3 ms·

> If you want to make Chrome your desktop browser, you open the default browser, search for Chrome, click the correct result, download the installer, run the in

> If you want to make Chrome your desktop browser, you open the default browser, search for Chrome, click the correct result, download the installer, run the installer, open Chrome, and set it as the default browser. So many users do this that people conclude Chrome has an unfair advantage. Most of that advantage comes from an unfair practice, of Google making consumers think that their choice of browser was in someway inferior (which could be true) and thus they should prefer Chrome (which is not true). If Chrome won market dominance using this method, then it becomes an unfair practice. Same thing with Microsoft Edge, Apple's App Store, etc. You can't use your market power in one market to influence another.

spoaceman7777 2y ago
That's just simple advertising though. Nearly every company is selling their product as being superior to some set of competing products, at whatever their price point is.
- mqus 2y ago
  it would be, if chrome would pay for this ad (and other browsers can compete for the spot). But it doesn't (can't?) and that is exactly what is wrong here.
- acdha 2y ago
  Did Chrome pay for the ad placement on Google’s sites? Could Mozilla or Microsoft buy the same spots? Could they pay YouTube to keep the site faster for them than standards-compliant browsers? If the answer to any of those is no, it’s more than simple advertising.
  - buzzerbetrayed 2y ago
    Yes. My biggest gripe with Google is that they prop up unprofitable products with their wildly popular product. It makes competition impossible. YouTube is the perfect example. I feel like it should be illegal to use your profits in one industry to run a loss leader in a totally separate industry.
    - notpushkin 2y ago
      > I feel like it should be illegal to use your profits in one industry to run a loss leader in a totally separate industry. There’s nothing wrong with running a loss leader, only with squeezing everybody else out.
      - acdha 2y ago
        I think the key part is “separate industry” – Google should have had to restrict Chrome promotion to what was available to other browser vendors (e.g. not the Gmail login page because they don’t sell ad space there).
fngjdflmdflg 2y ago
>Most of that advantage comes from an unfair practice, of Google making consumers think that their choice of browser was in someway inferior (which could be true) and thus they should prefer Chrome (which is not true). Are you sure that the advantage came from marketing? In my mind the advantage was that Chrome really was faster for example due to V8. Also can you explain why the "thus they should prefer Chrome" reasoning is flawed? Personally, I haven't seen Google act in a way that prevents competition in the browser space (ie. being anticompetitive). If anything, Windows is more anticompetitive because it is closed source, making it much more difficult to create a competing product. All the web specifications are completely free. And Apple is the only vendor that prevents browser competition on their platform, although Windows does give you a popup telling you not install Chrome.[0] The Google search agreements between Apple and Google seem more likely to be anticompetitive. [0] Searching for Google Chrome with the default Bing search engine with the default Edge browser gives you this result: >Promoted by Microsoft >There's no need to download a new web browser. Microsoft recommends using Microsoft Edge for a fast, secure, and modern web experience that can help save you time and money. See also Every trick Microsoft pulled to make you browse Edge instead of Chrome - https://www.theverge.com/23935029/microsoft-edge-forced-windows-10-google-chrome-fight https://www.theverge.com/23935029/microsoft-edge-forced-wind...
- viraptor 2y ago
  It's mostly marketing. Google spent lots of money both for external marketing and for Google-property banners that advertise Chrome. There were years you basically couldn't visit a popular website without being told to install Chrome. Then there were billboards and paper ads on top of that. There were feature differences for sure, but the marketing did a massive amount of work in this case. If people switched for features, all that spending for years wouldn't be necessary.

spoaceman7777 2y ago

That's just simple advertising though. Nearly every company is selling their product as being superior to some set of competing products, at whatever their price point is.

mqus 2y ago
it would be, if chrome would pay for this ad (and other browsers can compete for the spot). But it doesn't (can't?) and that is exactly what is wrong here.
acdha 2y ago
Did Chrome pay for the ad placement on Google’s sites? Could Mozilla or Microsoft buy the same spots? Could they pay YouTube to keep the site faster for them than standards-compliant browsers? If the answer to any of those is no, it’s more than simple advertising.
- buzzerbetrayed 2y ago
  Yes. My biggest gripe with Google is that they prop up unprofitable products with their wildly popular product. It makes competition impossible. YouTube is the perfect example. I feel like it should be illegal to use your profits in one industry to run a loss leader in a totally separate industry.
  - notpushkin 2y ago
    > I feel like it should be illegal to use your profits in one industry to run a loss leader in a totally separate industry. There’s nothing wrong with running a loss leader, only with squeezing everybody else out.
    - acdha 2y ago
      I think the key part is “separate industry” – Google should have had to restrict Chrome promotion to what was available to other browser vendors (e.g. not the Gmail login page because they don’t sell ad space there).

fngjdflmdflg 2y ago

>Most of that advantage comes from an unfair practice, of Google making consumers think that their choice of browser was in someway inferior (which could be true) and thus they should prefer Chrome (which is not true). Are you sure that the advantage came from marketing? In my mind the advantage was that Chrome really was faster for example due to V8. Also can you explain why the "thus they should prefer Chrome" reasoning is flawed? Personally, I haven't seen Google act in a way that prevents competition in the browser space (ie. being anticompetitive). If anything, Windows is more anticompetitive because it is closed source, making it much more difficult to create a competing product. All the web specifications are completely free. And Apple is the only vendor that prevents browser competition on their platform, although Windows does give you a popup telling you not install Chrome.[0] The Google search agreements between Apple and Google seem more likely to be anticompetitive. [0] Searching for Google Chrome with the default Bing search engine with the default Edge browser gives you this result: >Promoted by Microsoft >There's no need to download a new web browser. Microsoft recommends using Microsoft Edge for a fast, secure, and modern web experience that can help save you time and money. See also Every trick Microsoft pulled to make you browse Edge instead of Chrome - https://www.theverge.com/23935029/microsoft-edge-forced-windows-10-google-chrome-fight https://www.theverge.com/23935029/microsoft-edge-forced-wind...

viraptor 2y ago
It's mostly marketing. Google spent lots of money both for external marketing and for Google-property banners that advertise Chrome. There were years you basically couldn't visit a popular website without being told to install Chrome. Then there were billboards and paper ads on top of that. There were feature differences for sure, but the marketing did a massive amount of work in this case. If people switched for features, all that spending for years wouldn't be necessary.