3 ms·

What if this browser killed lots of other viable browsers because it was "free" (yet supported by and supporting a monopoly)? You never get to compare the prod

by m463 2y ago

What if this browser killed lots of other viable browsers because it was "free" (yet supported by and supporting a monopoly)? You never get to compare the products that never got to exist. related, I think google supported firefox to have a "viable" competitor to chrome and prevent monopoly scrutiny.

eterevsky 2y ago
It sounds like you want to artificially make the dominant product worse (i.e. non-free) just to make the life of competitors easier.
- roenxi 2y ago
  And noting that Chrome doesn't have anything close to a monopoly - people can use any browser they like. Having >90% of the market doesn't make it a monopoly, it just makes it good. It is the last sort of product people should be attacking, Chrome is a free market success story and Google's strategy is an exemplar of good corporate citizenship.
  - croes 2y ago
    Didn’t Google change YouTube to hinder Edge? At first it was a free market success story, now it’s not
- xdennis 2y ago
  Why are you saying that like it's a bad thing? That's what antitrust means. Chrome is free because it's unfairly subsidized by Google Search. Standard Oil was also cheaper because it was a monopoly.
  - eterevsky 2y ago
    Because for that to make sense you need to have some strong evidence that the resulting status quo will be better for consumers than the present situation. You don't break monopolies just for the sake of breaking monopolies. You do that to avoid locking into some suboptimal outcomes for consumers.
stuaxo 2y ago
Same as Microsoft keeping Apple alive back in their own antichrist days.
- ayewo 2y ago
  > Same as Microsoft keeping Apple alive back in their own antichrist days. Antichrist seems like a typo here. Perhaps you meant antitrust?
  - dustypotato 2y ago
    Maybe it isn't ? MS was the antichrist in Open source circles before Satya Nadella
    - teddyh 2y ago
      No past tense or qualifier necessary.
    - account42 2y ago
      Still is, even if some have let themselves be tempted by the devil.
renanoliveira0 2y ago
so, we will all pay for browsers for google don't be a monopoly anymore, that is the plan?

by m463 2y ago

eterevsky 2y ago

It sounds like you want to artificially make the dominant product worse (i.e. non-free) just to make the life of competitors easier.

roenxi 2y ago
And noting that Chrome doesn't have anything close to a monopoly - people can use any browser they like. Having >90% of the market doesn't make it a monopoly, it just makes it good. It is the last sort of product people should be attacking, Chrome is a free market success story and Google's strategy is an exemplar of good corporate citizenship.
- croes 2y ago
  Didn’t Google change YouTube to hinder Edge? At first it was a free market success story, now it’s not
xdennis 2y ago
Why are you saying that like it's a bad thing? That's what antitrust means. Chrome is free because it's unfairly subsidized by Google Search. Standard Oil was also cheaper because it was a monopoly.
- eterevsky 2y ago
  Because for that to make sense you need to have some strong evidence that the resulting status quo will be better for consumers than the present situation. You don't break monopolies just for the sake of breaking monopolies. You do that to avoid locking into some suboptimal outcomes for consumers.

stuaxo 2y ago

Same as Microsoft keeping Apple alive back in their own antichrist days.

ayewo 2y ago
> Same as Microsoft keeping Apple alive back in their own antichrist days. Antichrist seems like a typo here. Perhaps you meant antitrust?
- dustypotato 2y ago
  Maybe it isn't ? MS was the antichrist in Open source circles before Satya Nadella
  - teddyh 2y ago
    No past tense or qualifier necessary.
  - account42 2y ago
    Still is, even if some have let themselves be tempted by the devil.

renanoliveira0 2y ago

so, we will all pay for browsers for google don't be a monopoly anymore, that is the plan?