6 ms·

Chrome does not even come close to meeting the definition of a monopoly. Google is not "unreasonably restraining competition" nor is it even selling its browser

Chrome does not even come close to meeting the definition of a monopoly. Google is not "unreasonably restraining competition" nor is it even selling its browser. Besides that point, you have to be keen to distinguish between a situation where there is just a clear market winner versus a company attempting to monopolize, e.g. do people just prefer to use Chrome at the end of the day? Most internet users today are aware of Microsoft's browser. Almost all millennials and under are additionally aware of Firefox. The definition of monopoly isn't just "people choose to use this product in lieu of others" but something closer to "people are forced to use this product in lieu of others" or "people have no other choice than to use this product"

sirwhinesalot 5y ago
Google goes out of their way to make their websites only work well in Chrome (and Safari, somewhat). This killed the original non-chromium Edge. Not sure if it fits a monopoly definition but it is definitely not good behaviour.
- stjohnswarts 5y ago
  A lot of people won't think outside of the box and see that the definition of monopoly has to evolve with the times. It's not the early 1900's any longer, big tech is redefining the way we need to address lots of things.
  - dimitrios1 5y ago
    The CURRENT_YEAR fallacy is never a convincing argument, but especially not here considering the last significant anti trust action was one taken out against Microsoft for very related things. We've had "Big Tech" and monopolizing actions amongst them for a while now.
    - 9dev 5y ago
      Parent is right though. We didn’t have global tech empires with that kind of leverage at the time the monopoly laws were created. By spreading a browser for free, Google gains control in many subtle ways that eventually lead to revenue. That is definitely dangerous, although it doesn’t fit a classical monopoly.

sirwhinesalot 5y ago

Google goes out of their way to make their websites only work well in Chrome (and Safari, somewhat). This killed the original non-chromium Edge. Not sure if it fits a monopoly definition but it is definitely not good behaviour.

stjohnswarts 5y ago
A lot of people won't think outside of the box and see that the definition of monopoly has to evolve with the times. It's not the early 1900's any longer, big tech is redefining the way we need to address lots of things.
- dimitrios1 5y ago
  The CURRENT_YEAR fallacy is never a convincing argument, but especially not here considering the last significant anti trust action was one taken out against Microsoft for very related things. We've had "Big Tech" and monopolizing actions amongst them for a while now.
  - 9dev 5y ago
    Parent is right though. We didn’t have global tech empires with that kind of leverage at the time the monopoly laws were created. By spreading a browser for free, Google gains control in many subtle ways that eventually lead to revenue. That is definitely dangerous, although it doesn’t fit a classical monopoly.