8 ms·

Google makes the browser because they are profoundly vulnerable otherwise to platform owners demanding payment for access to their platforms. Android exists bec

Google makes the browser because they are profoundly vulnerable otherwise to platform owners demanding payment for access to their platforms. Android exists because Google wanted protection against a Microsoft mobile monopoly that seemed inevitable (of course it turned out to be the Apple mobile monopoly that was the real threat; notice that Google has to pay Apple billions annually for access to their platforms). Internet explorer was a similar threat. Chrome was the response to that threat. If Google can't influence this, then there will be other platform owners who will the ones with all the margins. A world where Microsoft and Apple just squeeze all the profit out of the internet is not obviously (at least to me) better than one where they can't.

wyattpeak 6y ago
I agree, but feel like this is only a problem because antitrust rulings are blue-moon events. In a healthy system I would expect Google to be restricted from dominating the browser landscape, and in turn Apple from restricting access to their platform. Market power is a difficult thing to wrangle. There isn't going to be any policy which can't eventually be worked around by some party. The policy has to evolve with the landscape.
- cageface 6y ago
  That's the thing that makes me uneasy about this. I'm ok with some regulation of Google and perhaps even some kind of breakup. What I don't want to see is regulators picking winners and losers. I'm concerned about Google's control over the web but at least their interested are aligned with the survival of the web and not completely locked down & proprietary platforms like iOS.
  - mcny 6y ago
    > breakup If you look at the breakup of Ma Bell, I think you’ll doubt the government’s ability to break up a company properly.
    - cageface 6y ago
      I doubt their ability to regulate properly too. But it does seem like the big tech companies have failed to self-regulate.
      - andromeduck 6y ago
        How can they self regulate when government keeps screwing with the incentives? Did busting kingpins solve the drug problem?
        mcny 6y ago
        Worse, the corporations have to meddle with their own regulation because they know other corporations will. My understanding is AT&T basically wrote its own consent decree. Who in their right mind decided that the solution to a national monopoly is a handful of regional monopolies... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regional_Bell_Operating_Company https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regional_Bell_Operating_Compan... > In the early 1970s, American antitrust regulators became suspicious that Bell was abusing its monopoly power, and in 1974 the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice brought a lawsuit against Bell claiming violations of the Sherman Act. In 1982, feeling that it could not win, Bell agreed to a Justice Department-mandated consent decree that settled the lawsuit and ordered it to break itself up into seven "Regional Bell Operating Companies" (known as "The Baby Bells"), which it did in 1984, ending the original company's existence. These "Baby Bells" are now independent companies, and several of them are very large corporations in their own right, such as AT&T, Verizon Communications, and CenturyLink. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_System https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_System
  - wyattpeak 6y ago
    > What I don't want to see is regulators picking winners and losers I'm not thrilled by the idea either, but I'd prefer it to another round of IE6. When it comes to dealing with monopolies I think you're solidly in the realm of looking for the least bad choice.
    - cageface 6y ago
      I don't think IE6 really compares to Chrome. IE6 froze the web in time and made impossible for standards to evolve. Chrome may be in danger of becoming synonymous with the web but it's hardly standing still. In fact the most common complaint is that it's adding features too quickly and trying to do too much.
      - wyattpeak 6y ago
        IE6 was the most innovative browser of all until it won the race. I don't think we're at the stage yet where we can say if Chrome can be compared or not.
      - nwienert 6y ago
        The features they are adding are often unnecessary and designed to help them further lock down the web, prevent ad blocking, etc. I’m surprised no ones even noticed that Portals are basically AMP Supercharged to where you’d never leave Google. Truly dystopian future they’re trying to slowly cement.
        cageface 6y ago
        A lot of people noticed and I thought the gave a reasonable counter argument as to why this was not the case.
        saithound 6y ago
        > The features they are adding are often unnecessary and designed to help them further lock down the web Reminds me of the Browser Wars of yesteryear, when Microsoft and Netscape invented their own unnecessary, easily abused, proprietary HTML tags, such as blink and marquee. [1] https://thehistoryoftheweb.com/blink-marquis-tag/ https://thehistoryoftheweb.com/blink-marquis-tag/
  - leptons 6y ago
    Google AMP is bad. Google Pagespeed Insights is bad and misleading. Google has its own agenda for the web, and it doesn't really align with anything but the survival of Google.
    - cageface 6y ago
      I think that goes too far. Google does have an agenda for the web but at least it includes the web. Apple would like nothing better for the entire internet to be locked down and controlled inside its app store. We're better off with Android and Chrome than we would be without them.
  - arrosenberg 6y ago
    If regulators don't get involved, they are still picking winners and losers.
    - cageface 6y ago
      Can't follow the logic there. If I don't jump in the middle of a horse race am I still picking a winner?
      - arrosenberg 6y ago
        That's the wrong analogy. Regulators aren't random spectators sitting in the stands, they are the referees. The better analogy would be if you were assigned to monitor the race for violations, and you discovered the winning horse had broken a rule. As the referee, your decision whether or not to enforce the rules has a direct impact on the results. Just so, if regulators choose not to act, they are picking the incumbents as the winners, whether or not that is ideal, best, legal or good.
        cageface 6y ago
        In this race every horse is breaking every rule they can get away with and exploiting every advantage. If you suddenly want to jump in and start enforcing rules, which I think probably should happen, you need to be very careful that you don't wind up making things worse by legitimizing the abuses of only one horse. If you can't do that then you're better off just letting them fight it out.
        arrosenberg 6y ago
        We've already arrived at that station. The rules are already enforced such as to legitimize the abuses of a small number of horses in each vertical. If we let them fight it out, they will only further entrench and consolidate, which is the worst thing that can happen. We don't need to act like battered housewives afraid that it could always get worse - the laws are already on the books to fix the issue, we just need to insist on their vigorous enforcement.
  - marcthe12 6y ago
    I hope some pseudo open source components come under non profit with reduced Google control. So other big player have bigger say in stuff Chromium and Android.
- srtjstjsj 6y ago
  If Google, Apple, and MS were prevented from developing web browsers, who would? The mass public wouldn't bother buying a copy of Netscape. We'd likely have skipped over the web entirely and gone right to native app stores for everything, like the bad old days on cell phones.
  - wyattpeak 6y ago
    I don't recall suggesting they be prevented from developing browsers. I said they should be prevented from dominating the market.
  - KronisLV 6y ago
    What about the Mozilla Foundation? Or are they also included in this hypothetical?
    - CydeWeys 6y ago
      Most of their revenue comes from Google. In this hypothetical example where the largest tech companies are no longer involved in Web browsers, where would Mozilla's funding come from?
      - Zenbit_UX 6y ago
        Funding would still come from Google to buy there way into the default search engines list. Just because Google loses Chrome in this hypothetical doesn't mean they don't care about search and ads anymore.
        CydeWeys 6y ago
        When you're providing the majority of someone's revenue you kind of have some say in how they do things though ..
srtjstjsj 6y ago
Google pays Apple to advertise their Search Engine in Safari. Google, like every website, gets access to Apple platforms for free via Safari, with no obligation to pay 30% up front nor 30% of any other revenues, be they direct purchases or indirect via ads. Google is quite fortunate that Apple doesn't block web ads or intercept web payments and charge a platform fee for that.
deepstack 6y ago
what really need to happen with ani-trust is to alter the system politically, monetarily and militarily to prevent oligopoly. oligopoly is pretty much monopoly with theatre piece.
madeofpalk 6y ago
> notice that Google has to pay Apple billions annually for access to their platforms) uhhhh, doesn't Google pay Apple billions to be the default search engine on iOS? That's not "forced to pay for access", but "choses to make a business deal that costs them billions to make them billions more"
- mjburgess 6y ago
  Well, consider that if Apple were an open platform, this default would be set by most "for free". "Forced" here doesn't mean coerced, more in the sense of "forced error"; ie., as a move within a game than an opponent forces you to make.
  - madeofpalk 6y ago
    What? I get that iOS is closed down, but I'm a bit confused how being "open" would resolve the fact that a default search engine for Safari is set? You can still change your search engine on iOS (to one of few the browser ships with, Google, Yahoo, Bing and Duck Duck Go in UK) Firefox is completely open/open source (isnt it?), yet Google pays Firefox for being the default search engine. Open vs Closed has nothing to do with this. Google wants to be the default in browsers, and it choses to pay for the luxury.
    - mjburgess 6y ago
      I mean open in a more general sense, not of its source code. If the platform invited the user to set a default, or was "biased towards their user's preferences", as most would select google, google would be the "natural default". There is a sort of mild rent-seeking / racketeering in asking google to pay to configure a service Apple provides, to a default Apple's users would chose for themselves.
  - wil421 6y ago
    How does Apple being a closed platform prevent me from choosing my search engine on iOS?
legulere 6y ago
At least it would put Mozilla into a better position.

wyattpeak 6y ago

I agree, but feel like this is only a problem because antitrust rulings are blue-moon events. In a healthy system I would expect Google to be restricted from dominating the browser landscape, and in turn Apple from restricting access to their platform. Market power is a difficult thing to wrangle. There isn't going to be any policy which can't eventually be worked around by some party. The policy has to evolve with the landscape.

cageface 6y ago
That's the thing that makes me uneasy about this. I'm ok with some regulation of Google and perhaps even some kind of breakup. What I don't want to see is regulators picking winners and losers. I'm concerned about Google's control over the web but at least their interested are aligned with the survival of the web and not completely locked down & proprietary platforms like iOS.
- mcny 6y ago
  > breakup If you look at the breakup of Ma Bell, I think you’ll doubt the government’s ability to break up a company properly.
  - cageface 6y ago
    I doubt their ability to regulate properly too. But it does seem like the big tech companies have failed to self-regulate.
    - andromeduck 6y ago
      How can they self regulate when government keeps screwing with the incentives? Did busting kingpins solve the drug problem?
      - mcny 6y ago
        Worse, the corporations have to meddle with their own regulation because they know other corporations will. My understanding is AT&T basically wrote its own consent decree. Who in their right mind decided that the solution to a national monopoly is a handful of regional monopolies... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regional_Bell_Operating_Company https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regional_Bell_Operating_Compan... > In the early 1970s, American antitrust regulators became suspicious that Bell was abusing its monopoly power, and in 1974 the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice brought a lawsuit against Bell claiming violations of the Sherman Act. In 1982, feeling that it could not win, Bell agreed to a Justice Department-mandated consent decree that settled the lawsuit and ordered it to break itself up into seven "Regional Bell Operating Companies" (known as "The Baby Bells"), which it did in 1984, ending the original company's existence. These "Baby Bells" are now independent companies, and several of them are very large corporations in their own right, such as AT&T, Verizon Communications, and CenturyLink. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_System https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_System
- wyattpeak 6y ago
  > What I don't want to see is regulators picking winners and losers I'm not thrilled by the idea either, but I'd prefer it to another round of IE6. When it comes to dealing with monopolies I think you're solidly in the realm of looking for the least bad choice.
  - cageface 6y ago
    I don't think IE6 really compares to Chrome. IE6 froze the web in time and made impossible for standards to evolve. Chrome may be in danger of becoming synonymous with the web but it's hardly standing still. In fact the most common complaint is that it's adding features too quickly and trying to do too much.
    - wyattpeak 6y ago
      IE6 was the most innovative browser of all until it won the race. I don't think we're at the stage yet where we can say if Chrome can be compared or not.
    - nwienert 6y ago
      The features they are adding are often unnecessary and designed to help them further lock down the web, prevent ad blocking, etc. I’m surprised no ones even noticed that Portals are basically AMP Supercharged to where you’d never leave Google. Truly dystopian future they’re trying to slowly cement.
      - cageface 6y ago
        A lot of people noticed and I thought the gave a reasonable counter argument as to why this was not the case.
      - saithound 6y ago
        > The features they are adding are often unnecessary and designed to help them further lock down the web Reminds me of the Browser Wars of yesteryear, when Microsoft and Netscape invented their own unnecessary, easily abused, proprietary HTML tags, such as blink and marquee. [1] https://thehistoryoftheweb.com/blink-marquis-tag/ https://thehistoryoftheweb.com/blink-marquis-tag/
- leptons 6y ago
  Google AMP is bad. Google Pagespeed Insights is bad and misleading. Google has its own agenda for the web, and it doesn't really align with anything but the survival of Google.
  - cageface 6y ago
    I think that goes too far. Google does have an agenda for the web but at least it includes the web. Apple would like nothing better for the entire internet to be locked down and controlled inside its app store. We're better off with Android and Chrome than we would be without them.
- arrosenberg 6y ago
  If regulators don't get involved, they are still picking winners and losers.
  - cageface 6y ago
    Can't follow the logic there. If I don't jump in the middle of a horse race am I still picking a winner?
    - arrosenberg 6y ago
      That's the wrong analogy. Regulators aren't random spectators sitting in the stands, they are the referees. The better analogy would be if you were assigned to monitor the race for violations, and you discovered the winning horse had broken a rule. As the referee, your decision whether or not to enforce the rules has a direct impact on the results. Just so, if regulators choose not to act, they are picking the incumbents as the winners, whether or not that is ideal, best, legal or good.
      - cageface 6y ago
        In this race every horse is breaking every rule they can get away with and exploiting every advantage. If you suddenly want to jump in and start enforcing rules, which I think probably should happen, you need to be very careful that you don't wind up making things worse by legitimizing the abuses of only one horse. If you can't do that then you're better off just letting them fight it out.
        arrosenberg 6y ago
        We've already arrived at that station. The rules are already enforced such as to legitimize the abuses of a small number of horses in each vertical. If we let them fight it out, they will only further entrench and consolidate, which is the worst thing that can happen. We don't need to act like battered housewives afraid that it could always get worse - the laws are already on the books to fix the issue, we just need to insist on their vigorous enforcement.
- marcthe12 6y ago
  I hope some pseudo open source components come under non profit with reduced Google control. So other big player have bigger say in stuff Chromium and Android.
srtjstjsj 6y ago
If Google, Apple, and MS were prevented from developing web browsers, who would? The mass public wouldn't bother buying a copy of Netscape. We'd likely have skipped over the web entirely and gone right to native app stores for everything, like the bad old days on cell phones.
- wyattpeak 6y ago
  I don't recall suggesting they be prevented from developing browsers. I said they should be prevented from dominating the market.
- KronisLV 6y ago
  What about the Mozilla Foundation? Or are they also included in this hypothetical?
  - CydeWeys 6y ago
    Most of their revenue comes from Google. In this hypothetical example where the largest tech companies are no longer involved in Web browsers, where would Mozilla's funding come from?
    - Zenbit_UX 6y ago
      Funding would still come from Google to buy there way into the default search engines list. Just because Google loses Chrome in this hypothetical doesn't mean they don't care about search and ads anymore.
      - CydeWeys 6y ago
        When you're providing the majority of someone's revenue you kind of have some say in how they do things though ..

srtjstjsj 6y ago

Google pays Apple to advertise their Search Engine in Safari. Google, like every website, gets access to Apple platforms for free via Safari, with no obligation to pay 30% up front nor 30% of any other revenues, be they direct purchases or indirect via ads. Google is quite fortunate that Apple doesn't block web ads or intercept web payments and charge a platform fee for that.

deepstack 6y ago

what really need to happen with ani-trust is to alter the system politically, monetarily and militarily to prevent oligopoly. oligopoly is pretty much monopoly with theatre piece.

madeofpalk 6y ago

> notice that Google has to pay Apple billions annually for access to their platforms) uhhhh, doesn't Google pay Apple billions to be the default search engine on iOS? That's not "forced to pay for access", but "choses to make a business deal that costs them billions to make them billions more"

mjburgess 6y ago
Well, consider that if Apple were an open platform, this default would be set by most "for free". "Forced" here doesn't mean coerced, more in the sense of "forced error"; ie., as a move within a game than an opponent forces you to make.
- madeofpalk 6y ago
  What? I get that iOS is closed down, but I'm a bit confused how being "open" would resolve the fact that a default search engine for Safari is set? You can still change your search engine on iOS (to one of few the browser ships with, Google, Yahoo, Bing and Duck Duck Go in UK) Firefox is completely open/open source (isnt it?), yet Google pays Firefox for being the default search engine. Open vs Closed has nothing to do with this. Google wants to be the default in browsers, and it choses to pay for the luxury.
  - mjburgess 6y ago
    I mean open in a more general sense, not of its source code. If the platform invited the user to set a default, or was "biased towards their user's preferences", as most would select google, google would be the "natural default". There is a sort of mild rent-seeking / racketeering in asking google to pay to configure a service Apple provides, to a default Apple's users would chose for themselves.
- wil421 6y ago
  How does Apple being a closed platform prevent me from choosing my search engine on iOS?

legulere 6y ago

At least it would put Mozilla into a better position.