4 ms·

But where is the consumer benefit?

by graeme 2y ago

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
  - N19PEDL2 2y ago
    > Microsoft? It already owns Edge. I would rather bet on Meta or Amazon.
    - mupuff1234 2y ago
      I'm gonna place a wild bet on Musk. There's no way Meta or Amazon will (/should) be allowed to buy chrome.
    - MikeHolman 2y ago
      I think Meta would make the most sense. Funnel people to facebook, instagram, etc. Get all that juicy tracking data and boost additional ad revenue. Doesn't really seem like much of a win for consumers though... it's just trading one personal data hungry megacorp for another.
      - shiroiushi 2y ago
        I might make some sense. However, not everyone uses Facebook or Instagram; it's not quite like Google where just about everyone uses some of their services, if not many. I suppose it would help Meta greatly expand their ad business, to places far beyond FB/IG.
rtpg 2y ago
consumer benefit is not the end all of antitrust.
- cratermoon 2y ago
  It has been since the Reagan era, but before that antitrust law had teeth
- graeme 2y ago
  This is from the DOJ's page on the Clayton Act, where they give two statements of purpose for the antitrust law. >This law aims to promote fair competition and prevent unfair business practices that could harm consumers. It prohibits certain actions that might restrict competition, like tying agreements, predatory pricing, and mergers that could lessen competition. >The Antitrust Division enforces federal antitrust and competition laws. These laws prohibit anticompetitive conduct and mergers that deprive American consumers, taxpayers, and workers of the benefits of competition. Both are aimed squarely at consumer benefit. Restrictions on anticompetitive behaviour and mergers *where those things impact consumer benefit.*. Mergers and actions against competitors are obviously allowed in the normal course of business. Lots of people have other ideas about what kind of antitrust law they'd like to see, but such a law has not passed the US Congress. https://www.justice.gov/atr/antitrust-laws-and-you#:~:text=This%20law%20aims%20to%20promote,mergers%20that%20could%20lessen%20competition https://www.justice.gov/atr/antitrust-laws-and-you#:~:text=T....
  - rtpg 2y ago
    The second one points to taxpayers and workers as well. This is especially important when it comes to antitrust action regarding workers rights. Actions which could lead to worse consumer experiences (at least if you consider price to be the end all) “Taxpayers” is an extremely broad category as well, though you need an appetite for it to argue through that clause. Though I think you can easily make a consumer argument for Chrome being unbundled (competition for Chromes default search engine pick)
    - sdenton4 2y ago
o999 2y ago
Wouldn't consumer like it if they could use Google services on any browser with the same experience without having to give up other browsers? I use firefox mainly but I have to use Chrome when I use Google Meet because Google provide more features and better performance when you are on Chrome (intentionally, not because of other browsers limitations)
makeitdouble 2y ago
More future competition and innovation.
- mupuff1234 2y ago
  In what? How to extract more personal information from the consumer and sell more ads?
chaxor 2y ago
Perhaps if chrome finally fails people will move to better things, like servo https://github.com/servo/servo https://github.com/servo/servo. It would be nice to have a completely open source browser that can be built with a simple one liner from cargo. Having several thousands of eyes on the code daily to check for telemetry violations, privacy issues, security, and performance daily in mostly a single language, small, and well structured browser repo would be phenomenal compared to the disjoint jumbled messes we have today.
- melodyogonna 2y ago
  Better for who? I use Chrome because the experience has been the best for me.
  - chaxor 2y ago
    As indicated by the explanation, better for people who believe in FOSS rather than closed corporate software. Most developers work with a Unix mindset (do one thing well, with focus on simple and easily managed code), which tyically means telemetry is _wildly_ out of line (offers no real benefit for the basics while adding huge complexity), so privacy and security are naturally far better. Lynx like TUI browsers are a nice idea, but unfortunately sometimes an image is desired to be manually viewed, or javascript is required. It would be wonderful if javascript were simply dropped from most websites, but we don't live in that world, so we're stuck with the next best thing (disabling all js until explicitly allowed by the user). These are the types of things people in software devs typically care about, which there are many in HN.
  - mulmen 2y ago
    Best of what’s available. There’s no way to know what innovations were squashed by Google’s dominance of the browser market.
mulmen 2y ago
Innovation. Google has no competition and so has no incentive to innovate for consumer benefit.

But where is the consumer benefit?

by 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
- N19PEDL2 2y ago
  > Microsoft? It already owns Edge. I would rather bet on Meta or Amazon.
  - mupuff1234 2y ago
    I'm gonna place a wild bet on Musk. There's no way Meta or Amazon will (/should) be allowed to buy chrome.
  - MikeHolman 2y ago
    I think Meta would make the most sense. Funnel people to facebook, instagram, etc. Get all that juicy tracking data and boost additional ad revenue. Doesn't really seem like much of a win for consumers though... it's just trading one personal data hungry megacorp for another.
    - shiroiushi 2y ago
      I might make some sense. However, not everyone uses Facebook or Instagram; it's not quite like Google where just about everyone uses some of their services, if not many. I suppose it would help Meta greatly expand their ad business, to places far beyond FB/IG.

rtpg 2y ago

consumer benefit is not the end all of antitrust.

cratermoon 2y ago
It has been since the Reagan era, but before that antitrust law had teeth
graeme 2y ago
This is from the DOJ's page on the Clayton Act, where they give two statements of purpose for the antitrust law. >This law aims to promote fair competition and prevent unfair business practices that could harm consumers. It prohibits certain actions that might restrict competition, like tying agreements, predatory pricing, and mergers that could lessen competition. >The Antitrust Division enforces federal antitrust and competition laws. These laws prohibit anticompetitive conduct and mergers that deprive American consumers, taxpayers, and workers of the benefits of competition. Both are aimed squarely at consumer benefit. Restrictions on anticompetitive behaviour and mergers *where those things impact consumer benefit.*. Mergers and actions against competitors are obviously allowed in the normal course of business. Lots of people have other ideas about what kind of antitrust law they'd like to see, but such a law has not passed the US Congress. https://www.justice.gov/atr/antitrust-laws-and-you#:~:text=This%20law%20aims%20to%20promote,mergers%20that%20could%20lessen%20competition https://www.justice.gov/atr/antitrust-laws-and-you#:~:text=T....
- rtpg 2y ago
  The second one points to taxpayers and workers as well. This is especially important when it comes to antitrust action regarding workers rights. Actions which could lead to worse consumer experiences (at least if you consider price to be the end all) “Taxpayers” is an extremely broad category as well, though you need an appetite for it to argue through that clause. Though I think you can easily make a consumer argument for Chrome being unbundled (competition for Chromes default search engine pick)
  - sdenton4 2y ago

o999 2y ago

Wouldn't consumer like it if they could use Google services on any browser with the same experience without having to give up other browsers? I use firefox mainly but I have to use Chrome when I use Google Meet because Google provide more features and better performance when you are on Chrome (intentionally, not because of other browsers limitations)

makeitdouble 2y ago

More future competition and innovation.

mupuff1234 2y ago
In what? How to extract more personal information from the consumer and sell more ads?

chaxor 2y ago

Perhaps if chrome finally fails people will move to better things, like servo https://github.com/servo/servo https://github.com/servo/servo. It would be nice to have a completely open source browser that can be built with a simple one liner from cargo. Having several thousands of eyes on the code daily to check for telemetry violations, privacy issues, security, and performance daily in mostly a single language, small, and well structured browser repo would be phenomenal compared to the disjoint jumbled messes we have today.

melodyogonna 2y ago
Better for who? I use Chrome because the experience has been the best for me.
- chaxor 2y ago
  As indicated by the explanation, better for people who believe in FOSS rather than closed corporate software. Most developers work with a Unix mindset (do one thing well, with focus on simple and easily managed code), which tyically means telemetry is _wildly_ out of line (offers no real benefit for the basics while adding huge complexity), so privacy and security are naturally far better. Lynx like TUI browsers are a nice idea, but unfortunately sometimes an image is desired to be manually viewed, or javascript is required. It would be wonderful if javascript were simply dropped from most websites, but we don't live in that world, so we're stuck with the next best thing (disabling all js until explicitly allowed by the user). These are the types of things people in software devs typically care about, which there are many in HN.
- mulmen 2y ago
  Best of what’s available. There’s no way to know what innovations were squashed by Google’s dominance of the browser market.

mulmen 2y ago

Innovation. Google has no competition and so has no incentive to innovate for consumer benefit.