4 ms·

Maybe off topic, but Ive always found strange people who comment on Google's monopoly by focusing on chrome. It seems obvious to me that the key to their domina

Maybe off topic, but Ive always found strange people who comment on Google's monopoly by focusing on chrome. It seems obvious to me that the key to their dominance is that they both have control over how traffic is distributed to websites, and how those websites get paid for the traffic they get. Chrome and android are just nice to haves, but Google would still be a monopoly without them. I think if you wanna break up Google it would be a lot more effective to separate search from AdSense, rather than chrome.

empath75 1y ago
Also Chrome is basically useless as a money-making product without the google integrations. There's no way to monetize it without search and ad integrations.
- acchow 1y ago
  Apple gets paid $20 billion per year to set Google as the default search engine in Safari...
  - azemetre 1y ago
    Yeah and if you’re going by market share that easily puts Chrome in the $100billion range. Obviously there are massive profits to be made from private browsers.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
- owebmaster 1y ago
  50million chromeOS new devices are sold and added to its userbase. Chrome as a company could be huge and compete against Windows, Mac, iOS and Android.
- EE84M3i 1y ago
  Google sells chrome(os) directly as a product to enterprises and schools for fleet management and addon functions. Its currently part of google workspace but could be separated out. Is going to print money like google ads? Probably not. Could it sustain the browser as a standalone business? Perhaps.
charcircuit 1y ago
So does x, so does youtube, so does tiktok, so does instagram. It's not unique for an app to control both discovery and monetization of content within it.
1vuio0pswjnm7 1y ago
"Chrome and android are just nice to haves, but Google would still be a monopoly without them." Being a monopoly is not unlawful. "... the possession of monopoly power will not be found unlawful unless it is accompanied by an element of anticompetitive conduct." https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/131153/verizon-communications-inc-v-law-offices-of-curtis-v-trinko-llp/ https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/131153/verizon-communi... Google's anticompetitive conduct occurred mainly through agreements concerning web browser defaults. Controlling default settings in web browsers via these agreements will be prohibited. It stands to reason that controlling default settings by distributing its own web browser will, too. "Maybe off topic, but Ive always found strange people who comment on Google's monopoly by focusing on chrome." As such, it is not strange that proposed remedies targeting Chrome were submitted and have been a focus of online commentary.

empath75 1y ago

Also Chrome is basically useless as a money-making product without the google integrations. There's no way to monetize it without search and ad integrations.

acchow 1y ago
Apple gets paid $20 billion per year to set Google as the default search engine in Safari...
- azemetre 1y ago
  Yeah and if you’re going by market share that easily puts Chrome in the $100billion range. Obviously there are massive profits to be made from private browsers.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
owebmaster 1y ago
50million chromeOS new devices are sold and added to its userbase. Chrome as a company could be huge and compete against Windows, Mac, iOS and Android.
EE84M3i 1y ago
Google sells chrome(os) directly as a product to enterprises and schools for fleet management and addon functions. Its currently part of google workspace but could be separated out. Is going to print money like google ads? Probably not. Could it sustain the browser as a standalone business? Perhaps.

charcircuit 1y ago

So does x, so does youtube, so does tiktok, so does instagram. It's not unique for an app to control both discovery and monetization of content within it.

1vuio0pswjnm7 1y ago

"Chrome and android are just nice to haves, but Google would still be a monopoly without them." Being a monopoly is not unlawful. "... the possession of monopoly power will not be found unlawful unless it is accompanied by an element of anticompetitive conduct." https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/131153/verizon-communications-inc-v-law-offices-of-curtis-v-trinko-llp/ https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/131153/verizon-communi... Google's anticompetitive conduct occurred mainly through agreements concerning web browser defaults. Controlling default settings in web browsers via these agreements will be prohibited. It stands to reason that controlling default settings by distributing its own web browser will, too. "Maybe off topic, but Ive always found strange people who comment on Google's monopoly by focusing on chrome." As such, it is not strange that proposed remedies targeting Chrome were submitted and have been a focus of online commentary.