3 ms·

Yes, quite literally. And the answer is, Chrome is the better product, the users continue to choose the better option, if the government wants to consider that

Yes, quite literally. And the answer is, Chrome is the better product, the users continue to choose the better option, if the government wants to consider that Chrome acts monopolistic, then the government is acting in extreme bad faith. The statement or existence of "monopoly" is not one way direction to being "bad for the economy", the government knows this and speaks out the side of their mouth declaring it always is the case, and does not care, so Google is funding the opposition, as they must.

batiudrami 3y ago
The only place I see Chrome is the objectively better product is when using google services, so your monopoly argument somewhat falls apart.
- latency-guy2 3y ago
  So why doesn't the government get in and break apart that monopoly that is Chrome, today? Chrome has the highest market share of internet browsers ~this side of the great firewall~ worldwide (just checked, still is the case in China today, assumed it changed)! Far worse has been done to companies with less control over their respective markets. I am being a bit facetious when it comes to features though, fully admit, FF is better in getting a few of those, and don't deny history especially with Firebug.
  - kibwen 3y ago
    > So why doesn't the government get in and break apart that monopoly that is Chrome, today? Wake me up when the government finds the gumption to break up any of the monopolies that are begging for it. Google is but one of dozens that should have been broken up before now.
    - softjobs 3y ago
      Two words: regulatory capture.
  - jacquesm 3y ago
    Regulators are usually underpowered, overworked and short of funds. Any attempt to regulate the likes of Google effectively would be faced with such opposition that it would swamp the officials. Check out what happened when DOJ had an ironclad anti-trust case against Microsoft and how it all ended up in the longer term.
  - input_sh 3y ago
    For the same reason the government hasn't broken up anything since Bell System in 1983: those 500 million that Google pays Mozilla is higher than FTC's entire yearly budget (430 million in 2023). It takes years to build a strong case, and companies can easily throw more resources at a problem than that. Monopolies don't even need to win the case, just drag the whole process on until the next election cycle, when all of a sudden the next administration is far less interested in following through. Rinse and repeat indefinitely. Technically even Bell didn't lose a case, it broke up "voluntarily" before that happened.
Lio 3y ago
Is Chrome the better product? IMHO Firefox provides much better tools for ad blocking and privacy. Those are both very important to me and areas I think Chrome is weak.

batiudrami 3y ago

The only place I see Chrome is the objectively better product is when using google services, so your monopoly argument somewhat falls apart.

latency-guy2 3y ago
So why doesn't the government get in and break apart that monopoly that is Chrome, today? Chrome has the highest market share of internet browsers ~this side of the great firewall~ worldwide (just checked, still is the case in China today, assumed it changed)! Far worse has been done to companies with less control over their respective markets. I am being a bit facetious when it comes to features though, fully admit, FF is better in getting a few of those, and don't deny history especially with Firebug.
- kibwen 3y ago
  > So why doesn't the government get in and break apart that monopoly that is Chrome, today? Wake me up when the government finds the gumption to break up any of the monopolies that are begging for it. Google is but one of dozens that should have been broken up before now.
  - softjobs 3y ago
    Two words: regulatory capture.
- jacquesm 3y ago
  Regulators are usually underpowered, overworked and short of funds. Any attempt to regulate the likes of Google effectively would be faced with such opposition that it would swamp the officials. Check out what happened when DOJ had an ironclad anti-trust case against Microsoft and how it all ended up in the longer term.
- input_sh 3y ago
  For the same reason the government hasn't broken up anything since Bell System in 1983: those 500 million that Google pays Mozilla is higher than FTC's entire yearly budget (430 million in 2023). It takes years to build a strong case, and companies can easily throw more resources at a problem than that. Monopolies don't even need to win the case, just drag the whole process on until the next election cycle, when all of a sudden the next administration is far less interested in following through. Rinse and repeat indefinitely. Technically even Bell didn't lose a case, it broke up "voluntarily" before that happened.

Lio 3y ago

Is Chrome the better product? IMHO Firefox provides much better tools for ad blocking and privacy. Those are both very important to me and areas I think Chrome is weak.