4 ms·

ChromeOS currently has a 3% market share. Microsoft had 95% during the end of the Clinton administration. Google's consumer hostile behavior is kneecapping any

ChromeOS currently has a 3% market share. Microsoft had 95% during the end of the Clinton administration. Google's consumer hostile behavior is kneecapping any chance they have at future market dominance, it's entirely self correcting.

santoshalper 5y ago
I hope you're right. It feels like Google has an awful lot of power over the future of the internet a the moment.
- jimbokun 5y ago
  Yes, but ChromeOS is a relatively minor part of that power. Controlling search, Android, Chrome as the dominant browser, and YouTube are much bigger parts of their power over the Internet than ChromeOS.
  - opan 5y ago
    ChromeOS also appears heavily at school where kids are now growing up being forced to use it. (Not going for a "think of the children" thing, more like imprinting) I think there's a Google Classroom thing as well.
mc32 5y ago
Much of the case rested on how tightly the browser was woven into Windows —that MS was preventing competition in the browser space (via the strong arming tactics) but the “bad thing” they did was the tight browser integration.
- jimbokun 5y ago
  That was only an issue because it was used as a deliberate tactic to prevent Netscape Navigator from competing with Internet Explorer. Which was challenged because of Microsoft's monopoly position. Tight browser integration was not illegal in and of itself.
- mason55 5y ago
  > the “bad thing” they did was the tight browser integration. It's true, but it was only "bad" in the eyes of the law because of their monopoly. If Microsoft hadn't had a monopoly then their strong arm tactics would have been fine. No one would care if I went to Dell and said "you can only sell computers with my OS on them if you also include my browser." In the US you can be anti-competitive if you don't have a monopoly and you can have a monopoly as long as you don't engage in anti-competitive behavior. It's only when you have a monopoly AND engage in anti-competitive behavior that you get in trouble.

santoshalper 5y ago

I hope you're right. It feels like Google has an awful lot of power over the future of the internet a the moment.

jimbokun 5y ago
Yes, but ChromeOS is a relatively minor part of that power. Controlling search, Android, Chrome as the dominant browser, and YouTube are much bigger parts of their power over the Internet than ChromeOS.
- opan 5y ago
  ChromeOS also appears heavily at school where kids are now growing up being forced to use it. (Not going for a "think of the children" thing, more like imprinting) I think there's a Google Classroom thing as well.

mc32 5y ago

Much of the case rested on how tightly the browser was woven into Windows —that MS was preventing competition in the browser space (via the strong arming tactics) but the “bad thing” they did was the tight browser integration.

jimbokun 5y ago
That was only an issue because it was used as a deliberate tactic to prevent Netscape Navigator from competing with Internet Explorer. Which was challenged because of Microsoft's monopoly position. Tight browser integration was not illegal in and of itself.
mason55 5y ago
> the “bad thing” they did was the tight browser integration. It's true, but it was only "bad" in the eyes of the law because of their monopoly. If Microsoft hadn't had a monopoly then their strong arm tactics would have been fine. No one would care if I went to Dell and said "you can only sell computers with my OS on them if you also include my browser." In the US you can be anti-competitive if you don't have a monopoly and you can have a monopoly as long as you don't engage in anti-competitive behavior. It's only when you have a monopoly AND engage in anti-competitive behavior that you get in trouble.