5 ms·

Google is a web business, that’s their whole thing. They made a browser to invest in the web itself because what is good for the web is good for Google, and hap

Google is a web business, that’s their whole thing. They made a browser to invest in the web itself because what is good for the web is good for Google, and happens to be good for all of us. This is a panglossian take that belongs in the year 2005. Google is less a 'web business' than it is an 'advertising business', a 'surveillance business', and a 'finance business'. Consequently, it is false that 'what is good for the web is good for Google'. AMP, and the Ad-blocking prohibition are evidence of this.

matthewdgreen 2y ago
Let’s not forget the “AI assistant”, which appears to lightly plagiarize the first three results on any topic, while adding some mistakes.
- mixmastamyk 2y ago
  Nor WEI, which Ars Technica described as a "nightmare." The final solution to general purpose computing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_Environment_Integrity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_Environment_Integrity
  - mdhb 2y ago
    Quoting from Wikipedia here: The stated goal was for sites to be able to restrict access to human users instead of automated programs and "allow web servers to evaluate the authenticity of the device and honest representation of the software stack and the traffic from the device". Which on the surface seems like a legitimate use case I have to be honest.
    - user3939382 2y ago
      It is, just like having an armed policeman permanently stationed in your living room to protect you is a legitimate use case.
      - mdhb 2y ago
        Truly excellent discourse. Thanks for such an enlightening contribution.
        user3939382 2y ago
        It’s hard or impossible online to detect sarcasm but in the worst case I’d qualify the legitimacy of my argument by pointing to its form, reductio ad absurdum.
    - ferbivore 2y ago
      It's legitimate if you believe companies should have the right to provide or deny you service by arbitrary criteria and on arbitrary terms. This belief has some unfortunate real-world implications. The most likely outcome of WEI would have been - and might still be - that users of any operating system or browser that does not comply with the Trusted Computing agenda (secure boot, verified OS, full encrypted path from company servers to the user's screen & input devices) find themselves locked out of large portions of the internet.
    - fao_ 2y ago
      > "allow web servers to evaluate the authenticity of the device and honest representation of the software stack and the traffic from the device". That's not in the purview of a web server to do that, and quickly falls into the territory of violating 'neutrality' and 'anti-compete' territory. (i.e. it should not be possible for Apple or Microsoft servers to show content only to Microsoft or Apple devices, because that violates the law, it prevents competing software vendors from being compatible with them). It is strictly not appropriate for every single web server that my browser contacts to audit my software stack, just like if a bank phones me up randomly it's not appropriate for them to verify who I am — the burden is on the web server to validate and confirm that it's identity and software stack is correct, instead. The job of a web server is to truthfully serve it's content and not to butcher or malform that content, just like a librarian. Imagine if you had to take your birth certificate and pictures of your flat's security system to a library every time you wanted to borrow a book!
    - mixmastamyk 2y ago
      Sure, the reasons given always sound perfectly reasonable. But, one needs to think of the second+ order effects.
int_19h 2y ago
And that whole "war on cookies" where they keep pitching replacements that basically let Google (and only Google) do all the same things, so that they can then gatekeep it and pay others for the privilege of accessing some limited subset of that data. Regardless of why Google made Chrome originally, today, the main reason why it exists is to enable Google to track users more efficiently. And that is a bad thing.
- wordpad 2y ago
  Why is tracking a bad thing? It allows better monetization of the web which is good for everyone.
  - asyx 2y ago
    Only if you believe that the current mode we are in is good.
  - travisgriggs 2y ago
    Was tempted to downvote. But hey, we’re supposed to talk about things. Do you support the abstract argument that ________ allows better monetization of _________ which is good for everyone. ?? If so, we can agree to disagree. If however, “it depends”, I think you need to clarify why your proposition is true where other variants (e.g. “Indentured servitude allows better monetization of the lower classes which is good for everyone”) are very clearly not so.
  - wruza 2y ago
    It’s bad at least because people don’t like to be watched or stalked, even if no “real” harm accompanied. Privacy is a thing that most people agree should exist. You can’t always have it, but it doesn’t mean you have to surrender it either. That is, in an ideal world. It allows better monetization of the web which is good for everyone. In the real world, targeted ads initially promised to be related to user’s interests but never kept that. You don’t see what’s interesting for you, only what was paid a lot of money for, by people who find your parameters most suitable for their bait, blanket style. Users get heavily underserved their ads and mostly see generic money grab bs instead, cause money ranks better than interests and google is no socialist despite so much pretending.
esalman 2y ago
Defence contractor as well.
beeflet 2y ago
The 'what is good for the web is good for Google' line certainly was true in 2005 when the greatest threat to the web was companies like microsoft using internet explorer to adjust the de-facto web standards and privatize it in the "EEE" fashion. Obviously the most visited websites would maintain the web better than OS vendors, their buisness depended on it being open. We have a similar situation now, but with google locking down the most common browser (Manifest v3) and using extensions of web standards to maintain a dominant position. Disclaimer: I am a zoomer and not a web developer so my history may be off here.
- Voultapher 2y ago
  Let's not forget their attempt to push web attestation through WEI https://pluralistic.net/2023/07/24/rent-to-pwn/#kitt-is-a-demon https://pluralistic.net/2023/07/24/rent-to-pwn/#kitt-is-a-de...
  - megadata 2y ago
    Attempt? Isn't that project still in full swing?
    - Voultapher 2y ago
      > A Web Environment Integrity prototype existed in Chromium,[2][3] but was removed in November 2023 after extensive criticism by many tech groups. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_Environment_Integrity#Reception https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_Environment_Integrity#Rece...
  - charcircuit 2y ago
    Malicous bots are a serious issue that trouble site operators. Trying to come up with solutions to such problems doesn't mean they don't care about the web. If it allows web sites to spend less time moderating and users to spend less time reading spam that would be a win win for both parties.
    - animuchan 2y ago
Gud 2y ago
Absolutely agree 100% with this. I would argue that Google is TERRIBLE for the web.
charcircuit 2y ago
Advertising is a monetization modal. That's like saying that resteraunts are just credit card swiping businesses. Chrome is similar to other apps like X, Instagram, or YouTube. You click on the app. You are given a way to discover content and ads are shown along side that content. When you click on a site / post there can also be ads. Maximizing engagement on the web, means people will discover more content, which means more ads can be displayed. >AMP Unlike the other platforms I mentioned the web hosts content using 3rd party tech stacks and server which means that the user experience can be variable. AMP allows Google to provide a more consistent experience. It was optional and served to provide a better user experience for the users of the web. >Ad-blocking prohibition Google Search and Chrome have not prohibited ad blockers.
- thomassmith65 2y ago
  Advertising accounts for 80% of AlphaGoogle's revenue. That makes them Google's monarchy. Re: AMP. AMP is like Cloudflare. Whatever is good about it is, by definition, bad for the Web, because its model replaces the Web as-we-know-it with something closer to Compuserve. Re: Ad-blockers. It may not be a complete prohibition, but it is a hobbling of ad-blockers. It is clearly intentional, too, as evidenced by AlphaGoogle's recent anti-adblocker initiatives at Youtube.
  - charcircuit 2y ago
    >its model replaces the Web as-we-know-it with something closer to Compuserve. Companies providing web hosting is already an established part of the web for a long time. People want to dedicate their time to the problems the site has and not to the problems the infra has. Not every site is going to want to setup their own servers at hundreds of points of presence around the world. Being able to use someone else's for free allows site operators to improve the user experience of their site for users for free. Even if such a deal ends people can still connect and use the original site directly.
- hermanradtke 2y ago
  > That's like saying that resteraunts are just credit card swiping businesses. You are being sarcastic here, but ironically you are not far from the truth. The core financial model of a businesses is not always obvious. McDonald’s is a real-estate business. Costco is a subscription business.
roenxi 2y ago
So who is going to step up and build something better than Chrome? If we knock Google out of the running 2nd place for the sort of investment they've made is pretty weak and largely only works on iPhones.
keepamovin 2y ago
This is an excellent analysis. Also, Google is actually a data business, building an AI, with a long time horizon view - and always has been. Larry's initial goal was to build the AI. Impressive tho they are, current AI products are mere ripples upon the surface compared to the deep currents of Google's long term plans. Given that, I actually don't see much resistance from Google leadership to abc.xyz divesting itself of Chrome. In fact, it's probably on some level been "worked out" - with the DOJ pushing for a meaningful, and symbolically meaningful, concession that was already negotiated as something Google could agree to, and maybe even wanted. Getting rid of Chrome could help them refocus their efforts, and unburden themselves from something that probably comes with a lot of issues. Cue the eventual press release, letter from the leadership, looking back on the decades of Chrome, and how they ultimate believe that a Browser should be owned by the web and the people itself, not by a company. It could be a significant, meaningful and positive pivot for the company as it faces changing situations.
- snowwrestler 2y ago
  Google does not want to get rid of Chrome because it is by far the best source of “signal” that they use for training their systems. For example Chrome browsing stream data is the largest signal used in ranking search results. Google deprecated PageRank in large part because interlinking was a proxy for user interest, and now with Chrome they can measure user interest directly in real time.
  - keepamovin 2y ago
    Will signal like that remain important with AI?
belorn 2y ago
Googles behavior with youtube, by adding DRM to all videos, is a clear demonstration of the abandonment of the open web. If we are not longer using open standards, and no longer allowing alternative browsers, then how is that different from the closed down platform?
xnx 2y ago
Google's core competency is machine learning. So far they've most profitably applied that to search (matching web pages and ads to queries), but is also applying it to automating all human work: drivers with Waymo, knowledge work with Gemini, and manual work with Gemini robotics.
jgalt212 2y ago
> AMP, and the Ad-blocking prohibition are evidence of this. That's the crux of the argument. I don't need any further evidence.
nerdjon 2y ago
I think what they said is not technically wrong (excluding the "happens to be good for al of us part"). What is good for the health of the web really is good for Google, since they need the web to be sustainable. But, the problem is the opposite is not true. What is good for Google is often bad for the web as a whole. The only reason it "Works" is because of their dominance.
rootsudo 2y ago
Exactly this. Google removed don’t be evil. They created a web browser which originally was good back in the day d.g. Internet explorer was crap, Firefox was okay but very different world 2007 vs today.
metadat 2y ago
> Panglossian I had to look it up, but what a fantastic word which applies perfectly to this context: "Panglossian" describes something or someone characterized by extreme and often naive optimism, especially in the face of adversity Panglossian • \pan-GLAH-see-un\ • adjective. : marked by the view that all is for the best in this best of possible worlds : excessively optimistic. Example: Even the most Panglossian temperament would have had trouble finding the good in this situation. Thank you!
- Centigonal 2y ago
  It comes from a character named pangloss in Voltaire's Candide who takes the view that we must live in the best of all possible worlds.

matthewdgreen 2y ago

Let’s not forget the “AI assistant”, which appears to lightly plagiarize the first three results on any topic, while adding some mistakes.

mixmastamyk 2y ago
Nor WEI, which Ars Technica described as a "nightmare." The final solution to general purpose computing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_Environment_Integrity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_Environment_Integrity
- mdhb 2y ago
  Quoting from Wikipedia here: The stated goal was for sites to be able to restrict access to human users instead of automated programs and "allow web servers to evaluate the authenticity of the device and honest representation of the software stack and the traffic from the device". Which on the surface seems like a legitimate use case I have to be honest.
  - user3939382 2y ago
    It is, just like having an armed policeman permanently stationed in your living room to protect you is a legitimate use case.
    - mdhb 2y ago
      Truly excellent discourse. Thanks for such an enlightening contribution.
      - user3939382 2y ago
        It’s hard or impossible online to detect sarcasm but in the worst case I’d qualify the legitimacy of my argument by pointing to its form, reductio ad absurdum.
  - ferbivore 2y ago
    It's legitimate if you believe companies should have the right to provide or deny you service by arbitrary criteria and on arbitrary terms. This belief has some unfortunate real-world implications. The most likely outcome of WEI would have been - and might still be - that users of any operating system or browser that does not comply with the Trusted Computing agenda (secure boot, verified OS, full encrypted path from company servers to the user's screen & input devices) find themselves locked out of large portions of the internet.
  - fao_ 2y ago
    > "allow web servers to evaluate the authenticity of the device and honest representation of the software stack and the traffic from the device". That's not in the purview of a web server to do that, and quickly falls into the territory of violating 'neutrality' and 'anti-compete' territory. (i.e. it should not be possible for Apple or Microsoft servers to show content only to Microsoft or Apple devices, because that violates the law, it prevents competing software vendors from being compatible with them). It is strictly not appropriate for every single web server that my browser contacts to audit my software stack, just like if a bank phones me up randomly it's not appropriate for them to verify who I am — the burden is on the web server to validate and confirm that it's identity and software stack is correct, instead. The job of a web server is to truthfully serve it's content and not to butcher or malform that content, just like a librarian. Imagine if you had to take your birth certificate and pictures of your flat's security system to a library every time you wanted to borrow a book!
  - mixmastamyk 2y ago
    Sure, the reasons given always sound perfectly reasonable. But, one needs to think of the second+ order effects.

int_19h 2y ago

And that whole "war on cookies" where they keep pitching replacements that basically let Google (and only Google) do all the same things, so that they can then gatekeep it and pay others for the privilege of accessing some limited subset of that data. Regardless of why Google made Chrome originally, today, the main reason why it exists is to enable Google to track users more efficiently. And that is a bad thing.

wordpad 2y ago
Why is tracking a bad thing? It allows better monetization of the web which is good for everyone.
- asyx 2y ago
  Only if you believe that the current mode we are in is good.
- travisgriggs 2y ago
  Was tempted to downvote. But hey, we’re supposed to talk about things. Do you support the abstract argument that ________ allows better monetization of _________ which is good for everyone. ?? If so, we can agree to disagree. If however, “it depends”, I think you need to clarify why your proposition is true where other variants (e.g. “Indentured servitude allows better monetization of the lower classes which is good for everyone”) are very clearly not so.
- wruza 2y ago
  It’s bad at least because people don’t like to be watched or stalked, even if no “real” harm accompanied. Privacy is a thing that most people agree should exist. You can’t always have it, but it doesn’t mean you have to surrender it either. That is, in an ideal world. It allows better monetization of the web which is good for everyone. In the real world, targeted ads initially promised to be related to user’s interests but never kept that. You don’t see what’s interesting for you, only what was paid a lot of money for, by people who find your parameters most suitable for their bait, blanket style. Users get heavily underserved their ads and mostly see generic money grab bs instead, cause money ranks better than interests and google is no socialist despite so much pretending.

esalman 2y ago

Defence contractor as well.

beeflet 2y ago

The 'what is good for the web is good for Google' line certainly was true in 2005 when the greatest threat to the web was companies like microsoft using internet explorer to adjust the de-facto web standards and privatize it in the "EEE" fashion. Obviously the most visited websites would maintain the web better than OS vendors, their buisness depended on it being open. We have a similar situation now, but with google locking down the most common browser (Manifest v3) and using extensions of web standards to maintain a dominant position. Disclaimer: I am a zoomer and not a web developer so my history may be off here.

Voultapher 2y ago
Let's not forget their attempt to push web attestation through WEI https://pluralistic.net/2023/07/24/rent-to-pwn/#kitt-is-a-demon https://pluralistic.net/2023/07/24/rent-to-pwn/#kitt-is-a-de...
- megadata 2y ago
  Attempt? Isn't that project still in full swing?
  - Voultapher 2y ago
    > A Web Environment Integrity prototype existed in Chromium,[2][3] but was removed in November 2023 after extensive criticism by many tech groups. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_Environment_Integrity#Reception https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_Environment_Integrity#Rece...
- charcircuit 2y ago
  Malicous bots are a serious issue that trouble site operators. Trying to come up with solutions to such problems doesn't mean they don't care about the web. If it allows web sites to spend less time moderating and users to spend less time reading spam that would be a win win for both parties.
  - animuchan 2y ago

Gud 2y ago

Absolutely agree 100% with this. I would argue that Google is TERRIBLE for the web.

charcircuit 2y ago

Advertising is a monetization modal. That's like saying that resteraunts are just credit card swiping businesses. Chrome is similar to other apps like X, Instagram, or YouTube. You click on the app. You are given a way to discover content and ads are shown along side that content. When you click on a site / post there can also be ads. Maximizing engagement on the web, means people will discover more content, which means more ads can be displayed. >AMP Unlike the other platforms I mentioned the web hosts content using 3rd party tech stacks and server which means that the user experience can be variable. AMP allows Google to provide a more consistent experience. It was optional and served to provide a better user experience for the users of the web. >Ad-blocking prohibition Google Search and Chrome have not prohibited ad blockers.

thomassmith65 2y ago
Advertising accounts for 80% of AlphaGoogle's revenue. That makes them Google's monarchy. Re: AMP. AMP is like Cloudflare. Whatever is good about it is, by definition, bad for the Web, because its model replaces the Web as-we-know-it with something closer to Compuserve. Re: Ad-blockers. It may not be a complete prohibition, but it is a hobbling of ad-blockers. It is clearly intentional, too, as evidenced by AlphaGoogle's recent anti-adblocker initiatives at Youtube.
- charcircuit 2y ago
  >its model replaces the Web as-we-know-it with something closer to Compuserve. Companies providing web hosting is already an established part of the web for a long time. People want to dedicate their time to the problems the site has and not to the problems the infra has. Not every site is going to want to setup their own servers at hundreds of points of presence around the world. Being able to use someone else's for free allows site operators to improve the user experience of their site for users for free. Even if such a deal ends people can still connect and use the original site directly.
hermanradtke 2y ago
> That's like saying that resteraunts are just credit card swiping businesses. You are being sarcastic here, but ironically you are not far from the truth. The core financial model of a businesses is not always obvious. McDonald’s is a real-estate business. Costco is a subscription business.

roenxi 2y ago

So who is going to step up and build something better than Chrome? If we knock Google out of the running 2nd place for the sort of investment they've made is pretty weak and largely only works on iPhones.

keepamovin 2y ago

This is an excellent analysis. Also, Google is actually a data business, building an AI, with a long time horizon view - and always has been. Larry's initial goal was to build the AI. Impressive tho they are, current AI products are mere ripples upon the surface compared to the deep currents of Google's long term plans. Given that, I actually don't see much resistance from Google leadership to abc.xyz divesting itself of Chrome. In fact, it's probably on some level been "worked out" - with the DOJ pushing for a meaningful, and symbolically meaningful, concession that was already negotiated as something Google could agree to, and maybe even wanted. Getting rid of Chrome could help them refocus their efforts, and unburden themselves from something that probably comes with a lot of issues. Cue the eventual press release, letter from the leadership, looking back on the decades of Chrome, and how they ultimate believe that a Browser should be owned by the web and the people itself, not by a company. It could be a significant, meaningful and positive pivot for the company as it faces changing situations.

snowwrestler 2y ago
Google does not want to get rid of Chrome because it is by far the best source of “signal” that they use for training their systems. For example Chrome browsing stream data is the largest signal used in ranking search results. Google deprecated PageRank in large part because interlinking was a proxy for user interest, and now with Chrome they can measure user interest directly in real time.
- keepamovin 2y ago
  Will signal like that remain important with AI?

belorn 2y ago

Googles behavior with youtube, by adding DRM to all videos, is a clear demonstration of the abandonment of the open web. If we are not longer using open standards, and no longer allowing alternative browsers, then how is that different from the closed down platform?

xnx 2y ago

Google's core competency is machine learning. So far they've most profitably applied that to search (matching web pages and ads to queries), but is also applying it to automating all human work: drivers with Waymo, knowledge work with Gemini, and manual work with Gemini robotics.

jgalt212 2y ago

> AMP, and the Ad-blocking prohibition are evidence of this. That's the crux of the argument. I don't need any further evidence.

nerdjon 2y ago

I think what they said is not technically wrong (excluding the "happens to be good for al of us part"). What is good for the health of the web really is good for Google, since they need the web to be sustainable. But, the problem is the opposite is not true. What is good for Google is often bad for the web as a whole. The only reason it "Works" is because of their dominance.

rootsudo 2y ago

Exactly this. Google removed don’t be evil. They created a web browser which originally was good back in the day d.g. Internet explorer was crap, Firefox was okay but very different world 2007 vs today.

metadat 2y ago

> Panglossian I had to look it up, but what a fantastic word which applies perfectly to this context: "Panglossian" describes something or someone characterized by extreme and often naive optimism, especially in the face of adversity Panglossian • \pan-GLAH-see-un\ • adjective. : marked by the view that all is for the best in this best of possible worlds : excessively optimistic. Example: Even the most Panglossian temperament would have had trouble finding the good in this situation. Thank you!

Centigonal 2y ago
It comes from a character named pangloss in Voltaire's Candide who takes the view that we must live in the best of all possible worlds.