4 ms·

This is my point - Chrome isn't there to play dirty, it's there so competitors can't. But if it had to make money without Google all that BS would get bundled i

This is my point - Chrome isn't there to play dirty, it's there so competitors can't. But if it had to make money without Google all that BS would get bundled in the browser.

MyOutfitIsVague 1y ago
Making moves so that competitors can't play at all is so far beyond playing dirty. It's anti-competitive and illegal.
- surajrmal 1y ago
  They can play, but they are competing with a raised bar which benefits consumers. It's not illegal to make things better.
  - MyOutfitIsVague 1y ago
    They aren't competing with a raised bar, they are competing with a bar that can only be passed if you already have a massive presence in an unrelated area. You can not compete with an entrenched existing player when they are giving their things away for "free", subsidized by a massive ad tax. This entrenchment is tailor-made to make competition infeasible. This is illegal for a reason. It does NOT benefit consumers to make it impossible for anybody to compete with you. This is anti-competitive, not competition.
heylook 1y ago
> Chrome isn't there to play dirty, it's there so competitors can't. Like Manifest V3, which explicitly makes it harder to strip out Google's own ad products on websites you visit? > without Google all that BS would get bundled in the browser. Or maybe it wouldn't. There are already lots of other browsers that don't.
- surajrmal 1y ago
  Manifest v3 being tied to ads is a fantasy fiction. This is no proof of it and ample evidence it is a good security move which other browsers did first. Is apple doing similar things with Safari for nefarious reasons?
  - d1sxeyes 1y ago
    > This is no proof of it and ample evidence it is a good security move which other browsers did first. You crush up the bitter pill in a spoonful of jam to make it easier to digest. > Is apple doing similar things with Safari for nefarious reasons? Yes? Look at what they tried to get away with with PWAs as an example.

This is my point - Chrome isn't there to play dirty, it's there so competitors can't. But if it had to make money without Google all that BS would get bundled in the browser.

MyOutfitIsVague 1y ago

Making moves so that competitors can't play at all is so far beyond playing dirty. It's anti-competitive and illegal.

surajrmal 1y ago
They can play, but they are competing with a raised bar which benefits consumers. It's not illegal to make things better.
- MyOutfitIsVague 1y ago
  They aren't competing with a raised bar, they are competing with a bar that can only be passed if you already have a massive presence in an unrelated area. You can not compete with an entrenched existing player when they are giving their things away for "free", subsidized by a massive ad tax. This entrenchment is tailor-made to make competition infeasible. This is illegal for a reason. It does NOT benefit consumers to make it impossible for anybody to compete with you. This is anti-competitive, not competition.

heylook 1y ago

> Chrome isn't there to play dirty, it's there so competitors can't. Like Manifest V3, which explicitly makes it harder to strip out Google's own ad products on websites you visit? > without Google all that BS would get bundled in the browser. Or maybe it wouldn't. There are already lots of other browsers that don't.

surajrmal 1y ago
Manifest v3 being tied to ads is a fantasy fiction. This is no proof of it and ample evidence it is a good security move which other browsers did first. Is apple doing similar things with Safari for nefarious reasons?
- d1sxeyes 1y ago
  > This is no proof of it and ample evidence it is a good security move which other browsers did first. You crush up the bitter pill in a spoonful of jam to make it easier to digest. > Is apple doing similar things with Safari for nefarious reasons? Yes? Look at what they tried to get away with with PWAs as an example.