6 ms·

Money for developing chrome is not an issue. Google search could pay chrome to be the primary search engine just like they pay mozilla. Microsoft could fund chr

by Joeri 3y ago

Money for developing chrome is not an issue. Google search could pay chrome to be the primary search engine just like they pay mozilla. Microsoft could fund chromium based on their use in Edge. Etc…

JellyYelly 3y ago
> Google search could pay chrome to be the primary search engine This doesn't sound like a good idea if your goal is to prevent these two companies (or divisions of the company) for co-conspiring.
hutzlibu 3y ago
"Microsoft could fund chromium based on their use in Edge. Etc…" Microsoft surely will continue to develope edge. That is my main issue with this thing, because they surely would like to be the one with the dominating browser again and if google has to drop chromium, Microsoft will just overtake it. Antitrust and breakup is not a simple thing to do right.
- omnimus 3y ago
  Then lets break up Microsoft too.
  - flagrant_taco 3y ago
    There's plenty of questionable business practices that Microsoft could probably be slapped on the wrist for of anyone cares, but I'm not actually sure there's a good antitrust claim that could lead to a breakup there.
    - yjftsjthsd-h 3y ago
      There's always bundling a web browser with their OS and giving it an unfair advantage over all other browsers, aka the exact thing they were sued for last time.
      - vel0city 3y ago
        ChromeOS bundles its own browser and goes even further in preventing people from installing their own than Windows. Imagine if on the first boot of ChromeOS it asks if you want to use Chrome, Edge, Safari, or Firefox.
        yencabulator 3y ago
        In related news, ChromeOS is separating the GUI shell from the browser: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36977107 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36977107
        yjftsjthsd-h 3y ago
        There's a small difference in that Windows clims to be a general purpose operating system and Chrome OS is exactly what it says on the tin, but also a Chromebook running Firefox would be pretty great.
      - flagrant_taco 3y ago
        That lawsuit SAS honestly complete bullshit. Going after Microsoft for having plentiful stolen their browser would have been one thing, but saying an OS couldn't ship software applications out of the box is crazy. What do you find when booting up an OS for the first time? Am empty desktop and no way to install anything? What apple has done with browsers at least seems more egregious. Windows didn't stop you from installing a different browser, ios does. There was even a long running joke that the only good use for IE was to install a real browser. It wouldn't be hard to find a reason to sure Microsoft though. Take a look someone at where the legal text states their software builds were made and ask what tax benefits one might get from running production builds on servers in the Caribbean.
- midoridensha 3y ago
  The problem I see with this idea is that MS doesn't really have much leverage to push Edge on people any more. People aren't just using Windows PCs for their web browsing these days; lots of people are using mobile devices, and many don't even have PCs any more. Google and Apple control the mobile device market (roughly half and half, though it depends on which country you're in too). If a bunch of websites suddenly required Edge on Windows to view, they'd lose a majority of their visitors.
  - hutzlibu 3y ago
    "The problem I see with this idea is that MS doesn't really have much leverage to push Edge on people any more" But they do it any way they can. I never intented to open edge even once, but through various sketchy things, I had it open way too many times. (when you click on the "learn more about this awesome landscape" - you land in edge, open a pdf, edge, saved a mhtml in chrome and open it, edge again. Search for chrome on edge? It almost tries to block you from downloading it.)
    - midoridensha 3y ago
      What do you expect if you're using an MS platform? Meanwhile, all of us not using MS platforms (Linux, Android, MacOS, iOS) don't see any of this. MS only has power over you because you choose to give them that power. They have no power at all over anyone not using an MS OS.
  - bregma 3y ago
    I sometimes have to use Microsoft Teams at work. Microsoft Teams requires Microsoft Edge to run. I was forced to install Microsoft Edge on my Ubuntu machine. Microsoft is pushing its Microsoft Edge product even on GNU/Linux. There are indeed the end times. I just saw cats lie down with dogs.
    - simiones 3y ago
      > Microsoft Teams requires Microsoft Edge to run. Where exactly did you get this idea? It runs fine on both Chrome and Firefox on desktop, including voice, camera, screen sharing. They also have desktop apps, including a .deb for Linux (since it's ultimately just an Electron app). Well, perhaps "runs fine" is not exactly the right word for what Teams does, but it's as awful on every platform at least.
mike_hearn 3y ago
At that point nothing would stop AdCorp from cutting a deal with the new ChromeCorp that says "you get incentive payments for each page load that presents a remote attestation that no ad blockers are present". It wouldn't be seen as anti-competitive then because there are multiple ad serving companies and multiple browser companies, and anyway, legislators would expect and find it reasonable that browsers only get paid referral fees for page loads that do actually display ads. In fact if it goes to court you might not get what you expect - judges (who likely don't use ad blockers much themselves due to age) might perceive browsers who take ad incentive payments but allow ad blocking to be engaged in fraud.
- pyrale 3y ago
  > At that point nothing would stop AdCorp from cutting a deal with the new ChromeCorp that says... I suspect judges that just ordered an antitrust would not be kind to people to people who essentially ignore the order by recreating an informal structure.
  - mike_hearn 3y ago
    Why? Company breakups are about increasing competition. It's not about killing the Baby Bells by cutting them off overnight from what they need to survive. ChromeCorp would be both free to cut similar deals with other ad networks, and incentivized to do so, that would be sufficient for governments concerned about monopolies and anti-trust. It's important to keep things mentally separate here. There is nothing anti-competitive about remote attestation, no more than there is about TLS. It's just far too general a tool for that. Even much more restricted versions as used by the smartphones, games consoles, Windows managed network security etc have never been claimed to be anti-competitive. That would be a very novel legal theory that's unlikely to work on its own (you can use the tech in ways that are anti-competitive, but it needs someone to actually do so). So if Google were to be broken up, it'd have to be for wider competition and market health concerns, it wouldn't be to do with any specific API getting added to Chrome. And then if they were split up, they'd need to formalize arrangements in contracts that are today informal, like how Chrome is funded exactly. At that point, do you think the newly born AdCorp will just accept paying lots of money for ad impressions to Chrome when the users aren't going to see them? Google tolerates it today for a mixture of reasons e.g. a lot of their own staff use ad blockers, they want to be able to recruit very widely for many different projects, etc. A company specialized only in advertising would have fewer such concerns and could easily demand more aggressive measures, indeed, their new shareholders might insist upon it. Whereas today Google isn't really susceptible to stockholder pressure and is willing to let a lot slide.
o1y32 3y ago
I guess you have no idea how much money it costs to develop something like Chrome, especially at Google's salary.
- pocketarc 3y ago
  Google currently plays Apple billions ($15B supposedly) to be the default search engine on Safari, and another half a billion a year for Firefox. For Chrome, with their gigantic market share, they'd pay billions (just like they pay Apple). Browsers are complicated, but let's not pretend that that kind of money wouldn't be enough.
  - edgyquant 3y ago
    I’m not sure what you mean. Google would continue to pay chrome to advertise?
    - andsoitis 3y ago
      They’re saying: Google (the search company) would pay ChromeCorp (company behind Chrome/Chromium) big money to be the default search engine in the browser. Google already pays both Mozilla and Apple in this way. Theoretically this money should be enough to finance the continued investment in Chrome.
- bee_rider 3y ago
  It might be nice to have less web browser development, fewer engineers who need to add a new feature to get a bullet point for their review. Rendering a website should not be a huge project. Websites are a medium for transmitting ideas; communication. A communication scheme that requires a massive engineering effort to interpret it is bad. A web browser should be something that a small community team can throw together in a couple months.
bee_rider 3y ago
It shouldn’t be necessary to pay so much to develop Chrome in the first place. Web standards have gotten so unimaginably complex that only two of the richest companies in history can produce a web browser (and then somehow, inexplicably, Mozilla manages to almost keep up; wildly impressive on their part). That figuring out the funding required to draw a website is seen as a big issue is a symptom of the problem.

by Joeri 3y ago

JellyYelly 3y ago

> Google search could pay chrome to be the primary search engine This doesn't sound like a good idea if your goal is to prevent these two companies (or divisions of the company) for co-conspiring.

hutzlibu 3y ago

"Microsoft could fund chromium based on their use in Edge. Etc…" Microsoft surely will continue to develope edge. That is my main issue with this thing, because they surely would like to be the one with the dominating browser again and if google has to drop chromium, Microsoft will just overtake it. Antitrust and breakup is not a simple thing to do right.

omnimus 3y ago
Then lets break up Microsoft too.
- flagrant_taco 3y ago
  There's plenty of questionable business practices that Microsoft could probably be slapped on the wrist for of anyone cares, but I'm not actually sure there's a good antitrust claim that could lead to a breakup there.
  - yjftsjthsd-h 3y ago
    There's always bundling a web browser with their OS and giving it an unfair advantage over all other browsers, aka the exact thing they were sued for last time.
    - vel0city 3y ago
      ChromeOS bundles its own browser and goes even further in preventing people from installing their own than Windows. Imagine if on the first boot of ChromeOS it asks if you want to use Chrome, Edge, Safari, or Firefox.
      - yencabulator 3y ago
        In related news, ChromeOS is separating the GUI shell from the browser: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36977107 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36977107
      - yjftsjthsd-h 3y ago
        There's a small difference in that Windows clims to be a general purpose operating system and Chrome OS is exactly what it says on the tin, but also a Chromebook running Firefox would be pretty great.
    - flagrant_taco 3y ago
      That lawsuit SAS honestly complete bullshit. Going after Microsoft for having plentiful stolen their browser would have been one thing, but saying an OS couldn't ship software applications out of the box is crazy. What do you find when booting up an OS for the first time? Am empty desktop and no way to install anything? What apple has done with browsers at least seems more egregious. Windows didn't stop you from installing a different browser, ios does. There was even a long running joke that the only good use for IE was to install a real browser. It wouldn't be hard to find a reason to sure Microsoft though. Take a look someone at where the legal text states their software builds were made and ask what tax benefits one might get from running production builds on servers in the Caribbean.
midoridensha 3y ago
The problem I see with this idea is that MS doesn't really have much leverage to push Edge on people any more. People aren't just using Windows PCs for their web browsing these days; lots of people are using mobile devices, and many don't even have PCs any more. Google and Apple control the mobile device market (roughly half and half, though it depends on which country you're in too). If a bunch of websites suddenly required Edge on Windows to view, they'd lose a majority of their visitors.
- hutzlibu 3y ago
  "The problem I see with this idea is that MS doesn't really have much leverage to push Edge on people any more" But they do it any way they can. I never intented to open edge even once, but through various sketchy things, I had it open way too many times. (when you click on the "learn more about this awesome landscape" - you land in edge, open a pdf, edge, saved a mhtml in chrome and open it, edge again. Search for chrome on edge? It almost tries to block you from downloading it.)
  - midoridensha 3y ago
    What do you expect if you're using an MS platform? Meanwhile, all of us not using MS platforms (Linux, Android, MacOS, iOS) don't see any of this. MS only has power over you because you choose to give them that power. They have no power at all over anyone not using an MS OS.
- bregma 3y ago
  I sometimes have to use Microsoft Teams at work. Microsoft Teams requires Microsoft Edge to run. I was forced to install Microsoft Edge on my Ubuntu machine. Microsoft is pushing its Microsoft Edge product even on GNU/Linux. There are indeed the end times. I just saw cats lie down with dogs.
  - simiones 3y ago
    > Microsoft Teams requires Microsoft Edge to run. Where exactly did you get this idea? It runs fine on both Chrome and Firefox on desktop, including voice, camera, screen sharing. They also have desktop apps, including a .deb for Linux (since it's ultimately just an Electron app). Well, perhaps "runs fine" is not exactly the right word for what Teams does, but it's as awful on every platform at least.

mike_hearn 3y ago

At that point nothing would stop AdCorp from cutting a deal with the new ChromeCorp that says "you get incentive payments for each page load that presents a remote attestation that no ad blockers are present". It wouldn't be seen as anti-competitive then because there are multiple ad serving companies and multiple browser companies, and anyway, legislators would expect and find it reasonable that browsers only get paid referral fees for page loads that do actually display ads. In fact if it goes to court you might not get what you expect - judges (who likely don't use ad blockers much themselves due to age) might perceive browsers who take ad incentive payments but allow ad blocking to be engaged in fraud.

pyrale 3y ago
> At that point nothing would stop AdCorp from cutting a deal with the new ChromeCorp that says... I suspect judges that just ordered an antitrust would not be kind to people to people who essentially ignore the order by recreating an informal structure.
- mike_hearn 3y ago
  Why? Company breakups are about increasing competition. It's not about killing the Baby Bells by cutting them off overnight from what they need to survive. ChromeCorp would be both free to cut similar deals with other ad networks, and incentivized to do so, that would be sufficient for governments concerned about monopolies and anti-trust. It's important to keep things mentally separate here. There is nothing anti-competitive about remote attestation, no more than there is about TLS. It's just far too general a tool for that. Even much more restricted versions as used by the smartphones, games consoles, Windows managed network security etc have never been claimed to be anti-competitive. That would be a very novel legal theory that's unlikely to work on its own (you can use the tech in ways that are anti-competitive, but it needs someone to actually do so). So if Google were to be broken up, it'd have to be for wider competition and market health concerns, it wouldn't be to do with any specific API getting added to Chrome. And then if they were split up, they'd need to formalize arrangements in contracts that are today informal, like how Chrome is funded exactly. At that point, do you think the newly born AdCorp will just accept paying lots of money for ad impressions to Chrome when the users aren't going to see them? Google tolerates it today for a mixture of reasons e.g. a lot of their own staff use ad blockers, they want to be able to recruit very widely for many different projects, etc. A company specialized only in advertising would have fewer such concerns and could easily demand more aggressive measures, indeed, their new shareholders might insist upon it. Whereas today Google isn't really susceptible to stockholder pressure and is willing to let a lot slide.

o1y32 3y ago

I guess you have no idea how much money it costs to develop something like Chrome, especially at Google's salary.

pocketarc 3y ago
Google currently plays Apple billions ($15B supposedly) to be the default search engine on Safari, and another half a billion a year for Firefox. For Chrome, with their gigantic market share, they'd pay billions (just like they pay Apple). Browsers are complicated, but let's not pretend that that kind of money wouldn't be enough.
- edgyquant 3y ago
  I’m not sure what you mean. Google would continue to pay chrome to advertise?
  - andsoitis 3y ago
    They’re saying: Google (the search company) would pay ChromeCorp (company behind Chrome/Chromium) big money to be the default search engine in the browser. Google already pays both Mozilla and Apple in this way. Theoretically this money should be enough to finance the continued investment in Chrome.
bee_rider 3y ago
It might be nice to have less web browser development, fewer engineers who need to add a new feature to get a bullet point for their review. Rendering a website should not be a huge project. Websites are a medium for transmitting ideas; communication. A communication scheme that requires a massive engineering effort to interpret it is bad. A web browser should be something that a small community team can throw together in a couple months.

bee_rider 3y ago

It shouldn’t be necessary to pay so much to develop Chrome in the first place. Web standards have gotten so unimaginably complex that only two of the richest companies in history can produce a web browser (and then somehow, inexplicably, Mozilla manages to almost keep up; wildly impressive on their part). That figuring out the funding required to draw a website is seen as a big issue is a symptom of the problem.