3 ms·
As much as I dislike their Chrome practices, I am rather against the idea of forcing them to sell Chrome. For one, they simply have had a better product, at le
by winwang 2y ago
As much as I dislike their Chrome practices, I am rather against the idea of forcing them to sell Chrome.
For one, they simply have had a better product, at least in the past. Part of their large monopoly is due to just being better outright for a large portion of users (presumably). Are we to punish making overly-good products?
For another, sell to whom? And why would they be a good steward?
And yet another, there's literally Chromium, which other browsers (built by other corps) use, e.g. Edge, Brave, etc.
Did Google have to open Chromium? No.
Disclaimer: I hold these opinions weakly and would love to learn more about why they might be ill-premised.
- opan 2y ago>Did Google have to open Chromium? No. Google did not make Chromium from scratch, and so were obligated to use a license compatible with the previous source they used. That source can be traced back to KDE's Konqueror browser and its KHTML engine.
- jpc0 2y agoYour argument is that Google couldn't possibly have written their own web engine and browser at a time when Firefox and IE were the alternative options?
- opan 2y agoI'm simply saying that they didn't, and thus they did have to "open" it, or rather keep it "open".
- jpc0 2y agoI would argue they didn't have to "open" it at all, they could have just built up from scratch. However they chose to do it in the open, side benefit they also got to use a ton of preexisting code.
- winwang 2y agoThank you, this type of info is pretty much exactly what I hoped to learn :D