3 ms·

"A cartel is a group of independent market participants who collude with each other as well as agreeing not to compete with each other in order to improve their

"A cartel is a group of independent market participants who collude with each other as well as agreeing not to compete with each other in order to improve their profits and dominate the market. A cartel is an organization formed by producers to limit competition and increase prices by creating artificial shortages through low production quotas, stockpiling, and marketing quotas. Jurisdictions frequently consider cartelization to be anti-competitive behavior, leading them to outlaw cartel practices." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartel I don't agree that the current situation in the browser market fits the definition of a Cartel, as I understand it! :-)

dijit 1y ago
Not sure I agree. The “price fixing” aspect could be about ads, after all- and none of the major browsers are neutral in this. Manifest v3 for example, and various standards that make fingerprinting easier.
Tarq0n 1y ago
The more appropriate term is an oligopoly. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oligopoly https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oligopoly
- popcorncowboy 1y ago
  Or perhaps even racketeering. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racketeering https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racketeering
xg15 1y ago
If the article is true, it would be worse than a cartel, it would be effectively a monopoly with a few sockpuppet competitors. In an actual cartel or oligopoly, you'd expect at least the cartel members be relatively equal in power. But if the article is right, then Google has basically all the power to decide the course of web tech going forward, as the other browsers devs can't meaningfully deviate from whatever vision Google has for the web, without risking their funding.
CPLX 1y ago
Of course it’s a cartel. They agree not to compete with each other in online search advertising, one company collects the monopoly profits and then distributes them to the other cartel members. It’s textbook.
- f33d5173 1y ago
  They don't agree to that though. Firefox took a deal from yahoo some years ago. They usually make deals with google because google pays the best.

dijit 1y ago

Not sure I agree. The “price fixing” aspect could be about ads, after all- and none of the major browsers are neutral in this. Manifest v3 for example, and various standards that make fingerprinting easier.

Tarq0n 1y ago

The more appropriate term is an oligopoly. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oligopoly https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oligopoly

popcorncowboy 1y ago
Or perhaps even racketeering. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racketeering https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racketeering

xg15 1y ago

If the article is true, it would be worse than a cartel, it would be effectively a monopoly with a few sockpuppet competitors. In an actual cartel or oligopoly, you'd expect at least the cartel members be relatively equal in power. But if the article is right, then Google has basically all the power to decide the course of web tech going forward, as the other browsers devs can't meaningfully deviate from whatever vision Google has for the web, without risking their funding.

CPLX 1y ago

Of course it’s a cartel. They agree not to compete with each other in online search advertising, one company collects the monopoly profits and then distributes them to the other cartel members. It’s textbook.

f33d5173 1y ago
They don't agree to that though. Firefox took a deal from yahoo some years ago. They usually make deals with google because google pays the best.