9 ms·

I'm all for competition and increasing consumer choices, but the government is really not making a case that this is supposed to help consumers. The only reaso

I'm all for competition and increasing consumer choices, but the government is really not making a case that this is supposed to help consumers. The only reason I still use Chrome is because I already use other Google products and they integrate well together. There are many other better options out there otherwise, and they are all free. Breaking out Chrome from Google will not in any way benefit me as a consumer. > The agency and the states have settled on recommending that Google be required to license the results and data from its popular search engine > They are also prepared to seek a requirement that Google share more information with advertisers and give them more control over where their ads appear. It sounds like the end goal of this is to enrich other companies, not customers. And if the DOJ has their way, they want to crack open Google's vault of customer data and propagate it across the internet. Not only does this sound extremely bad for consumers, the DOJ is trying to completely change Google's business model and dictate how they are supposed to make money. Regardless of how you feel about Google, this seems like a far overreach from the DOJ on finding and fixing market manipulation.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> only reason I still use Chrome is because I already use other Google products and they integrate well together This is the point. Google's products integrate with Chrome better than non-Google products. Including its ad platform.
- jascination 2y ago
  1) does it though? It seems like the Google-specific parts of it are pretty ancillary to the whole experience 2) how is it different to Apples integration with Safari?
  - mplewis9z 2y ago
    > how is it different to Apples integration with Safari? It’s not, other than Google has a way larger market share (especially if you count Edge/Opera/Brave/etc.) and has been (ab)using that position to push web standards in a direction that favors their business and that other browser vendors have to follow to keep up. If Safari had Chrome’s market share and was throwing their weight around like Google does and Microsoft did with IE, it’d be the same argument and I’d also personally support forcing them to divest it.
    - legitster 2y ago
      Safari is the #2 browser behind Chrome. It's about 55% to 30%, so while Chrome has a larger market share, it's not an order of magnitude larger. Really the main difference is that Apple has a captive audience on iOS and no incentives to improve so they don't do anything with it.
      - ipaddr 2y ago
        18.5 for Safari 65% for chrome + 5% for edge = 70% It is a magnitude higher.
        graeme 2y ago
        I think you mean order of magnitude, which means 10x. Magnitude just means size. Chrome's market share is not an order of magnitude higher than Safari.
        whiplash451 2y ago
        In the business world it is, because going from 18% to 65% market share is much more than a 4X improvement. Market share progress is highly non-linear in cost/investment/strategy. There are network effects at play favoring a winner-takes-all.
        freedomben 2y ago
        A (truly) clever argument! Def seems like a stretch though, especially if you're hoping to save GP's comment by suggesting that this is what they had in mind :-)
        diffeomorphism 2y ago
        No, that might be the word origin but not how it is actually used. Just like "decimate" nowadays does not require a factor 10. So instead of "10x" substitute "by a large enough factor or margin to make a significant difference". That is totally true globally speaking. Locally, in the US, you could however argue that apple abuses it's iPhone market share to sabotage competition (e.g. streaming, webstandards,etc). That just means you should sue both not neither.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > how is it different to Apples integration with Safari? Apple hasn't been found to have a monopoly like Google has [1]. [1] https://apnews.com/article/google-antitrust-search-engine-verdict-apple-319a61f20fb11510097845a30abaefd8 https://apnews.com/article/google-antitrust-search-engine-ve...
    - gnabgib 2y ago
      Found to be is doing far too much work given the DOJ lawsuit that it has a monopoly (2546 points, 8 months ago, 2623 comments) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39778999 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39778999
      - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        Right. DoJ sued Google and a judge agreed. That's a big difference.
      - ivewonyoung 2y ago
        Google is a convicted monopolist.
        deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
    - dismalaf 2y ago
      The DOJ is weird. They're so concerned with whether or not a company is a monopoly, not whether or not they're abusing their power. Look at the EU, levying multiple billion dollar fines against Apple. But in the US, Apple is free to abuse customers since their market share is a few % short of a monopoly...
      - matwood 2y ago
        I mentioned elsewhere, but the EU wrote an entirely new law to designate some companies as 'gate keepers'. A company no longer has to be a monopoly in the EU to fall under the new law. The DoJ is operating under US law where Apple has largely come out unscathed in any cases brought so far (like Epic). So far the US has had little desire to regulate big tech in any significant manner.
  - itake 2y ago
    2) consumers cannot use products like Safari as their exclusive web browser. The web has decided that Chrome is the only browser worth supporting and the world needs to keep Chrome at-the-ready for when the alternative browser eventually breaks. For example, Chrome has replaced IE as the corporate browser, due to the integrations with Workspace accounts and Authentication mechanisms. In order to use the fingerID on my/employer's macbook pro, I have to give my employer root/sync access to Google Chrome.
    - hilbert42 2y ago
      "The web has decided that Chrome is the only browser worth supporting…" That only tells me that governments can no longer leave technical aspects of the internet (standards/APIs, etc.) to market forces. There are many historical precedents for such action such as flight/aircraft, RF spectrum management, road and maritime regulations, health/food standards, etc. There's a myriad of them. Regulations would enforce interoperability and uniformity. To say this would stifle innovation is nonsense, it would be like saying that road rules and maritime law have stifled the development of motor vehicles and shipbuilding.
    - tssva 2y ago
      I use Safari as my exclusive web browser without issue.
      - chgs 2y ago
        I use Firefox, same result.
        kaba0 2y ago
        Try using a miro board. Unfortunately many sites have started breaking under Firefox, and it's a shame that web devs don't test under the 3 remaining browser, at least on a surface-level, before release. It's not like supporting a completely different OS..
    - muffwiggler 2y ago
      > For example, Chrome has replaced IE as the corporate browser Strange, thought it was Edge, as it integrates with MS products much better. Must be an US thing then.
  - mcint 2y ago
    re: 1) logging into a Google domain in a chrome browser, logs the browser into the Google account [auto-profile-login] [gSignin], and by default, syncs browser history to the cloud, cloud-readable [gSync]. Google's own docs describe that you can add a passphrase "so Google can't read it". While Google can read it, they have an arguable duty to shareholders to read it. - [auto-profile-login]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26200298 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26200298 - [gSignin]: https://support.google.com/chrome/answer/185277 https://support.google.com/chrome/answer/185277 - [gSync]: https://support.google.com/chrome/answer/165139?hl=en https://support.google.com/chrome/answer/165139?hl=en > Keep your info private with a passphrase With a passphrase, you can use Google's cloud to store and sync your Chrome data without letting Google read it. Thank you appealing to reasonable expectations, but Google, as their own docs make clear, ties uses together quite aggressively^W conveniently. 2) Whatabout Apple and Safari? Apple doesn't offer an email service supported in part by scanning email content for ads. Apple has gone to some lengths to engineer a system where they can credibly(-ish) claim to "protect your privacy when you browse the web in Safari," [Apple private relay]. - [Apple private relay]: https://support.apple.com/en-us/102602 https://support.apple.com/en-us/102602 Google re-engineers their browser to prevent ad-blockers from working.
  - chipdart 2y ago
    > 1) does it though? It seems like the Google-specific parts of it are pretty ancillary to the whole experience You're unwittingly describing the textbook definition of anticompetitive practices only made possible by abusing a dominant position. > 2) how is it different to Apples integration with Safari? Safari does not represent >65% of all web traffic. Also, there's the major liability of having a single ad company controlling the browser that the average internet user uses to browse the web.
    - Pufferbo 2y ago
      You literally can’t use your mouse to copy/paste in google docs if you’re using Firefox. If that isn’t anticompetitive, I don’t know what is.
      - freedomben 2y ago
        As a firefox user, that copy/paste drives me insane, but I think you're making a logic leap here along with assuming the worst. It's very possible (and likely) that there are API deficiencies that break their ability to offer this when overriding the right-click menu. For example, Firefox not allowing javascript in random tabs from writing to the system clipboard. You can still use Ctrl+C / Ctrl+V (and in fact the UI will (or at least used to) tell you that).
        fluidcruft 2y ago
        JupyterLab also doesn't have copy paste in right click menu. I figured it's probably a security feature (preventing malicious JavaScript from harvesting clipboard content).
      - sailfast 2y ago
        It's funny how many "unsupported" browser features suddenly start working if you happen to change your User Agent header...
      - rafram 2y ago
        Firefox only implemented the APIs for that a few months ago; Chrome has had them for five years: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Clipboard_API#browser_compatibility https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Clipboard_A...
  - swiftcoder 2y ago
    > 2) how is it different to Apples integration with Safari? It's only different in the share of the overall market they hold - and it's notable that the EU has already acted to break Apple's monopoly over specifically the iOS browser market.
    - matwood 2y ago
      The EU wrote an entirely new law that designated companies like Apple as 'gate keepers'.
      - swiftcoder 2y ago
        Yeah, and the effectiveness of the enforcement still remains to be seen - Apple is sure making every effort possible to adhere to the letter rather than the spirit of the law, and to isolate any changes they make exclusively to the EU. But I think it's a positive signal that we might see the decline of the big platform monopolies in our lifetime.
        stephen_g 2y ago
        If Apple can do that then it's a problem with the law. You can't really make a law and then argue "we're angry that people are complying with what we said, not what we meant to say". But then again, I wonder if part of the reason is that they can't make the law too prescriptive because that would create other problems politically (especially if it ever got pointed towards European companies)...
        swiftcoder 2y ago
        Well, it's also not generally very clear whether a geographical political entity like the EU actually has the ability to legislate what occurs outside its borders
- graeme 2y ago
  But where is the consumer benefit?
  - canadianfella 2y ago
    [dead]
  - michaelt 2y ago
    Much better privacy protection and ad blocking. There's really no rational reason for third-party cookies to still exist. The only reason they're still around is because an advertising company's browser has like 97% market share.
    - Arainach 2y ago
      The same cookies that Google tried to eliminate but couldn't get traction from anyone else?
      - dmix 2y ago
        Which in itself shows 3rd party Cookies will only marginally make the internet more privacy friendly. That would have been nice in 2014 but in 2024 the big ad industry is ready. The only ones who will hurt the most are the ones without tie ins to authentication systems like Google auth or FB auth or apple ID etc. Although I'm sure theres plenty of mega databases which don't need overt auths to ID a user. And contextual ads work just fine.
      - pseudalopex 2y ago
        Google tried to replace 3rd party cookies with new tracking. Other browsers blocked or isolated 3rd party cookies without new tracking.
    - graeme 2y ago
      >Much better privacy protection and ad blocking. The order doesn't mandate that. It mandates google SELL the data it has collected on people to third parties. There are also privacy focussed, ad blocking focussed alternatives trivially available on the market....and people are not choosing them. Any company which buys Chrome (Microsoft?) will have just as strong an incentive as Google to track people and run ads. FWIW, Chrome has a 66% market share: https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share ====== Disliking a company doesn't justify any arbitrary policy against that company
- cmrdporcupine 2y ago
  Out of all the parts of Google that take advantage of integration to pump up ad revenues, I'd say Chrome is the least of them? If we're serious about this, separate search and ads. Force ads-Google to pay search-Google for data on the open market, and let other people pay for the same data, make it transparent, and let consumers see exactly what's happening. While we're at it, separate Google's display ad network from its RTB facilities, basically carving DoubleClick back out again. Then watch the stock tumble.
- wrsh07 2y ago
  I'm failing to see why "this product we built from the ground up integrates better with our other tools" is an anti trust problem Isn't that what we want companies to do? I have two frustrations with this kind of decision: 1. It's not clear to me that the judge has any interest in creating value. 2. It does feel a bit like being punished for success. It's one thing when it's ill-gotten success, eg via coercive contracts (like Android has with play services), and we should aggressively deal with that sort of contract! However, what often seems to happen in these types of cases is the judge identifies a behavior they dislike and bans it without really considering more targeting / surgical treatments
  - fzzzy 2y ago
    They didn't build it from the ground up
    - wrsh07 2y ago
      Fair correction, but they didn't acquire the most popular browser company or something
    - rafram 2y ago
      There is essentially no WebKit (not to mention KHTML) code remaining in Chrome.
  - conductr 2y ago
    I tend to agree. I struggle to understand how a company runs a browser product without being eventually seen as a monopoly. They’re making a unique product ecosystem of browser and apps, just like everyone else, no need to keep coming down on whoever is successful at it. People can vote with their feet and use a dozen other options.
    - user_7832 2y ago
      > I struggle to understand how a company runs a browser product without being eventually seen as a monopoly. Just like for example how a car company can make cars without being a monopoly. Not the best example, but we’re so used to a monopoly it’s tough to imagine what a competitive browser market would look like.
EMIRELADERO 2y ago
> It sounds like the end goal of this is to enrich other companies, not customers. In this case, the "customers" are other companies. Antitrust markets can be defined broadly or narrowly. In this case, the market was "general web search advertising" (among others). Who are the consumers in this market? People and companies that want their ads placed where (and to who) it matters.
- philistine 2y ago
  Exactly. Everybody thinks they're the consumer, but often times consumers are other companies.
  - xeonmc 2y ago
    They may think they are consumers, but most often they are the consumables.
  - crabmusket 2y ago
    The thing I keep coming back to is that everyone needs a job. So unless we all go to work for Google, things that help other companies help the employees of other companies.
- Ferret7446 2y ago
  So fuck all of the billions of users of Chrome I guess, and let the other advertising companies make some money. I'm sure everyone will be thanking the DOJ for their poorer Web experience, knowing that their sacrifice is allowing other ad companies to earn their fair share.
jedberg 2y ago
It would be great for consumers. Google would be forced to make their products work just as well with other browsers as it does with their own. I only use Chrome to interact with Google properties. I'd love to use Firefox for everything.
- inquirerGeneral 2y ago
  [dead]
- ozyschmozy 2y ago
  I see a lot of people saying Google services don't work well on other browsers. Can someone give an example? I've been using Firefox desktop and mobile for a year and haven't had any issues with Google stuff. At least YouTube, drive, docs, sheets, etc. seem to work just fine
  - rdedev 2y ago
    I have random loading issues when I try to play something on the YouTube shorts page. The audio would play but not the video. Refreshing the page sometimes fixed this
  - alt227 2y ago
    In google docs if you highlight some text and right click there are options for copy and paste. If you click them in chrome it works fine, if you click them in Firefox it says: "These actions are unavailable using the Edit menus, but you can still use: Ctrl+C - for copy, Ctrl+X - for cut, Ctrl+V - for paste" So for some reason some functions are just not present in other browsers. I can guarantee they could implement these functions if they wanted to.
    - crabmusket 2y ago
      Oh I didn't even clock that that was a Firefox thing. Could it be due to Firefox not supporting the clipboard APIs until quite recently? https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Clipboard_API https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Clipboard_A...
lxgr 2y ago
> There are many other better options out there otherwise, and they are all free. For how long, though? The trajectory for Firefox doesn’t look good at all (and it’s completely dependent on Google too). Apple are doing their share of anticompetitive shenanigans with Safari on iOS, although the other way around. Everything else is based on Chromium and therefore not contributing to any heterogeneity of implementations.
- DiggyJohnson 2y ago
  Can anyone think of a hero to save us?
  - password4321 2y ago
    Ladybird Web Browser becomes a non-profit with $1M from GitHub Founder 20240701 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40856791 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40856791
    - DiggyJohnson 2y ago
      Precisely. Thank you for affirming that setup aha
  - alternatex 2y ago
    Maybe Zen Browser as an alternative to Firefox.
  - chaxor 2y ago
    https://github.com/servo/servo https://github.com/servo/servo Servo is upcoming, but so far it is fantastic in comparison to any other browser out there. I tend to focus on any software that does not require 12 teams of people 6 weeks to determine how to build a single binary because of the use of 20 different programming languages and mixing and matching of paradigms and solutions to subconponents. I very much appreciate simplicity and look for highly secure and private programs that highly discourage JavaScript from ever being run. Servo is finally a breath of fresh air in that regard.
UncleMeat 2y ago
For years people have complained "ugh Google is selling your data, how awful" and here is the government seeking to mandate that Google sell your data! There's no way that this is the right remedy.
- nielsbot 2y ago
  How so?
  - dismalaf 2y ago
    Considering Chrome is just Chromium + a lil telemetry, forcing them to sell Chrome is akin to forcing them to sell consumer data. The Chromium bits are OSS, so the only proprietary and sellable bit is the user data really.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - alsargent 2y ago
      Agreed
st3fan 2y ago
> The only reason I still use Chrome is because I already use other Google products and they integrate well together. And that is exactly why Chrome should be broken up/out. It is unfair competition. And you say there are many other well working options out there but that is simply not true. Googles web applications work best on Chrome and often break on non Chrome browsers. Mostly because of changes to those web applications and not because of random browser bugs. This is how you win people over and complete your browser world domination.
- hilbert42 2y ago
  "And that is exactly why Chrome should be broken up/out." Exactly, we saw this with MS's IE 2—3 decades ago. That governments didn't learn from this and let it repeat with Chrome is so damn annoying.
  - gnabgib 2y ago
    Ah three decades ago, a year before Internet Explorer was released[0], and 7 months after Netscape was released[1], easy to correct in hindsight. Two decades ago IE6 was already 3yo, Safari 1 was 1yo, and it would take 4 years for Chrome to drop[2]. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Explorer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Explorer [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netscape https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netscape [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Chrome https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Chrome
    - The_Colonel 2y ago
      What a useless comment. When you use decades, it is implied that the precision is rough, interpreting it as exactly 30 years ago is just bad faith. OP is correct - in the timespan between 2 and 3 decades ago, MS / IE implemented its full range of anti-competitive practices and at least partially through them became even more dominant than Chrome is today.
  - linuxftw 2y ago
    I think the circumstances were quite different. MS was an entrenched player when they created IE/started monopolizing. Google was not an entrenched player. They rose to monopoly power.
Onavo 2y ago
Realistically nothing is going to happen. The incoming admin has made clear their distaste for Lina Khan. In other words, this is just an attempt at a swan song by the Biden White House.
- graeme 2y ago
  This Trump admin lawsuit began this lawsuit, and Trump previously expressed distaste for Google. Things may change but they may not
animex 2y ago
By that same logic, Safari is the #1 browser on mobile in the US and should also be spun off.
typeofhuman 2y ago
This would be like if Tesla made the roads and the roads could recharge batteries but only to Tesla vehicles and you as a Tesla owner saying this is not anti-competitive.
- melodyogonna 2y ago
  But Chrome doesn't work that way at all? Google gives Chromium away for free - which has enabled innovation across the software industry beyond the browser space if I must say so.
- tirant 2y ago
  Even as a non Tesla owner I would say that’s not anti competitive if every other OEM is also able to make their own roads, which is exactly the case with Chrome. There’s multiple browsers, and people might choose Chrome because it has a better ecosystem around it. That means it’s a better product for those people.
  - r00fus 2y ago
    Explain to me how there can be two roads occupying the same space? A road network is a natural monopoly.
- tantalor 2y ago
  In this scenario do I get a free car and get to drive on the fancy roads for free? Sign me up.
einpoklum 2y ago
> The only reason I still use Chrome is because I already use other Google products and they integrate well together. There are many other better options out there otherwise, and they are all free. Breaking out Chrome from Google will not in any way benefit me as a consumer. It will benefit you in many ways, including: Better compatibility of Google with multiple browsers, and a browser which doesn't actively encourage you to use Google products and services. Indirectly, a reduction in Google's centralized power will make life easier for many people and organizations which offer you services and products (yes, I realize that's a bit vague and needs some elaboration).
- concinds 2y ago
  > It will benefit you in many ways, including: Better compatibility of Google with multiple browsers No, the way you do that is to pass a law that says Google can't intentionally make their websites work worse in other browsers. That's not what the dumb DOJ is doing.
  - einpoklum 2y ago
    Perhaps you're right, but this level of specificity is not usually something we find in primary legislation (AFAIK). Also, the DOJ may be motivated to act to a different extent than the two chambers of Congress. Still, it's always possible that this measure may end up not being effective.
RandomThoughts3 2y ago
> It sounds like the end goal of this is to enrich other companies, not customers. Then end goal is fostering competitions in a market where there is basically none. So yes, it obviously benefits would be competitors. That's the point.
jrflowers 2y ago
> DOJ is trying to completely change Google's business model and dictate how they are supposed to make money This is good reasoning. It is overreach for a regulatory body to do something that could impact the business model of a monopoly. Monopolies are bad, unless being a monopoly is part of that monopoly’s business model and an important part of how the monopoly makes money, in which case nothing should be done.
- cambaceres 2y ago
  > unless being a monopoly is part of that monopoly’s business model and an important part of how the monopoly makes money, in which case nothing should be done. Can you expand on this?
  - hatefulmoron 2y ago
    I would assume they're being facetious.
  - TJSomething 2y ago
    My read of this is based on an assumption that monopolies will always structure their business around being monopolies. This post is implying that there cases where there are not, and those are the only cases where antitrust law should be enforced. Based on this contradiction, as well as the odd phrasing, emphasizing how important making money is over resolving the badness of monopolies, I'm pretty sure this is a joke.
  - lanternfish 2y ago
    It's a distillation of the top level comment done in a sarcastic manner meant to indicate the dubious natute of the original claim.
- kaba0 2y ago
  I do mostly agree with grandparent, but not with your take. What is the problem with government regulating, say, the ingredients that can be used in foods, forbidding addictive drugs from being added to them? Or selling drugs that are completely fake or outright dangerous? This obsession with small governments (and basically, libertarianism) doesn't really stand on proper grounds. Why can't the government work for you? Maybe it's an inherent bias given that I'm from Europe, but I think the stereotypical utopia about "big government" is much more true for huge corporations (which have absolutely no safety mechanisms built in to prevent a paper clip factory going overboard in the name of profit) compared to the slow-moving, democratic, slightly corrupt governments. Only one of these have accountability in a humane form, while the only metric for corporate is a single number.
verisimi 2y ago
This is the government answer to doing something about privacy. It's what the people said they wanted when they voted. Right?
tombert 2y ago
> The only reason I still use Chrome is because I already use other Google products and they integrate well together. Isn't that kind of the complaint though? Google, by controlling the platform and therefore sort of indirectly controlling the entire web, can make it artificially easier to push you to their products, and push you away from others. If I wanted, for example, to make a competitor to Google Docs, I'm not just competing with Google Docs, I'm also competing with the integration of Google Docs with Chrome, meaning that Google Docs can be artificially better than my product. While I don't know if Google has actually done this, it would be pretty easy for them to actively gimp any Google Doc competitor in Chrome so that you're more likely to use their service instead.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

> only reason I still use Chrome is because I already use other Google products and they integrate well together This is the point. Google's products integrate with Chrome better than non-Google products. Including its ad platform.

jascination 2y ago
1) does it though? It seems like the Google-specific parts of it are pretty ancillary to the whole experience 2) how is it different to Apples integration with Safari?
- mplewis9z 2y ago
  > how is it different to Apples integration with Safari? It’s not, other than Google has a way larger market share (especially if you count Edge/Opera/Brave/etc.) and has been (ab)using that position to push web standards in a direction that favors their business and that other browser vendors have to follow to keep up. If Safari had Chrome’s market share and was throwing their weight around like Google does and Microsoft did with IE, it’d be the same argument and I’d also personally support forcing them to divest it.
  - legitster 2y ago
    Safari is the #2 browser behind Chrome. It's about 55% to 30%, so while Chrome has a larger market share, it's not an order of magnitude larger. Really the main difference is that Apple has a captive audience on iOS and no incentives to improve so they don't do anything with it.
    - ipaddr 2y ago
      18.5 for Safari 65% for chrome + 5% for edge = 70% It is a magnitude higher.
      - graeme 2y ago
        I think you mean order of magnitude, which means 10x. Magnitude just means size. Chrome's market share is not an order of magnitude higher than Safari.
        whiplash451 2y ago
        In the business world it is, because going from 18% to 65% market share is much more than a 4X improvement. Market share progress is highly non-linear in cost/investment/strategy. There are network effects at play favoring a winner-takes-all.
        freedomben 2y ago
        A (truly) clever argument! Def seems like a stretch though, especially if you're hoping to save GP's comment by suggesting that this is what they had in mind :-)
        diffeomorphism 2y ago
        No, that might be the word origin but not how it is actually used. Just like "decimate" nowadays does not require a factor 10. So instead of "10x" substitute "by a large enough factor or margin to make a significant difference". That is totally true globally speaking. Locally, in the US, you could however argue that apple abuses it's iPhone market share to sabotage competition (e.g. streaming, webstandards,etc). That just means you should sue both not neither.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > how is it different to Apples integration with Safari? Apple hasn't been found to have a monopoly like Google has [1]. [1] https://apnews.com/article/google-antitrust-search-engine-verdict-apple-319a61f20fb11510097845a30abaefd8 https://apnews.com/article/google-antitrust-search-engine-ve...
  - gnabgib 2y ago
    Found to be is doing far too much work given the DOJ lawsuit that it has a monopoly (2546 points, 8 months ago, 2623 comments) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39778999 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39778999
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      Right. DoJ sued Google and a judge agreed. That's a big difference.
    - ivewonyoung 2y ago
      Google is a convicted monopolist.
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
  - dismalaf 2y ago
    The DOJ is weird. They're so concerned with whether or not a company is a monopoly, not whether or not they're abusing their power. Look at the EU, levying multiple billion dollar fines against Apple. But in the US, Apple is free to abuse customers since their market share is a few % short of a monopoly...
    - matwood 2y ago
      I mentioned elsewhere, but the EU wrote an entirely new law to designate some companies as 'gate keepers'. A company no longer has to be a monopoly in the EU to fall under the new law. The DoJ is operating under US law where Apple has largely come out unscathed in any cases brought so far (like Epic). So far the US has had little desire to regulate big tech in any significant manner.
- itake 2y ago
  2) consumers cannot use products like Safari as their exclusive web browser. The web has decided that Chrome is the only browser worth supporting and the world needs to keep Chrome at-the-ready for when the alternative browser eventually breaks. For example, Chrome has replaced IE as the corporate browser, due to the integrations with Workspace accounts and Authentication mechanisms. In order to use the fingerID on my/employer's macbook pro, I have to give my employer root/sync access to Google Chrome.
  - hilbert42 2y ago
    "The web has decided that Chrome is the only browser worth supporting…" That only tells me that governments can no longer leave technical aspects of the internet (standards/APIs, etc.) to market forces. There are many historical precedents for such action such as flight/aircraft, RF spectrum management, road and maritime regulations, health/food standards, etc. There's a myriad of them. Regulations would enforce interoperability and uniformity. To say this would stifle innovation is nonsense, it would be like saying that road rules and maritime law have stifled the development of motor vehicles and shipbuilding.
  - tssva 2y ago
    I use Safari as my exclusive web browser without issue.
    - chgs 2y ago
      I use Firefox, same result.
      - kaba0 2y ago
        Try using a miro board. Unfortunately many sites have started breaking under Firefox, and it's a shame that web devs don't test under the 3 remaining browser, at least on a surface-level, before release. It's not like supporting a completely different OS..
  - muffwiggler 2y ago
    > For example, Chrome has replaced IE as the corporate browser Strange, thought it was Edge, as it integrates with MS products much better. Must be an US thing then.
- mcint 2y ago
  re: 1) logging into a Google domain in a chrome browser, logs the browser into the Google account [auto-profile-login] [gSignin], and by default, syncs browser history to the cloud, cloud-readable [gSync]. Google's own docs describe that you can add a passphrase "so Google can't read it". While Google can read it, they have an arguable duty to shareholders to read it. - [auto-profile-login]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26200298 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26200298 - [gSignin]: https://support.google.com/chrome/answer/185277 https://support.google.com/chrome/answer/185277 - [gSync]: https://support.google.com/chrome/answer/165139?hl=en https://support.google.com/chrome/answer/165139?hl=en > Keep your info private with a passphrase With a passphrase, you can use Google's cloud to store and sync your Chrome data without letting Google read it. Thank you appealing to reasonable expectations, but Google, as their own docs make clear, ties uses together quite aggressively^W conveniently. 2) Whatabout Apple and Safari? Apple doesn't offer an email service supported in part by scanning email content for ads. Apple has gone to some lengths to engineer a system where they can credibly(-ish) claim to "protect your privacy when you browse the web in Safari," [Apple private relay]. - [Apple private relay]: https://support.apple.com/en-us/102602 https://support.apple.com/en-us/102602 Google re-engineers their browser to prevent ad-blockers from working.
- chipdart 2y ago
  > 1) does it though? It seems like the Google-specific parts of it are pretty ancillary to the whole experience You're unwittingly describing the textbook definition of anticompetitive practices only made possible by abusing a dominant position. > 2) how is it different to Apples integration with Safari? Safari does not represent >65% of all web traffic. Also, there's the major liability of having a single ad company controlling the browser that the average internet user uses to browse the web.
  - Pufferbo 2y ago
    You literally can’t use your mouse to copy/paste in google docs if you’re using Firefox. If that isn’t anticompetitive, I don’t know what is.
    - freedomben 2y ago
      As a firefox user, that copy/paste drives me insane, but I think you're making a logic leap here along with assuming the worst. It's very possible (and likely) that there are API deficiencies that break their ability to offer this when overriding the right-click menu. For example, Firefox not allowing javascript in random tabs from writing to the system clipboard. You can still use Ctrl+C / Ctrl+V (and in fact the UI will (or at least used to) tell you that).
      - fluidcruft 2y ago
        JupyterLab also doesn't have copy paste in right click menu. I figured it's probably a security feature (preventing malicious JavaScript from harvesting clipboard content).
    - sailfast 2y ago
      It's funny how many "unsupported" browser features suddenly start working if you happen to change your User Agent header...
    - rafram 2y ago
      Firefox only implemented the APIs for that a few months ago; Chrome has had them for five years: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Clipboard_API#browser_compatibility https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Clipboard_A...
- swiftcoder 2y ago
  > 2) how is it different to Apples integration with Safari? It's only different in the share of the overall market they hold - and it's notable that the EU has already acted to break Apple's monopoly over specifically the iOS browser market.
  - matwood 2y ago
    The EU wrote an entirely new law that designated companies like Apple as 'gate keepers'.
    - swiftcoder 2y ago
      Yeah, and the effectiveness of the enforcement still remains to be seen - Apple is sure making every effort possible to adhere to the letter rather than the spirit of the law, and to isolate any changes they make exclusively to the EU. But I think it's a positive signal that we might see the decline of the big platform monopolies in our lifetime.
      - stephen_g 2y ago
        If Apple can do that then it's a problem with the law. You can't really make a law and then argue "we're angry that people are complying with what we said, not what we meant to say". But then again, I wonder if part of the reason is that they can't make the law too prescriptive because that would create other problems politically (especially if it ever got pointed towards European companies)...
        swiftcoder 2y ago
        Well, it's also not generally very clear whether a geographical political entity like the EU actually has the ability to legislate what occurs outside its borders
graeme 2y ago
But where is the consumer benefit?
- canadianfella 2y ago
  [dead]
- michaelt 2y ago
  Much better privacy protection and ad blocking. There's really no rational reason for third-party cookies to still exist. The only reason they're still around is because an advertising company's browser has like 97% market share.
  - Arainach 2y ago
    The same cookies that Google tried to eliminate but couldn't get traction from anyone else?
    - dmix 2y ago
      Which in itself shows 3rd party Cookies will only marginally make the internet more privacy friendly. That would have been nice in 2014 but in 2024 the big ad industry is ready. The only ones who will hurt the most are the ones without tie ins to authentication systems like Google auth or FB auth or apple ID etc. Although I'm sure theres plenty of mega databases which don't need overt auths to ID a user. And contextual ads work just fine.
    - pseudalopex 2y ago
      Google tried to replace 3rd party cookies with new tracking. Other browsers blocked or isolated 3rd party cookies without new tracking.
  - graeme 2y ago
    >Much better privacy protection and ad blocking. The order doesn't mandate that. It mandates google SELL the data it has collected on people to third parties. There are also privacy focussed, ad blocking focussed alternatives trivially available on the market....and people are not choosing them. Any company which buys Chrome (Microsoft?) will have just as strong an incentive as Google to track people and run ads. FWIW, Chrome has a 66% market share: https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share ====== Disliking a company doesn't justify any arbitrary policy against that company
cmrdporcupine 2y ago
Out of all the parts of Google that take advantage of integration to pump up ad revenues, I'd say Chrome is the least of them? If we're serious about this, separate search and ads. Force ads-Google to pay search-Google for data on the open market, and let other people pay for the same data, make it transparent, and let consumers see exactly what's happening. While we're at it, separate Google's display ad network from its RTB facilities, basically carving DoubleClick back out again. Then watch the stock tumble.
wrsh07 2y ago
I'm failing to see why "this product we built from the ground up integrates better with our other tools" is an anti trust problem Isn't that what we want companies to do? I have two frustrations with this kind of decision: 1. It's not clear to me that the judge has any interest in creating value. 2. It does feel a bit like being punished for success. It's one thing when it's ill-gotten success, eg via coercive contracts (like Android has with play services), and we should aggressively deal with that sort of contract! However, what often seems to happen in these types of cases is the judge identifies a behavior they dislike and bans it without really considering more targeting / surgical treatments
- fzzzy 2y ago
  They didn't build it from the ground up
  - wrsh07 2y ago
    Fair correction, but they didn't acquire the most popular browser company or something
  - rafram 2y ago
    There is essentially no WebKit (not to mention KHTML) code remaining in Chrome.
- conductr 2y ago
  I tend to agree. I struggle to understand how a company runs a browser product without being eventually seen as a monopoly. They’re making a unique product ecosystem of browser and apps, just like everyone else, no need to keep coming down on whoever is successful at it. People can vote with their feet and use a dozen other options.
  - user_7832 2y ago
    > I struggle to understand how a company runs a browser product without being eventually seen as a monopoly. Just like for example how a car company can make cars without being a monopoly. Not the best example, but we’re so used to a monopoly it’s tough to imagine what a competitive browser market would look like.

EMIRELADERO 2y ago

> It sounds like the end goal of this is to enrich other companies, not customers. In this case, the "customers" are other companies. Antitrust markets can be defined broadly or narrowly. In this case, the market was "general web search advertising" (among others). Who are the consumers in this market? People and companies that want their ads placed where (and to who) it matters.

philistine 2y ago
Exactly. Everybody thinks they're the consumer, but often times consumers are other companies.
- xeonmc 2y ago
  They may think they are consumers, but most often they are the consumables.
- crabmusket 2y ago
  The thing I keep coming back to is that everyone needs a job. So unless we all go to work for Google, things that help other companies help the employees of other companies.
Ferret7446 2y ago
So fuck all of the billions of users of Chrome I guess, and let the other advertising companies make some money. I'm sure everyone will be thanking the DOJ for their poorer Web experience, knowing that their sacrifice is allowing other ad companies to earn their fair share.

jedberg 2y ago

It would be great for consumers. Google would be forced to make their products work just as well with other browsers as it does with their own. I only use Chrome to interact with Google properties. I'd love to use Firefox for everything.

inquirerGeneral 2y ago
[dead]
ozyschmozy 2y ago
I see a lot of people saying Google services don't work well on other browsers. Can someone give an example? I've been using Firefox desktop and mobile for a year and haven't had any issues with Google stuff. At least YouTube, drive, docs, sheets, etc. seem to work just fine
- rdedev 2y ago
  I have random loading issues when I try to play something on the YouTube shorts page. The audio would play but not the video. Refreshing the page sometimes fixed this
- alt227 2y ago
  In google docs if you highlight some text and right click there are options for copy and paste. If you click them in chrome it works fine, if you click them in Firefox it says: "These actions are unavailable using the Edit menus, but you can still use: Ctrl+C - for copy, Ctrl+X - for cut, Ctrl+V - for paste" So for some reason some functions are just not present in other browsers. I can guarantee they could implement these functions if they wanted to.
  - crabmusket 2y ago
    Oh I didn't even clock that that was a Firefox thing. Could it be due to Firefox not supporting the clipboard APIs until quite recently? https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Clipboard_API https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Clipboard_A...

lxgr 2y ago

> There are many other better options out there otherwise, and they are all free. For how long, though? The trajectory for Firefox doesn’t look good at all (and it’s completely dependent on Google too). Apple are doing their share of anticompetitive shenanigans with Safari on iOS, although the other way around. Everything else is based on Chromium and therefore not contributing to any heterogeneity of implementations.

DiggyJohnson 2y ago
Can anyone think of a hero to save us?
- password4321 2y ago
  Ladybird Web Browser becomes a non-profit with $1M from GitHub Founder 20240701 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40856791 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40856791
  - DiggyJohnson 2y ago
    Precisely. Thank you for affirming that setup aha
- alternatex 2y ago
  Maybe Zen Browser as an alternative to Firefox.
- chaxor 2y ago
  https://github.com/servo/servo https://github.com/servo/servo Servo is upcoming, but so far it is fantastic in comparison to any other browser out there. I tend to focus on any software that does not require 12 teams of people 6 weeks to determine how to build a single binary because of the use of 20 different programming languages and mixing and matching of paradigms and solutions to subconponents. I very much appreciate simplicity and look for highly secure and private programs that highly discourage JavaScript from ever being run. Servo is finally a breath of fresh air in that regard.

UncleMeat 2y ago

For years people have complained "ugh Google is selling your data, how awful" and here is the government seeking to mandate that Google sell your data! There's no way that this is the right remedy.

nielsbot 2y ago
How so?
- dismalaf 2y ago
  Considering Chrome is just Chromium + a lil telemetry, forcing them to sell Chrome is akin to forcing them to sell consumer data. The Chromium bits are OSS, so the only proprietary and sellable bit is the user data really.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - alsargent 2y ago
    Agreed

st3fan 2y ago

> The only reason I still use Chrome is because I already use other Google products and they integrate well together. And that is exactly why Chrome should be broken up/out. It is unfair competition. And you say there are many other well working options out there but that is simply not true. Googles web applications work best on Chrome and often break on non Chrome browsers. Mostly because of changes to those web applications and not because of random browser bugs. This is how you win people over and complete your browser world domination.

hilbert42 2y ago
"And that is exactly why Chrome should be broken up/out." Exactly, we saw this with MS's IE 2—3 decades ago. That governments didn't learn from this and let it repeat with Chrome is so damn annoying.
- gnabgib 2y ago
  Ah three decades ago, a year before Internet Explorer was released[0], and 7 months after Netscape was released[1], easy to correct in hindsight. Two decades ago IE6 was already 3yo, Safari 1 was 1yo, and it would take 4 years for Chrome to drop[2]. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Explorer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Explorer [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netscape https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netscape [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Chrome https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Chrome
  - The_Colonel 2y ago
    What a useless comment. When you use decades, it is implied that the precision is rough, interpreting it as exactly 30 years ago is just bad faith. OP is correct - in the timespan between 2 and 3 decades ago, MS / IE implemented its full range of anti-competitive practices and at least partially through them became even more dominant than Chrome is today.
- linuxftw 2y ago
  I think the circumstances were quite different. MS was an entrenched player when they created IE/started monopolizing. Google was not an entrenched player. They rose to monopoly power.

Onavo 2y ago

Realistically nothing is going to happen. The incoming admin has made clear their distaste for Lina Khan. In other words, this is just an attempt at a swan song by the Biden White House.

graeme 2y ago
This Trump admin lawsuit began this lawsuit, and Trump previously expressed distaste for Google. Things may change but they may not

animex 2y ago

By that same logic, Safari is the #1 browser on mobile in the US and should also be spun off.

typeofhuman 2y ago

This would be like if Tesla made the roads and the roads could recharge batteries but only to Tesla vehicles and you as a Tesla owner saying this is not anti-competitive.

melodyogonna 2y ago
But Chrome doesn't work that way at all? Google gives Chromium away for free - which has enabled innovation across the software industry beyond the browser space if I must say so.
tirant 2y ago
Even as a non Tesla owner I would say that’s not anti competitive if every other OEM is also able to make their own roads, which is exactly the case with Chrome. There’s multiple browsers, and people might choose Chrome because it has a better ecosystem around it. That means it’s a better product for those people.
- r00fus 2y ago
  Explain to me how there can be two roads occupying the same space? A road network is a natural monopoly.
tantalor 2y ago
In this scenario do I get a free car and get to drive on the fancy roads for free? Sign me up.

einpoklum 2y ago

> The only reason I still use Chrome is because I already use other Google products and they integrate well together. There are many other better options out there otherwise, and they are all free. Breaking out Chrome from Google will not in any way benefit me as a consumer. It will benefit you in many ways, including: Better compatibility of Google with multiple browsers, and a browser which doesn't actively encourage you to use Google products and services. Indirectly, a reduction in Google's centralized power will make life easier for many people and organizations which offer you services and products (yes, I realize that's a bit vague and needs some elaboration).

concinds 2y ago
> It will benefit you in many ways, including: Better compatibility of Google with multiple browsers No, the way you do that is to pass a law that says Google can't intentionally make their websites work worse in other browsers. That's not what the dumb DOJ is doing.
- einpoklum 2y ago
  Perhaps you're right, but this level of specificity is not usually something we find in primary legislation (AFAIK). Also, the DOJ may be motivated to act to a different extent than the two chambers of Congress. Still, it's always possible that this measure may end up not being effective.

RandomThoughts3 2y ago

> It sounds like the end goal of this is to enrich other companies, not customers. Then end goal is fostering competitions in a market where there is basically none. So yes, it obviously benefits would be competitors. That's the point.

jrflowers 2y ago

> DOJ is trying to completely change Google's business model and dictate how they are supposed to make money This is good reasoning. It is overreach for a regulatory body to do something that could impact the business model of a monopoly. Monopolies are bad, unless being a monopoly is part of that monopoly’s business model and an important part of how the monopoly makes money, in which case nothing should be done.

cambaceres 2y ago
> unless being a monopoly is part of that monopoly’s business model and an important part of how the monopoly makes money, in which case nothing should be done. Can you expand on this?
- hatefulmoron 2y ago
  I would assume they're being facetious.
- TJSomething 2y ago
  My read of this is based on an assumption that monopolies will always structure their business around being monopolies. This post is implying that there cases where there are not, and those are the only cases where antitrust law should be enforced. Based on this contradiction, as well as the odd phrasing, emphasizing how important making money is over resolving the badness of monopolies, I'm pretty sure this is a joke.
- lanternfish 2y ago
  It's a distillation of the top level comment done in a sarcastic manner meant to indicate the dubious natute of the original claim.
kaba0 2y ago
I do mostly agree with grandparent, but not with your take. What is the problem with government regulating, say, the ingredients that can be used in foods, forbidding addictive drugs from being added to them? Or selling drugs that are completely fake or outright dangerous? This obsession with small governments (and basically, libertarianism) doesn't really stand on proper grounds. Why can't the government work for you? Maybe it's an inherent bias given that I'm from Europe, but I think the stereotypical utopia about "big government" is much more true for huge corporations (which have absolutely no safety mechanisms built in to prevent a paper clip factory going overboard in the name of profit) compared to the slow-moving, democratic, slightly corrupt governments. Only one of these have accountability in a humane form, while the only metric for corporate is a single number.

verisimi 2y ago

This is the government answer to doing something about privacy. It's what the people said they wanted when they voted. Right?

tombert 2y ago

> The only reason I still use Chrome is because I already use other Google products and they integrate well together. Isn't that kind of the complaint though? Google, by controlling the platform and therefore sort of indirectly controlling the entire web, can make it artificially easier to push you to their products, and push you away from others. If I wanted, for example, to make a competitor to Google Docs, I'm not just competing with Google Docs, I'm also competing with the integration of Google Docs with Chrome, meaning that Google Docs can be artificially better than my product. While I don't know if Google has actually done this, it would be pretty easy for them to actively gimp any Google Doc competitor in Chrome so that you're more likely to use their service instead.