4 ms·

Google may yet be forced to divest from Chrome as a result of the recent judgement.

zarzavat 2y ago
.
- gsck 2y ago
  How so? The parent comment is about Chrome separating from Google, not YouTube. YouTube would be fine without Chrome.
- kiicia 2y ago
  why? yt as standalone service does not need specific browser to exist... or at least it should not need one, just good business plan
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- philipov 2y ago
  Forests must burn so that new life can thrive.
maleldil 2y ago
Would that force them not to give Chrome preferential treatment? Even if Chrome becomes independent, it will still likely be the most used browser. Google could just do what other companies already do, and never test on Firefox anyway.
- saynay 2y ago
  It would remove any incentive to intentionally worsen the non-Chrome(ium) experience. Relevant if you suspect they are deliberately sabotaging Firefox. (That would be a foolish move to make while they are in the middle of multiple antitrust cases and already lost one, but companies aren't immune to acting like idiots)
  - pessimizer 2y ago
    Depends on how the ownership works. If the same individuals own both google and an independent Chrome, it won't remove anything. If it's legal for google to pay firefox a half-billion a year to be the default search engine for a 5% marketshare, why wouldn't it be legal for google to pay an independent Chrome 9.5B for the same right?
    - darby_nine 2y ago
      The ruling I referred to above was in fact that it is not legal to purchase the default search engine as this is de-facto anti-competitive behavior for a clear monopoly (which is, itself, not illegal—sometimes products dominate markets because they're genuinely better). Interestingly this means that what they've paid out (something on the order of a hundred billion, I think, all things told) is likely the floor for whatever is necessary to remediate the anti-competitive behavior. There's also a possibility the DOJ will fumble this and make them offer alternative engines in a more aggressive manner and fine them, which will change nothing. I think the judge indicated such, so hopefully they take this opportunity seriously.

gsck 2y ago
How so? The parent comment is about Chrome separating from Google, not YouTube. YouTube would be fine without Chrome.
kiicia 2y ago
why? yt as standalone service does not need specific browser to exist... or at least it should not need one, just good business plan
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
philipov 2y ago
Forests must burn so that new life can thrive.

Would that force them not to give Chrome preferential treatment? Even if Chrome becomes independent, it will still likely be the most used browser. Google could just do what other companies already do, and never test on Firefox anyway.

saynay 2y ago
It would remove any incentive to intentionally worsen the non-Chrome(ium) experience. Relevant if you suspect they are deliberately sabotaging Firefox. (That would be a foolish move to make while they are in the middle of multiple antitrust cases and already lost one, but companies aren't immune to acting like idiots)
- pessimizer 2y ago
  Depends on how the ownership works. If the same individuals own both google and an independent Chrome, it won't remove anything. If it's legal for google to pay firefox a half-billion a year to be the default search engine for a 5% marketshare, why wouldn't it be legal for google to pay an independent Chrome 9.5B for the same right?
  - darby_nine 2y ago
    The ruling I referred to above was in fact that it is not legal to purchase the default search engine as this is de-facto anti-competitive behavior for a clear monopoly (which is, itself, not illegal—sometimes products dominate markets because they're genuinely better). Interestingly this means that what they've paid out (something on the order of a hundred billion, I think, all things told) is likely the floor for whatever is necessary to remediate the anti-competitive behavior. There's also a possibility the DOJ will fumble this and make them offer alternative engines in a more aggressive manner and fine them, which will change nothing. I think the judge indicated such, so hopefully they take this opportunity seriously.