firefox). Legend has that Google decided to roll out their own browser when they realized that they could not arbitrarily land any feature in Firefox without a review from someone out of Google. More specifically, legend has it that Google prepared a large refactor of Firefox called "Places", reviewed it internally, then attempted to land this as a single patch to Firefox, without any public review. It is my understanding that this is how Google open-source typically works (big code drops), but definitely not how true open-source works (incremental changes). This was blocked by Mozilla until it could be split into smaller changes that could be reviewed and discussed individually. Places eventually landed (and new versions of Places are still part of Firefox to this day) but, says the legend, Google was pissed off and decided that they would be better off with their own, in-house, browser.
  - omegabravo 6y ago
    Since Google's delivery platform has been the web for over a decade, it was paramount to protect their revenue. Consider if the world moved to first party apps (ie, news app, ebay app, amazon app) for _everything_, Google would lose their stranglehold. It's in Google's best interest to make the web be as rich and engaging as mobile apps. Google Chrome increased the expected performance of browsers substantially after it was released. Their ad delivery network utterly eclipses all other revenue last time I checked.
- mantap 6y ago
  Separating YouTube from google would kill it unless it went to another mega tech company like amazon or Microsoft.
  - muzika 6y ago
    How so?
    - mjevans 6y ago
      Imagine that the laws have been written with an extremely narrow 'Switzerland' clause. This law says if something is taken down right away, with zero proof of ownership or collateral, when a specific type of legal request is made then the service provider has immunity to copyright lawsuits. Due to the lack of burden of proof or stakes, this makes automating such legal requests a weaponization of the legal system. An inordinate quantity of resources are also spent to proactively, based on a provided library of possible infringement fingerprints, automatically mark anything as something to block. For many things the automation actually works out, however any time there is Fair Use (which is viewed as a legal defence) or Authorized Use (except problems of the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing) it really doesn't. Combine this with a system where there's also no government provided system of authenticating an individual as someone, and tying them to specific legally owned works or authorization to act by such owners and it should be obvious where the problems and solutions exist. Without a megacorp's army of lawyers, my opinion is, it seems very likely youtube and any other similar entities would either be sued or legislated out of existence.
  - rodgerd 6y ago
    That would be a net win for society, at this point.
- zanny 6y ago
  Breaking out Youtube doesn't fix what gives them their disproportionate power. Youtube is a low profit pretty basic video site by and large that works because of the adsense monopolization. And that largely come down to the answer to the question: if you make a website, how can people find it? Whether its you advertising to them or them searching into you its all Google. And that's the problem because Google does exploit this discover ability monopoly hugely.
- _qulr 6y ago
  > If I had to pick a thing to make Google give up, it would probably be YouTube and not Chrome. You don't have to pick a thing though. For some reason the article title highlights Chrome, but the article makes clear that they're considering many options, only one of which is Chrome. To me it's interesting that Google has the #1 or #2 market share in so many different areas: search, advertising, web browsers, mobile OS, app stores, email, maps. There are so many, I'm surely forgetting some. DNS? Office suites? In almost any area that Google wants to enter, they automatically become one of the biggest players. The only thing they couldn't do was make a social network... EDIT: I forgot online video, duh! Maybe we need a bunch of Baby Googles, like the Baby Bells after the breakup of Ma Bell.
holidayacct 6y ago
They could just spin profitable portions of Google into different companies and invest in them. This is useless.
- awongh 6y ago
  I dunno if this is exactly the point, (not prevent them from profiting on whatever sub businesses get created), but with Standard Oil you could say that splitting it up didn’t do much in the long term. See: https://www.visualcapitalist.com/chart-evolution-standard-oil/ https://www.visualcapitalist.com/chart-evolution-standard-oi...
  - zamadatix 6y ago
    I'm not sure I can come to the same conclusion from that page. 100 years later 4 major branches are still competing with the largest of those being <50% the value of the group as a whole seems like an ENORMOUS difference in competition compared to 100 more years of a Standard Oil monopoly. That's not even counting the dozens of minor company spin offs. Even if they all merged into 1 again in the near future I'd still count that breakup as having massive long lasting impact.
  - pirocks 6y ago
    Going by that chart standard oil looks to have been split into several presumably competing companies. Seems like mission accomplished to me.
sidyapa 6y ago
How would an argument against Chrome this even hold up? Google has decoupled the technology from the distribution. The chromium browser is open source, any body can build on it and many companies have. The platform where chrome is pre-installed doesn't prevent the use of other browsers and underlying technologies unlike Apple. How does consumer preference make one a monopoly when moving away from chrome is not difficult at all as you have no lock-ins
- AaronFriel 6y ago
  Have you ever used another browser and seen a "This site works better in Chrome, download now" on a Google property? They do it even to other Chromium based browsers. They degrade the experience on Firefox, Safari, and Microsoft Edge, persistently nagging people to switch browsers. That persistent nagging has an impact, especially for non-technical users who might only understand that Google, YouTube, Google Maps, or another Google property they trust is telling them that Chrome is better. Well, if Google is saying it, it must be true, right? And that's not even mentioning the ways in which Google has degraded the experience in more tangible ways by turning off features for mobile browsers, fighting app compatibility on Windows Phone to the point of breaking Google Maps - literally just serving an inferior experience and using user agent detection to impair Windows Phone - or blocking the YouTube API on the device. I just opened up google.com on Edge and this popped up in the top right corner: "Switch to Chrome for Windows Built for Windows. Hide annoying ads and protect against malware on the web." I then went to maps.google.com: "Google recommends using Chrome Try a fast, secure browser with updates built in" I then went to news.google.com: "Google recommends using Chrome Try a fast, secure browser with updates built in" That was just a fresh first sign in experience, and as I understand it, these prompts recur - I still see them occasionally on my primary browser, Firefox!
  - onion2k 6y ago
    Have you ever used another browser and seen a "This site works better in Chrome, download now" on a Google property? I find it hard to blame Google or Chrome for that. It's a developer (or business) choice.
jancsika 6y ago
> A major antitrust report that the House Judiciary Committee released this week found that Chrome’s market share allows Google to “effectively set standards for the industry,” an issue of particular relevance as Chrome phases out cookies. HN is full of creative thinkers. Someone should figure a way to get gorhill before the committee so he can explain what ublock origin does and how Google has been trying to destroy it in the name of "efficiency." I'm not sure exactly how to frame blocking all the goddamned ads in a conversation about Google monopolizing all the goddamned ads. But senators and their staffers should know about blockers and be using one on all their machines.
- kjaftaedi 6y ago
  Interesting they want to phase out cookies given how hostile they are to people that browse without them. If you go to youtube without cookies, your video starts playing. Then it stops and you get a popup asking if you want to sign in. You click no, then it rewinds your video.. then you have to click play and re-watch the part you already watched. Every video. Even google as a search engine becomes a less attractive option when you have to agree to their 50 page long privacy policy every time you search for something.
  - Mindless2112 6y ago
    Why not use Cookie AutoDelete? Firefox: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/cookie-autodelete/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/cookie-autode... Chrome: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/cookie-autodelete/fhcgjolkccmbidfldomjliifgaodjagh?hl=en https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/cookie-autodelete/...
    - luckylion 6y ago
      That's what's doing it: you'll effectively get to Youtube without a cookie and be harassed. It's a strange thing. It's so annoying that I've essentially given up Youtube. I don't care enough about the videos that I want to Login and whitelist (and have a profile recorded) the site, and this makes the experience bad. Ergo YT is fading from my life. Can't say that I miss it all that much after a few days, it has been a habit more so than something I actively enjoy.
0xy 6y ago
It's a logical place to start given the X-Client-Data backdoor to DoubleClick and Google properties, which is fundamentally anti-competitive in the ad space by giving DoubleClick access to data that other ad networks are unable to obtain and making it literally impossible for Chrome users to opt out of (and not disclosing the DoubleClick relationship). Then there's the constant stream of new web APIs which are used almost exclusively for tracking purposes by ad networks including Google properties. For an example of that, look at the AudioContext APIs which leak audio latency information (regularly used to fingerprint users) and are available to websites with no opt-in, no notice and are accessible even if you never use audio on the page. Practically all of the modern web APIs spearheaded by Chrome offer yet another tracking data-point that is abused primarily by ad networks including their own.
- cpeterso 6y ago
  Here's more information about the X-Client-Data header Chrome includes in every HTTP request sent to Google domains: https://9to5google.com/2020/02/06/google-chrome-x-client-data-tracking/ https://9to5google.com/2020/02/06/google-chrome-x-client-dat... Your X-Client-Data ID is not reset when you clear your browsing data. You need to launch Chrome with a special command line parameter to reset it.
edoceo 6y ago
Maybe now's the time to ask Google to help me fund building out a fully usable Servo based browser! Let's build a truly user-centeric agent
- Yoric 6y ago
  Why would Google accept?
  - edoceo 6y ago
    Same reason the funded Firefox. Speculation on HN was to avoid a true monopoly and then this targeted breakup.
  - fgonzag 6y ago
    You are commenting on an article on the prime reason as to why they'd accept.
- jmercouris 6y ago
  Good luck with Servo, I hope you have millions of dollars available.
- markawesome 6y ago
  So now you want Google to rescue Mozilla, when Servo was nothing but a toy that never reached fruition because it is in fact inferior to Chromium? Why not just ask Google to save half the projects out there because they are inferior solutions that people aren't using?
asdff 6y ago
This would be wildly beneficial to the consumer. Too bad it won't happen.
- alacombe 6y ago
  > This would be wildly beneficial to the consumer. You'll need some hard proof about that statement, how about you start with a clear metric for "beneficial to consumer". As much as I hate to say this, I really don't want to go back to the pre-GAFA Web, it really badly sucked.
  - asdff 6y ago
    Google, an advertising company, using chrome's market share to try and strong arm ad blocking off the web, for one.
olliej 6y ago
Google has systematically leveraged its monopolies in search, online video, online email, its very high market presence in online documents to promote chrome to all users of all other browsers. It has if the myriad popovers, interstitial, etc didn’t already harm the user experience of those browsers it has long been suggested (though I don’t know about proven) that their changes deliberately harm other browsers. Then you have their unending attempts to add privacy invasive web features that aid their ad businesses (hey, one monopoly helping another, what fun!), and have minimal real value.
narag 6y ago
OK, but who would buy it? Does Chrome make money directly? It does indirectly for Google probably, but what would do anybody else? It could be good, if the buyer started charging for it. Very few people would use it and it would give a chance to Chromium-based browsers... or Firefox, or maybe not.
- viraptor 6y ago
  Google can still pay for being the preferred search provider. Just without influence on the rest of the project / automatic login to Google services / telemetry reporting.
  - alacombe 6y ago
    When you pay that kind of money, it comes with strings attached.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
nindalf 6y ago
Chrome as a separate entity would have a very interesting relationship with google. On one hand, Google would be willing to pay a large amount to Chrome to be the default search engine provider, much more than it currently spends on running the Chrome org. Especially since other search providers like Bing would be bidding for the same spot. On the other hand, Chrome is nothing without promotion on google properties and being installed by default on Android. Chrome would need to pay Google an extraordinary amount to continue to be the default browser on Android. Maybe even the same amount as what Google would pay Chrome to be the default search engine provider. Any agreement between Google and Chrome needs to account for both transactions - default search engine and default on Android. The alternative is that regulators force Chrome to become a separate entity and also force Google to keep Chrome as the default for some period of years, although I don’t know if it’s possible for them to compel such an arrangement. If it isn’t, Google could simply release a new browser based on Chromium, just like Microsoft did and make that the new default on Android. Even if regulators force Android to become separate from Google in addition to Chrome, it still doesn’t work. Now Android has all the negotiating power. It can create its own browser based on Chromium and charge Google an exorbitant fee for being the default search engine. It’s frustrating when you hear people selling “just break them up” as a panacea without taking into account what would happen afterwards.
- YetAnotherNick 6y ago
  The only benefit to chrome running on Android is that Google paying them to use Google and maybe provide tracking. So it doesn't make sense to give back the same amount as other than Google's(or some other company's) money, chrome wouldn't want to be in Android in first place.
- josefx 6y ago
  > If it isn’t, Google could simply release a new browser based on Chromium Wouldn't any legal separation of Google and Chrome require that they split of all required resources as well? I would hope that there are fines for trying to just move the Chrome trademark to an empty shell company and call it a day. Also without Chrome there is no chromium, the only relevant distinction between those two is the trademark.
dessant 6y ago
Google is hindering innovation around Chromium by refusing to merge upstream patches that may threaten their business interests, such as support for browser extensions on Android [1]. The same way no single megacorp can shape the Linux kernel according to their business interests, and to the detriment of competitors, it would be important to free the open source Chromium browser from Google's exclusive grip. [1] https://github.com/brave/brave-browser/issues/4493#issuecomment-705683827 https://github.com/brave/brave-browser/issues/4493#issuecomm...
- zanny 6y ago
  Has someone made a fork with the patches?
  - zo1 6y ago
    It won't matter because the main "play store" Chrome is the one that 99.99% of all Android users will install.
- cromwellian 6y ago
  Linus refuses to merge patches that are bad for performance or security. Even an open source governance model can refuse to merge stuff. Apple doesn’t support extensions on mobile Safari either, maybe there are good reasons around security and battery life.
  - Dahoon 6y ago
    Apple doesn't even support other browsers in iOS. All 3rd party browsers are a skin on Safari. Is that for battery life too or actually an abuse of market position?
- markawesome 6y ago
  You mean like the latest version of Firefox for Android?
tannhaeuser 6y ago
I feel like it might be too late to untangle the mess the web has become without strong market regulation. With Google pushing for QUIC, DoH, ever-increasing scope of browsers and JavaScript, CSS insanity, etc. The time where US antitrust instruments could've been effective might have passed over ten years ago when Google bought DoubleClick and YouTube, and Facebook bought WhatsApp, etc. Today, it seems only a regulated market covering hosting, DNS, mail based on standardized services, without "free" vertical add-ons (privacy-invasion-as-business-model) with mandatory transferability to another provider in a DNS-like model could work. And it would help if gov, for once, fund web standards rather than relying on private parties with W3C-like funding models since, clearly, the domain of creating standards for browsers has been taken over by Google as well in the absence of any other funding. If then, over a period of several years, we could rollback most of the abominations on the web since 2010, and force a choice of browsers on desktop and mobile, and a number of telcos competing for web and mail spaces, plus ad providers, we might be going somewhere. Ain't going to happen, though.
- alacombe 6y ago
  > it might be too late to untangle the mess the web has become without strong market regulation Are you really ready to ask senile boomers who barely understand the tech industry to regulate the tech industry ? It sounds like a recipe for disasters.
adamsea 6y ago
I would love to see a Publicly Funded Browser - i.e., like PBS, or, NPR, but, a browser. To be one option among others. Ideally open sources as well : ) : )
- extropy 6y ago
  And with no government backdoors please!
  - adamsea 6y ago
    Agreed
- adamsea 6y ago
  Would love to hear an explanation from a downvoter so a discussion could be had. Just saying “no I don’t like that” (Ie a commentless downvote, assuming the comment isn’t inappropriate), is, IMHO, kind of like trying to win a debate by going “booo! I don’t like that.” Not very hackery. More like just being a plain old hack.
  - will4274 6y ago
    In this case, down-voting without commenting is ok - your comment didn't contain any rationale so no rationale is required to dismiss it - consider e.g. if you had said "I like Firefox better than Chrome" instead of that you liked government funded enterprises better than privately funded enterprises. Without an explanation why, it's basically just noise. We also live in a society where private relationships (both personal and business) are the default. When arguing for something other than the default, your burden to provide a rationale is greater. So the omission is especially glaring.
    - adamsea 6y ago
      > private relationships (both personal and business) are the default. What on earth is a "private personal relationship" as opposed to a "public personal relationship"? If you meant the whole tired "less government in our lives" thing, well, where do you think the internet came from? What do you think poll numbers show about public support for Medicare?
Ajedi32 6y ago
How would that even work? Chrome doesn't make money on its own. It exists primarily as strategic endeavor intended to give Google some level of direct influence over the platform that the vast majority of its business runs on (the web). Without Google, how would Chrome survive?
- ivalm 6y ago
  Payment for default search engine settings. Similar to Mozilla and will make browser wars less one sided. I, for one, would welcome forced spin-out of chrome/edge/safari.
  - Ajedi32 6y ago
    That's not a sustainable business model. Even Mozilla realizes that, which is why they're constantly trying to diversify into other revenue streams. Come to think of it, a break-up would probably just result in Microsoft "owning" Chrome, since they, through Edge, would quickly become the primary contributor to the project in the absence of available funds to keep the Chrome core team running at its current capacity.
    - ivalm 6y ago
      It makes more sense if edge and safari are spun out as well. I think in general we can’t just break up google and let everyone else alone, it has to be wide scale otherwise the other giants will just gobble up the difference. Regarding Mozilla’s diversification — I am not sure, so far default search payments are the only actual significant revenue source. A lot of expansion they are trying to do is just empire building. Also, if every browser is independent then default search payment becomes more viable since you can no longer guarantee to be default on “your own” platform.
ThinkBeat 6y ago
I think it is essential that Google undergoes a transformation process through an anti trust case. Chrome is the 100% least important problem. Since every other browser now is based the same foundation, it is trivial for Google to point out that there are many alternative browsers. Breaking up search, ads, and other integrated pats of Google should be the highest priority.
wuwuno 6y ago
If they couldn't breakup Microsoft they have no chance of breaking up Google. A waste of time and effort.
Emendo 6y ago
Antitrust oversight of Google, similiar to what was done to Microsoft in the 2000s, will do more than spinning off any properties from Google. Google is able to invest in and made Chrome popular using cash from their advertising business, and Chrome's popularity allows Google to shape the web environment for their advertising business. If Google were to lose Google Chrome, there is nothing that would prevent them from directly or indirectly evolving Chromium. If Google is prevented from making a browser, then they could even move the focus of computing away from the web browser with power from their search business. Therefore, antitrust oversight is required to curb the types of behavior that lead to the antitrust situation in the first place.
- switch11 6y ago
  this is an excellent point Google pushes Chrome EVERYWHERE Now that Chrome is the leading browser they are turning off targeting for everyone else, so that only Google has access to target users The solution is to STOP the monopoly of Search So that a new thing like Google Chrome can't happen i.e. Search can't be used to take over another space
  - henriquez 6y ago
    Why not split search and AdWords while they’re at it? There are too many perverse incentives created by the combination of Google’s ad monopoly with their search monopoly.
    - irrational 6y ago
      Don’t the ads fund the search engine? If search was its own company, where would its funding come from?
      - CydeWeys 6y ago
        Advertising. Advertising companies (one of which would be Google Ads) would pay them for access to add displayed on Search.
lucasnortj 6y ago
Good. It’s long past time to break up big tech
burtonator 6y ago
Here's the thing... anti-trust breakups are a hack to work around one core problem - taxation. The reason corporations like FANG metastasize and become uncontrollable is that they have unfair competitive advantages that can be neutralized by proper taxation. For example, why can Amazon ask cities to slash their taxes if they move their HQs there? What are they going to do otherwise? Not have office? Why doesn't my small ISV get the same tax advantages? Corporations like Amazon effectively don't pay taxes and YOU'RE subsidizing them. We should be outraged. Instead. Just change the law. Make it retroactive (ex post factor legislation only applies to criminal law) and demand that these companies immediately bring in their money into the US and pay taxes. Everything else is just a hack.
- ocdtrekkie 6y ago
  Ex post facto legislation is extremely risky as a chilling effect: If the government can retroactively take away your earnings at any time, why bother developing businesses. I have my doubts the courts would side with you either. We need to tax trillionaire corporations much more aggressively, but retroactive action probably isn't a good way to do it.
- alacombe 6y ago
  1) amazon is pretty much not making any profit 2) it is a mistake to think about tax break as lost revenue. You can tax 100% everything, then wonder why the "official" economy has halted and whine about "lost revenue" of the black market. The problem is not the black market, it's the 100% taxation.
  - magicalist 6y ago
    1) You might be thinking of 2014 or so 2) That doesn't follow. Just because some tax hikes could dissuade businesses from operating and depress revenue doesn't mean they all do.
gerash 6y ago
This government obsession with Google reeks of partisanship. Perhaps because in one of those leaked internal meetings Sergey Brin said he was offended by Trump's victory. I don't mind progressive regulations to increase competition but is the government also putting the same effort in investigating other tech., media, telecom, energy companies ?
- actuator 6y ago
  Yeah, this has been incredibly amusing to witness. It seems odd to single it out when you have far more anticompetitive practices on web browsers itself. You can't have other web browser engines on iOS. Shells to the same engine don't really count. Chrome changed the cross platform browser landscape for the better with a more stable, performant and responsive browser. Only few companies like Google had the incentive to do this.
mancerayder 6y ago
Isn't there also a big conflict of interest between Google "the search engine of the world and indexer of all information" and Google "seller of ads"? When I search for something, some stuff comes in front of other stuff, and sometimes that stuff isn't the best result because of a monetary incentive. If you criticize that, you're given myriad reasons why. All I know is, it's easier to find information on Reddit sometimes than Google, to the point where I add "reddit" to the search keywords, even though I barely use Reddit as a commenter or follower of subs. And everyone hates the SEO junk that now dominates the first few pages. It's an ugly thing and not in the service of people. Here's an idea. Separate Google seller of ads and room in the search results, from Google the "Wikipedia-like" provider of information for humanity.
- JumpCrisscross 6y ago
  > Separate Google seller of ads and room in the search results, from Google the "Wikiepdia-like" provider of information for humanity How is the latter supposed to make money? Why not just separate Google the company selling ads on Google properties from Google the ad exchange for half the Internet.
  - granzymes 6y ago
    > separate Google the company selling ads on Google properties from Google the ad exchange for half the Internet This is where I think the Justice Department and state Attorneys General can win. I don't know why the Justice Department is rushing a case on search dominance, and it definitely doesn't make sense to target Chrome. Go after the ad tech stack.
    - adventured 6y ago
      > I don't know why the Justice Department is rushing a case on search dominance, and it definitely doesn't make sense to target Chrome. Because Google has an abusive search monopoly that harms consumers by providing a shitty experience and there are very few alternatives. First they built their monopoly, through a combination of producing an exceptional product and then gradually building moats around it; then once it was entrenched they started squeezing out competitors in their results (eating the ecosystem) and providing an ever worsening service as they focused on maximizing revenue extraction at the cost of service quality. Google is providing a mediocre service by their own early (and correct) definition. They're aggressively violating numerous things they spelled out as hallmarks of bad search engines in the beginning of the company. Their product sucks by their own words. Google has a browser monopoly and it has been integral to providing a moat for their search monopoly (which is one of the reasons they did it; as with Android). It absolutely makes sense to target that gigantic moat protecting their search monopoly. The search monopoly requires the moats to survive long-term at this point, since their search service is getting worse by the year. Peel off the moats shielding it from competition and the search engine either has to improve considerably, or competition will start eating its market share. IE, Edge, Firefox and Opera are all de facto dead. The only browsers remaining that have a user base of significant size are Chrome and Safari mobile. It's not enough competition to only have two companies (both trillion dollar companies at that) providing the browsers for nearly all Internet users globally.
dehrmann 6y ago
This might be one of the easier tech breakups. Chromium is already open-source and buildable without Google infra, so doing the same for the close source code should be a lot easier than migrating a service outside of Google infra. Firefox has shown there's a viable business model. The relationship with Android and Chromebook would be weird, but it might just look like a licensing deal. There's also precedent in antitrust history. The main thing I'd look at in Chrome is how much Google's used it to give itself an unfair advantage. I'd say "some;" the aggressive sign-in, default search provider, oversized influence in the development if HTTP, CSS, and JS. I'd put the synergies somewhere between Amazon/Whole Foods and Google/Doubleclick. About the "precedent" point: I wonder if the MS antitrust case slowed down the development of the web. The dot com crash and people still being on dialup didn't help, but the web wasn't really a usable platform until 2004, and even then, it became a lot less interesting when smartphones took over.
- zacharycohn 6y ago
  Mozilla/Firefox isn't doing that great: https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2020/08/firefox-maker-mozilla-lays-off-250-workers-says-covid-19-lowered-revenue/ https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2020/08/firef...
  - dehrmann 6y ago
    If you read some of the old HN threads when that happened, there were a few takes on Mozilla. One is that they lost the browser war, so they should cut their losses (like with Thunderbird) and move on. The other was that they underinvested in what their supporters care about (the browser) and were distracted by things like Pocket. Mozilla is also in a different situation than a spun-off Chrome; Chrome would be a market leader with licensing deals.
- granzymes 6y ago
  On the other hand, because Chromium is already open-source is there any need to split Chrome from Google? There are already a bunch of other browsers piggybacking on Chromium. The article is a little vague on the antitrust reasoning behind splitting off Chrome. It bases the argument on how getting rid of third-party cookies could be bad for publishers, but at the same time mentions that Chrome's competitors have already done away with them. From an antitrust perspective I think it makes sense to go after the ad tech stack, but this article feels like it is trying to throw everything against the wall and see what sticks.
doggydogs94 6y ago
Imagine the mess if Google just discontinued Chrome.
- _-___________-_ 6y ago
  I haven't used Chrome in years. Why would it be a mess?
ezoe 6y ago
How do you breakup a private company developing an OSS software? The best I can think of is break up the trademark such as Chrome or Chromebook and some few proprietary parts of Chrome. Chromium, the OSS part of the browser is available as OSS and Google can start developing even after the breakup. Or US government force private company to not to develop a certain software like a web browser?
- paulryanrogers 6y ago
  Same way you stop predatory pricing? Prohibit large players from offering something that undermines healthy competition. If they try to fund another under a different name then journalists and whistleblowers will expose them.
  - bryan_w 6y ago
    If they try to make it so that Google employees can't commit to the chromium repo, they're going to run into 1st amendment issues real quick.
    - paulryanrogers 6y ago
      Google can afford to compensate employees for any restrictions that may come with the job.
  - alacombe 6y ago
    At worst, Google relocates the dev team outside of US jurisdiction, in an entity itself owned by another independent foreign entity owned by Google, but funded exclusively in non-USD currencies, preventing any retaliatory actions from the US government.
    - paulryanrogers 6y ago
      Clever. But every browser with significant market share will be investigated because who funds them is news worthy
exabrial 6y ago
Watching Google ram through whatever specifications they want unimpeded is pretty unnerving. Brave Browser is disabling QUIC because they suspect Google is tracking users at the protocol level. Facebook/Google are also throwing tremendous weight behind ipv6, which allows for casual tracking of individual devices behind firewalls. EDIT: see comment below about QUIC. tl;dr my info was out if date
- easton 6y ago
  Couldn’t the IPv6 problem be fixed by shuffling of IPs often (for example, every time you switch cell towers)? We need IPv6 (since we’re out of addresses), and NAT sucks. The possibility of being tracked isn’t a good enough reason to stop a rollout, IMO. An argument could be made for QUIC, though.
  - exabrial 6y ago
    I think that's exactly what would need to happen: new ip for every request
    - vetrom 6y ago
      Many devices already do this. Most modern IPv6 stacks create temporary 'privacy' addresses regularly.
  - foxyv 6y ago
    I think the problem they mean is a lack of NAT for IPv6 preventing anonymization behind a network device like your home router. This article addresses it a little. https://www.internetsociety.org/blog/2015/01/ipv6-security-myth-3-no-ipv6-nat-means-less-security/ https://www.internetsociety.org/blog/2015/01/ipv6-security-m...
- Spivak 6y ago
  But the two things you mentioned are so... innocent compared to their actual tracking infrastructure. For QUIC if you want a connection to seamlessly move when the device's address changes then you're going to either need to tell the server what your new address is (which wouldn't really work in practice) or have a non-ip identifier. But this really doesn't matter all that much to Google since regardless of how your browser session resumes you're probably still logged and/or are loaded with tracking cookies. And IPv6 is... well IPv6. Nothing is really stopping you from NATing at your firewall if you want -- in fact, I highly recommend it for your private networks so you can use your ISP public-allocation as a pool of public addresses while having the whole IPv6 private address space to yourself.
helen___keller 6y ago
To be honest, I think this country could use antitrust breakup for probably every tech giant (in addition to other industries altogether like telecom!) I think both shareholders and the economy would benefit in the end; these breakups would make explicit the implicit relationship between these multibillion dollar business functions and, in the process, incite a profit motive that would invite competition to make the ecosystem healthier. For example: Google could be split roughly into ads, search, browser, youtube, mobile, and nest/devices. When the relationship of each of these divisions is made external (ads pay search, search pays browser to be the default, browser pays mobile to be the default, etc) then we we can now have healthy competition, like bing bidding to become chrome's default search or facebook ads bidding to serve google search ads. I haven't thought it out as much but I'm certain society could benefit from breaking out a few major business functions of amazon, of apple, of microsoft, of facebook, and so on. In fact, if we were a really forward thinking society we could write a law rather than rely on antitrust action to restrict tech companies operating in the US from combining too many business functions - did it ever make sense to allow content discovery platforms to also be ad distribution platforms? Perhaps we should categorically disallow that. Of course, I'm sure the free market minded of you will immediately point out - why do we want government dictating what private companies can and can't do? I sympathize with this sentiment, but ultimately the point of democracy is that the democratically elected government can make fair rules with the goal of promoting a better society. If we can make a better society by separating content distribution from content monetization, I don't see why we shouldn't. If we can make a better society by separating marketplaces from their participants (e.g. amazon & AmazonBasics) then I don't see why we shouldn't.
lowdose 6y ago
Why isn't the focus on their concealment of Youtube?

324 points by ssklash 6y ago

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

That’s a bit myopic, isn’t it? Because Google essentially owns the development of FF even if they lose or are forced to spin off Chrome.

ashtonkem 6y ago

It’s not clear if chrome is really the heart of Google’s monopoly power, if it is a monopoly. It seems to me like the combination of being the ad network and the (non ad) content distribution & discovery network is the real issue. If I had to pick a thing to make Google give up, it would probably be YouTube and not Chrome.

cookiengineer 6y ago
> I had to pick a thing to make Google give up, it would probably be YouTube and not Chrome. Most people don't realize WHY google started to build their own web browser in the first place. It was actually because of google docs. Google wanted to dominate the office software sector, and Microsoft didn't let them on Windows. Therefore Google had to change the platform - to the web. Regarding ad networks: google analytics is used among around 84.1% of websites. If that is not a monopoly, then I don't know what is. The rest is like a couple of pedestrians on the street that don't have a car already. I mean, you cannot justify that this should be allowed. Not a single country on the planet should have access to THAT much data, and much less a single company without any moral obligations because they don't even pay taxes in the countries they are operating in.
- GoOnThenDoTell 6y ago
  What was the action that prevented a Google-docs-on-windows?
  - wiredearp 6y ago
    Internet Explorer.
    - lstamour 6y ago
      They could have contributed to Firefox... more than just monetarily, I mean. They used their dominant position in search etc to push Chrome out to the masses... They had, in fact, previously pushed Firefox. I remember cheering at this point: https://www.searchenginejournal.com/mozilla-firefox-on-google-homepage/3333/ https://www.searchenginejournal.com/mozilla-firefox-on-googl...
      - dfabulich 6y ago
        Firefox's architecture at the time was years behind WebKit. People forget how much faster and better Chrome was when it launched in 2008. Google was able to build Chrome in-house faster and at lower cost than it would have been to rewrite Firefox from scratch under Mozilla governance. They would have had to convince Mozilla to do all of this stuff. https://www.google.com/googlebooks/chrome/index.html https://www.google.com/googlebooks/chrome/index.html
        Yoric 6y ago
        No, Chrome was not faster at the time. It was slower on all speed benchmarks. However, it was more responsive thanks to smart UX design and implementation. The real advantage of WebKit (or KHTML) was that it was way, way, way easier to embed than Gecko. That made experimenting much easier. > They would have had to convince Mozilla to do all of this stuff. https://www.google.com/googlebooks/chrome/index.html https://www.google.com/googlebooks/chrome/index.html People tend to forget that the Chrome team was initially a Firefox team paid by Google to work on "the chrome" (which has always been the name of the back-end of Firefox). Legend has that Google decided to roll out their own browser when they realized that they could not arbitrarily land any feature in Firefox without a review from someone out of Google. More specifically, legend has it that Google prepared a large refactor of Firefox called "Places", reviewed it internally, then attempted to land this as a single patch to Firefox, without any public review. It is my understanding that this is how Google open-source typically works (big code drops), but definitely not how true open-source works (incremental changes). This was blocked by Mozilla until it could be split into smaller changes that could be reviewed and discussed individually. Places eventually landed (and new versions of Places are still part of Firefox to this day) but, says the legend, Google was pissed off and decided that they would be better off with their own, in-house, browser.
- omegabravo 6y ago
  Since Google's delivery platform has been the web for over a decade, it was paramount to protect their revenue. Consider if the world moved to first party apps (ie, news app, ebay app, amazon app) for _everything_, Google would lose their stranglehold. It's in Google's best interest to make the web be as rich and engaging as mobile apps. Google Chrome increased the expected performance of browsers substantially after it was released. Their ad delivery network utterly eclipses all other revenue last time I checked.
mantap 6y ago
Separating YouTube from google would kill it unless it went to another mega tech company like amazon or Microsoft.
- muzika 6y ago
  How so?
  - mjevans 6y ago
    Imagine that the laws have been written with an extremely narrow 'Switzerland' clause. This law says if something is taken down right away, with zero proof of ownership or collateral, when a specific type of legal request is made then the service provider has immunity to copyright lawsuits. Due to the lack of burden of proof or stakes, this makes automating such legal requests a weaponization of the legal system. An inordinate quantity of resources are also spent to proactively, based on a provided library of possible infringement fingerprints, automatically mark anything as something to block. For many things the automation actually works out, however any time there is Fair Use (which is viewed as a legal defence) or Authorized Use (except problems of the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing) it really doesn't. Combine this with a system where there's also no government provided system of authenticating an individual as someone, and tying them to specific legally owned works or authorization to act by such owners and it should be obvious where the problems and solutions exist. Without a megacorp's army of lawyers, my opinion is, it seems very likely youtube and any other similar entities would either be sued or legislated out of existence.
- rodgerd 6y ago
  That would be a net win for society, at this point.
zanny 6y ago
Breaking out Youtube doesn't fix what gives them their disproportionate power. Youtube is a low profit pretty basic video site by and large that works because of the adsense monopolization. And that largely come down to the answer to the question: if you make a website, how can people find it? Whether its you advertising to them or them searching into you its all Google. And that's the problem because Google does exploit this discover ability monopoly hugely.
_qulr 6y ago
> If I had to pick a thing to make Google give up, it would probably be YouTube and not Chrome. You don't have to pick a thing though. For some reason the article title highlights Chrome, but the article makes clear that they're considering many options, only one of which is Chrome. To me it's interesting that Google has the #1 or #2 market share in so many different areas: search, advertising, web browsers, mobile OS, app stores, email, maps. There are so many, I'm surely forgetting some. DNS? Office suites? In almost any area that Google wants to enter, they automatically become one of the biggest players. The only thing they couldn't do was make a social network... EDIT: I forgot online video, duh! Maybe we need a bunch of Baby Googles, like the Baby Bells after the breakup of Ma Bell.

holidayacct 6y ago

They could just spin profitable portions of Google into different companies and invest in them. This is useless.

awongh 6y ago
I dunno if this is exactly the point, (not prevent them from profiting on whatever sub businesses get created), but with Standard Oil you could say that splitting it up didn’t do much in the long term. See: https://www.visualcapitalist.com/chart-evolution-standard-oil/ https://www.visualcapitalist.com/chart-evolution-standard-oi...
- zamadatix 6y ago
  I'm not sure I can come to the same conclusion from that page. 100 years later 4 major branches are still competing with the largest of those being <50% the value of the group as a whole seems like an ENORMOUS difference in competition compared to 100 more years of a Standard Oil monopoly. That's not even counting the dozens of minor company spin offs. Even if they all merged into 1 again in the near future I'd still count that breakup as having massive long lasting impact.
- pirocks 6y ago
  Going by that chart standard oil looks to have been split into several presumably competing companies. Seems like mission accomplished to me.

sidyapa 6y ago

How would an argument against Chrome this even hold up? Google has decoupled the technology from the distribution. The chromium browser is open source, any body can build on it and many companies have. The platform where chrome is pre-installed doesn't prevent the use of other browsers and underlying technologies unlike Apple. How does consumer preference make one a monopoly when moving away from chrome is not difficult at all as you have no lock-ins

AaronFriel 6y ago
Have you ever used another browser and seen a "This site works better in Chrome, download now" on a Google property? They do it even to other Chromium based browsers. They degrade the experience on Firefox, Safari, and Microsoft Edge, persistently nagging people to switch browsers. That persistent nagging has an impact, especially for non-technical users who might only understand that Google, YouTube, Google Maps, or another Google property they trust is telling them that Chrome is better. Well, if Google is saying it, it must be true, right? And that's not even mentioning the ways in which Google has degraded the experience in more tangible ways by turning off features for mobile browsers, fighting app compatibility on Windows Phone to the point of breaking Google Maps - literally just serving an inferior experience and using user agent detection to impair Windows Phone - or blocking the YouTube API on the device. I just opened up google.com on Edge and this popped up in the top right corner: "Switch to Chrome for Windows Built for Windows. Hide annoying ads and protect against malware on the web." I then went to maps.google.com: "Google recommends using Chrome Try a fast, secure browser with updates built in" I then went to news.google.com: "Google recommends using Chrome Try a fast, secure browser with updates built in" That was just a fresh first sign in experience, and as I understand it, these prompts recur - I still see them occasionally on my primary browser, Firefox!
- onion2k 6y ago
  Have you ever used another browser and seen a "This site works better in Chrome, download now" on a Google property? I find it hard to blame Google or Chrome for that. It's a developer (or business) choice.

jancsika 6y ago

> A major antitrust report that the House Judiciary Committee released this week found that Chrome’s market share allows Google to “effectively set standards for the industry,” an issue of particular relevance as Chrome phases out cookies. HN is full of creative thinkers. Someone should figure a way to get gorhill before the committee so he can explain what ublock origin does and how Google has been trying to destroy it in the name of "efficiency." I'm not sure exactly how to frame blocking all the goddamned ads in a conversation about Google monopolizing all the goddamned ads. But senators and their staffers should know about blockers and be using one on all their machines.

kjaftaedi 6y ago
Interesting they want to phase out cookies given how hostile they are to people that browse without them. If you go to youtube without cookies, your video starts playing. Then it stops and you get a popup asking if you want to sign in. You click no, then it rewinds your video.. then you have to click play and re-watch the part you already watched. Every video. Even google as a search engine becomes a less attractive option when you have to agree to their 50 page long privacy policy every time you search for something.
- Mindless2112 6y ago
  Why not use Cookie AutoDelete? Firefox: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/cookie-autodelete/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/cookie-autode... Chrome: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/cookie-autodelete/fhcgjolkccmbidfldomjliifgaodjagh?hl=en https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/cookie-autodelete/...
  - luckylion 6y ago
    That's what's doing it: you'll effectively get to Youtube without a cookie and be harassed. It's a strange thing. It's so annoying that I've essentially given up Youtube. I don't care enough about the videos that I want to Login and whitelist (and have a profile recorded) the site, and this makes the experience bad. Ergo YT is fading from my life. Can't say that I miss it all that much after a few days, it has been a habit more so than something I actively enjoy.

0xy 6y ago

It's a logical place to start given the X-Client-Data backdoor to DoubleClick and Google properties, which is fundamentally anti-competitive in the ad space by giving DoubleClick access to data that other ad networks are unable to obtain and making it literally impossible for Chrome users to opt out of (and not disclosing the DoubleClick relationship). Then there's the constant stream of new web APIs which are used almost exclusively for tracking purposes by ad networks including Google properties. For an example of that, look at the AudioContext APIs which leak audio latency information (regularly used to fingerprint users) and are available to websites with no opt-in, no notice and are accessible even if you never use audio on the page. Practically all of the modern web APIs spearheaded by Chrome offer yet another tracking data-point that is abused primarily by ad networks including their own.

cpeterso 6y ago
Here's more information about the X-Client-Data header Chrome includes in every HTTP request sent to Google domains: https://9to5google.com/2020/02/06/google-chrome-x-client-data-tracking/ https://9to5google.com/2020/02/06/google-chrome-x-client-dat... Your X-Client-Data ID is not reset when you clear your browsing data. You need to launch Chrome with a special command line parameter to reset it.

edoceo 6y ago

Maybe now's the time to ask Google to help me fund building out a fully usable Servo based browser! Let's build a truly user-centeric agent

Yoric 6y ago
Why would Google accept?
- edoceo 6y ago
  Same reason the funded Firefox. Speculation on HN was to avoid a true monopoly and then this targeted breakup.
- fgonzag 6y ago
  You are commenting on an article on the prime reason as to why they'd accept.
jmercouris 6y ago
Good luck with Servo, I hope you have millions of dollars available.
markawesome 6y ago
So now you want Google to rescue Mozilla, when Servo was nothing but a toy that never reached fruition because it is in fact inferior to Chromium? Why not just ask Google to save half the projects out there because they are inferior solutions that people aren't using?

asdff 6y ago

This would be wildly beneficial to the consumer. Too bad it won't happen.

alacombe 6y ago
> This would be wildly beneficial to the consumer. You'll need some hard proof about that statement, how about you start with a clear metric for "beneficial to consumer". As much as I hate to say this, I really don't want to go back to the pre-GAFA Web, it really badly sucked.
- asdff 6y ago
  Google, an advertising company, using chrome's market share to try and strong arm ad blocking off the web, for one.

olliej 6y ago

Google has systematically leveraged its monopolies in search, online video, online email, its very high market presence in online documents to promote chrome to all users of all other browsers. It has if the myriad popovers, interstitial, etc didn’t already harm the user experience of those browsers it has long been suggested (though I don’t know about proven) that their changes deliberately harm other browsers. Then you have their unending attempts to add privacy invasive web features that aid their ad businesses (hey, one monopoly helping another, what fun!), and have minimal real value.

narag 6y ago

OK, but who would buy it? Does Chrome make money directly? It does indirectly for Google probably, but what would do anybody else? It could be good, if the buyer started charging for it. Very few people would use it and it would give a chance to Chromium-based browsers... or Firefox, or maybe not.

viraptor 6y ago
Google can still pay for being the preferred search provider. Just without influence on the rest of the project / automatic login to Google services / telemetry reporting.
- alacombe 6y ago
  When you pay that kind of money, it comes with strings attached.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

nindalf 6y ago

Chrome as a separate entity would have a very interesting relationship with google. On one hand, Google would be willing to pay a large amount to Chrome to be the default search engine provider, much more than it currently spends on running the Chrome org. Especially since other search providers like Bing would be bidding for the same spot. On the other hand, Chrome is nothing without promotion on google properties and being installed by default on Android. Chrome would need to pay Google an extraordinary amount to continue to be the default browser on Android. Maybe even the same amount as what Google would pay Chrome to be the default search engine provider. Any agreement between Google and Chrome needs to account for both transactions - default search engine and default on Android. The alternative is that regulators force Chrome to become a separate entity and also force Google to keep Chrome as the default for some period of years, although I don’t know if it’s possible for them to compel such an arrangement. If it isn’t, Google could simply release a new browser based on Chromium, just like Microsoft did and make that the new default on Android. Even if regulators force Android to become separate from Google in addition to Chrome, it still doesn’t work. Now Android has all the negotiating power. It can create its own browser based on Chromium and charge Google an exorbitant fee for being the default search engine. It’s frustrating when you hear people selling “just break them up” as a panacea without taking into account what would happen afterwards.

YetAnotherNick 6y ago
The only benefit to chrome running on Android is that Google paying them to use Google and maybe provide tracking. So it doesn't make sense to give back the same amount as other than Google's(or some other company's) money, chrome wouldn't want to be in Android in first place.
josefx 6y ago
> If it isn’t, Google could simply release a new browser based on Chromium Wouldn't any legal separation of Google and Chrome require that they split of all required resources as well? I would hope that there are fines for trying to just move the Chrome trademark to an empty shell company and call it a day. Also without Chrome there is no chromium, the only relevant distinction between those two is the trademark.

dessant 6y ago

Google is hindering innovation around Chromium by refusing to merge upstream patches that may threaten their business interests, such as support for browser extensions on Android [1]. The same way no single megacorp can shape the Linux kernel according to their business interests, and to the detriment of competitors, it would be important to free the open source Chromium browser from Google's exclusive grip. [1] https://github.com/brave/brave-browser/issues/4493#issuecomment-705683827 https://github.com/brave/brave-browser/issues/4493#issuecomm...

zanny 6y ago
Has someone made a fork with the patches?
- zo1 6y ago
  It won't matter because the main "play store" Chrome is the one that 99.99% of all Android users will install.
cromwellian 6y ago
Linus refuses to merge patches that are bad for performance or security. Even an open source governance model can refuse to merge stuff. Apple doesn’t support extensions on mobile Safari either, maybe there are good reasons around security and battery life.
- Dahoon 6y ago
  Apple doesn't even support other browsers in iOS. All 3rd party browsers are a skin on Safari. Is that for battery life too or actually an abuse of market position?
markawesome 6y ago
You mean like the latest version of Firefox for Android?

tannhaeuser 6y ago

I feel like it might be too late to untangle the mess the web has become without strong market regulation. With Google pushing for QUIC, DoH, ever-increasing scope of browsers and JavaScript, CSS insanity, etc. The time where US antitrust instruments could've been effective might have passed over ten years ago when Google bought DoubleClick and YouTube, and Facebook bought WhatsApp, etc. Today, it seems only a regulated market covering hosting, DNS, mail based on standardized services, without "free" vertical add-ons (privacy-invasion-as-business-model) with mandatory transferability to another provider in a DNS-like model could work. And it would help if gov, for once, fund web standards rather than relying on private parties with W3C-like funding models since, clearly, the domain of creating standards for browsers has been taken over by Google as well in the absence of any other funding. If then, over a period of several years, we could rollback most of the abominations on the web since 2010, and force a choice of browsers on desktop and mobile, and a number of telcos competing for web and mail spaces, plus ad providers, we might be going somewhere. Ain't going to happen, though.

alacombe 6y ago
> it might be too late to untangle the mess the web has become without strong market regulation Are you really ready to ask senile boomers who barely understand the tech industry to regulate the tech industry ? It sounds like a recipe for disasters.

adamsea 6y ago

I would love to see a Publicly Funded Browser - i.e., like PBS, or, NPR, but, a browser. To be one option among others. Ideally open sources as well : ) : )

extropy 6y ago
And with no government backdoors please!
- adamsea 6y ago
  Agreed
adamsea 6y ago
Would love to hear an explanation from a downvoter so a discussion could be had. Just saying “no I don’t like that” (Ie a commentless downvote, assuming the comment isn’t inappropriate), is, IMHO, kind of like trying to win a debate by going “booo! I don’t like that.” Not very hackery. More like just being a plain old hack.
- will4274 6y ago
  In this case, down-voting without commenting is ok - your comment didn't contain any rationale so no rationale is required to dismiss it - consider e.g. if you had said "I like Firefox better than Chrome" instead of that you liked government funded enterprises better than privately funded enterprises. Without an explanation why, it's basically just noise. We also live in a society where private relationships (both personal and business) are the default. When arguing for something other than the default, your burden to provide a rationale is greater. So the omission is especially glaring.
  - adamsea 6y ago
    > private relationships (both personal and business) are the default. What on earth is a "private personal relationship" as opposed to a "public personal relationship"? If you meant the whole tired "less government in our lives" thing, well, where do you think the internet came from? What do you think poll numbers show about public support for Medicare?

Ajedi32 6y ago

How would that even work? Chrome doesn't make money on its own. It exists primarily as strategic endeavor intended to give Google some level of direct influence over the platform that the vast majority of its business runs on (the web). Without Google, how would Chrome survive?

ivalm 6y ago
Payment for default search engine settings. Similar to Mozilla and will make browser wars less one sided. I, for one, would welcome forced spin-out of chrome/edge/safari.
- Ajedi32 6y ago
  That's not a sustainable business model. Even Mozilla realizes that, which is why they're constantly trying to diversify into other revenue streams. Come to think of it, a break-up would probably just result in Microsoft "owning" Chrome, since they, through Edge, would quickly become the primary contributor to the project in the absence of available funds to keep the Chrome core team running at its current capacity.
  - ivalm 6y ago
    It makes more sense if edge and safari are spun out as well. I think in general we can’t just break up google and let everyone else alone, it has to be wide scale otherwise the other giants will just gobble up the difference. Regarding Mozilla’s diversification — I am not sure, so far default search payments are the only actual significant revenue source. A lot of expansion they are trying to do is just empire building. Also, if every browser is independent then default search payment becomes more viable since you can no longer guarantee to be default on “your own” platform.

ThinkBeat 6y ago

I think it is essential that Google undergoes a transformation process through an anti trust case. Chrome is the 100% least important problem. Since every other browser now is based the same foundation, it is trivial for Google to point out that there are many alternative browsers. Breaking up search, ads, and other integrated pats of Google should be the highest priority.

wuwuno 6y ago

If they couldn't breakup Microsoft they have no chance of breaking up Google. A waste of time and effort.

Emendo 6y ago

Antitrust oversight of Google, similiar to what was done to Microsoft in the 2000s, will do more than spinning off any properties from Google. Google is able to invest in and made Chrome popular using cash from their advertising business, and Chrome's popularity allows Google to shape the web environment for their advertising business. If Google were to lose Google Chrome, there is nothing that would prevent them from directly or indirectly evolving Chromium. If Google is prevented from making a browser, then they could even move the focus of computing away from the web browser with power from their search business. Therefore, antitrust oversight is required to curb the types of behavior that lead to the antitrust situation in the first place.

switch11 6y ago
this is an excellent point Google pushes Chrome EVERYWHERE Now that Chrome is the leading browser they are turning off targeting for everyone else, so that only Google has access to target users The solution is to STOP the monopoly of Search So that a new thing like Google Chrome can't happen i.e. Search can't be used to take over another space
- henriquez 6y ago
  Why not split search and AdWords while they’re at it? There are too many perverse incentives created by the combination of Google’s ad monopoly with their search monopoly.
  - irrational 6y ago
    Don’t the ads fund the search engine? If search was its own company, where would its funding come from?
    - CydeWeys 6y ago
      Advertising. Advertising companies (one of which would be Google Ads) would pay them for access to add displayed on Search.

lucasnortj 6y ago

Good. It’s long past time to break up big tech

burtonator 6y ago

Here's the thing... anti-trust breakups are a hack to work around one core problem - taxation. The reason corporations like FANG metastasize and become uncontrollable is that they have unfair competitive advantages that can be neutralized by proper taxation. For example, why can Amazon ask cities to slash their taxes if they move their HQs there? What are they going to do otherwise? Not have office? Why doesn't my small ISV get the same tax advantages? Corporations like Amazon effectively don't pay taxes and YOU'RE subsidizing them. We should be outraged. Instead. Just change the law. Make it retroactive (ex post factor legislation only applies to criminal law) and demand that these companies immediately bring in their money into the US and pay taxes. Everything else is just a hack.

ocdtrekkie 6y ago
Ex post facto legislation is extremely risky as a chilling effect: If the government can retroactively take away your earnings at any time, why bother developing businesses. I have my doubts the courts would side with you either. We need to tax trillionaire corporations much more aggressively, but retroactive action probably isn't a good way to do it.
alacombe 6y ago
1) amazon is pretty much not making any profit 2) it is a mistake to think about tax break as lost revenue. You can tax 100% everything, then wonder why the "official" economy has halted and whine about "lost revenue" of the black market. The problem is not the black market, it's the 100% taxation.
- magicalist 6y ago
  1) You might be thinking of 2014 or so 2) That doesn't follow. Just because some tax hikes could dissuade businesses from operating and depress revenue doesn't mean they all do.

gerash 6y ago

This government obsession with Google reeks of partisanship. Perhaps because in one of those leaked internal meetings Sergey Brin said he was offended by Trump's victory. I don't mind progressive regulations to increase competition but is the government also putting the same effort in investigating other tech., media, telecom, energy companies ?

actuator 6y ago
Yeah, this has been incredibly amusing to witness. It seems odd to single it out when you have far more anticompetitive practices on web browsers itself. You can't have other web browser engines on iOS. Shells to the same engine don't really count. Chrome changed the cross platform browser landscape for the better with a more stable, performant and responsive browser. Only few companies like Google had the incentive to do this.

mancerayder 6y ago

Isn't there also a big conflict of interest between Google "the search engine of the world and indexer of all information" and Google "seller of ads"? When I search for something, some stuff comes in front of other stuff, and sometimes that stuff isn't the best result because of a monetary incentive. If you criticize that, you're given myriad reasons why. All I know is, it's easier to find information on Reddit sometimes than Google, to the point where I add "reddit" to the search keywords, even though I barely use Reddit as a commenter or follower of subs. And everyone hates the SEO junk that now dominates the first few pages. It's an ugly thing and not in the service of people. Here's an idea. Separate Google seller of ads and room in the search results, from Google the "Wikipedia-like" provider of information for humanity.

JumpCrisscross 6y ago
> Separate Google seller of ads and room in the search results, from Google the "Wikiepdia-like" provider of information for humanity How is the latter supposed to make money? Why not just separate Google the company selling ads on Google properties from Google the ad exchange for half the Internet.
- granzymes 6y ago
  > separate Google the company selling ads on Google properties from Google the ad exchange for half the Internet This is where I think the Justice Department and state Attorneys General can win. I don't know why the Justice Department is rushing a case on search dominance, and it definitely doesn't make sense to target Chrome. Go after the ad tech stack.
  - adventured 6y ago
    > I don't know why the Justice Department is rushing a case on search dominance, and it definitely doesn't make sense to target Chrome. Because Google has an abusive search monopoly that harms consumers by providing a shitty experience and there are very few alternatives. First they built their monopoly, through a combination of producing an exceptional product and then gradually building moats around it; then once it was entrenched they started squeezing out competitors in their results (eating the ecosystem) and providing an ever worsening service as they focused on maximizing revenue extraction at the cost of service quality. Google is providing a mediocre service by their own early (and correct) definition. They're aggressively violating numerous things they spelled out as hallmarks of bad search engines in the beginning of the company. Their product sucks by their own words. Google has a browser monopoly and it has been integral to providing a moat for their search monopoly (which is one of the reasons they did it; as with Android). It absolutely makes sense to target that gigantic moat protecting their search monopoly. The search monopoly requires the moats to survive long-term at this point, since their search service is getting worse by the year. Peel off the moats shielding it from competition and the search engine either has to improve considerably, or competition will start eating its market share. IE, Edge, Firefox and Opera are all de facto dead. The only browsers remaining that have a user base of significant size are Chrome and Safari mobile. It's not enough competition to only have two companies (both trillion dollar companies at that) providing the browsers for nearly all Internet users globally.

dehrmann 6y ago

This might be one of the easier tech breakups. Chromium is already open-source and buildable without Google infra, so doing the same for the close source code should be a lot easier than migrating a service outside of Google infra. Firefox has shown there's a viable business model. The relationship with Android and Chromebook would be weird, but it might just look like a licensing deal. There's also precedent in antitrust history. The main thing I'd look at in Chrome is how much Google's used it to give itself an unfair advantage. I'd say "some;" the aggressive sign-in, default search provider, oversized influence in the development if HTTP, CSS, and JS. I'd put the synergies somewhere between Amazon/Whole Foods and Google/Doubleclick. About the "precedent" point: I wonder if the MS antitrust case slowed down the development of the web. The dot com crash and people still being on dialup didn't help, but the web wasn't really a usable platform until 2004, and even then, it became a lot less interesting when smartphones took over.

zacharycohn 6y ago
Mozilla/Firefox isn't doing that great: https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2020/08/firefox-maker-mozilla-lays-off-250-workers-says-covid-19-lowered-revenue/ https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2020/08/firef...
- dehrmann 6y ago
  If you read some of the old HN threads when that happened, there were a few takes on Mozilla. One is that they lost the browser war, so they should cut their losses (like with Thunderbird) and move on. The other was that they underinvested in what their supporters care about (the browser) and were distracted by things like Pocket. Mozilla is also in a different situation than a spun-off Chrome; Chrome would be a market leader with licensing deals.
granzymes 6y ago
On the other hand, because Chromium is already open-source is there any need to split Chrome from Google? There are already a bunch of other browsers piggybacking on Chromium. The article is a little vague on the antitrust reasoning behind splitting off Chrome. It bases the argument on how getting rid of third-party cookies could be bad for publishers, but at the same time mentions that Chrome's competitors have already done away with them. From an antitrust perspective I think it makes sense to go after the ad tech stack, but this article feels like it is trying to throw everything against the wall and see what sticks.

doggydogs94 6y ago

Imagine the mess if Google just discontinued Chrome.

_-___________-_ 6y ago
I haven't used Chrome in years. Why would it be a mess?

ezoe 6y ago

How do you breakup a private company developing an OSS software? The best I can think of is break up the trademark such as Chrome or Chromebook and some few proprietary parts of Chrome. Chromium, the OSS part of the browser is available as OSS and Google can start developing even after the breakup. Or US government force private company to not to develop a certain software like a web browser?

paulryanrogers 6y ago
Same way you stop predatory pricing? Prohibit large players from offering something that undermines healthy competition. If they try to fund another under a different name then journalists and whistleblowers will expose them.
- bryan_w 6y ago
  If they try to make it so that Google employees can't commit to the chromium repo, they're going to run into 1st amendment issues real quick.
  - paulryanrogers 6y ago
    Google can afford to compensate employees for any restrictions that may come with the job.
- alacombe 6y ago
  At worst, Google relocates the dev team outside of US jurisdiction, in an entity itself owned by another independent foreign entity owned by Google, but funded exclusively in non-USD currencies, preventing any retaliatory actions from the US government.
  - paulryanrogers 6y ago
    Clever. But every browser with significant market share will be investigated because who funds them is news worthy

exabrial 6y ago

Watching Google ram through whatever specifications they want unimpeded is pretty unnerving. Brave Browser is disabling QUIC because they suspect Google is tracking users at the protocol level. Facebook/Google are also throwing tremendous weight behind ipv6, which allows for casual tracking of individual devices behind firewalls. EDIT: see comment below about QUIC. tl;dr my info was out if date

easton 6y ago
Couldn’t the IPv6 problem be fixed by shuffling of IPs often (for example, every time you switch cell towers)? We need IPv6 (since we’re out of addresses), and NAT sucks. The possibility of being tracked isn’t a good enough reason to stop a rollout, IMO. An argument could be made for QUIC, though.
- exabrial 6y ago
  I think that's exactly what would need to happen: new ip for every request
  - vetrom 6y ago
    Many devices already do this. Most modern IPv6 stacks create temporary 'privacy' addresses regularly.
- foxyv 6y ago
  I think the problem they mean is a lack of NAT for IPv6 preventing anonymization behind a network device like your home router. This article addresses it a little. https://www.internetsociety.org/blog/2015/01/ipv6-security-myth-3-no-ipv6-nat-means-less-security/ https://www.internetsociety.org/blog/2015/01/ipv6-security-m...
Spivak 6y ago
But the two things you mentioned are so... innocent compared to their actual tracking infrastructure. For QUIC if you want a connection to seamlessly move when the device's address changes then you're going to either need to tell the server what your new address is (which wouldn't really work in practice) or have a non-ip identifier. But this really doesn't matter all that much to Google since regardless of how your browser session resumes you're probably still logged and/or are loaded with tracking cookies. And IPv6 is... well IPv6. Nothing is really stopping you from NATing at your firewall if you want -- in fact, I highly recommend it for your private networks so you can use your ISP public-allocation as a pool of public addresses while having the whole IPv6 private address space to yourself.

helen___keller 6y ago

To be honest, I think this country could use antitrust breakup for probably every tech giant (in addition to other industries altogether like telecom!) I think both shareholders and the economy would benefit in the end; these breakups would make explicit the implicit relationship between these multibillion dollar business functions and, in the process, incite a profit motive that would invite competition to make the ecosystem healthier. For example: Google could be split roughly into ads, search, browser, youtube, mobile, and nest/devices. When the relationship of each of these divisions is made external (ads pay search, search pays browser to be the default, browser pays mobile to be the default, etc) then we we can now have healthy competition, like bing bidding to become chrome's default search or facebook ads bidding to serve google search ads. I haven't thought it out as much but I'm certain society could benefit from breaking out a few major business functions of amazon, of apple, of microsoft, of facebook, and so on. In fact, if we were a really forward thinking society we could write a law rather than rely on antitrust action to restrict tech companies operating in the US from combining too many business functions - did it ever make sense to allow content discovery platforms to also be ad distribution platforms? Perhaps we should categorically disallow that. Of course, I'm sure the free market minded of you will immediately point out - why do we want government dictating what private companies can and can't do? I sympathize with this sentiment, but ultimately the point of democracy is that the democratically elected government can make fair rules with the goal of promoting a better society. If we can make a better society by separating content distribution from content monetization, I don't see why we shouldn't. If we can make a better society by separating marketplaces from their participants (e.g. amazon & AmazonBasics) then I don't see why we shouldn't.

lowdose 6y ago

Why isn't the focus on their concealment of Youtube?