8 ms·

This is clearly a PR stunt. Perplexity knows Google would not sell Chrome, it is the holy grail of their ads strategy and would cripple their moat.

echelon 1y ago
> would cripple their moat. Would end their unfair monopolistic control over the web, search, and digital advertising. The DOJ or the FTC need to force this dismantlement.
ocdtrekkie 1y ago
You may be unaware that Google has lost an antitrust suit and that the DOJ has asked the courts to require Google sell Chrome. Whether or not Google can bribe their way out of it is yet to be seen, but they may not have a choice, so it's a pretty big one time opportunity.
- scarface_74 1y ago
  Yes and the courts are idiots. Why buy Chrome when you they can get Chromium for free? What good is Chrome outside of Google? Not to mention what does that mean for ChromeOS?
  - ocdtrekkie 1y ago
    The courts have, for the first time in decades, done their job. It seems ridiculous now but it should've been done ten years ago. The impact is in removing Google's control of the customer base, not in a copy of the code.
    - JustExAWS 1y ago
      And the customer base is still is going to voluntarily choose to go to Google search and YouTube like they always have. That’s where the money is. Windows still has the majority of the desk to market share and Google search is not the default. Yet people still choose to use Google. As far as Chrome itself, every single desktop OS user except for those forced to use ChromeOS went out of their way to willingly download Chrome.
      - philistine 1y ago
        And how, pray tell, where all of these people made aware of Chrome? Google made the first ad for its front page for Chrome. This is not in itself a problem, but Google has a monopoly in search and ads. They cannot be allowed to also have a monopoly in browsers. That’s the whole point of American monopoly laws. Once you have a monopoly, you can’t do everything you want. There are limits. Owning a browser is too much power in one monopolistic giant.
        JustExAWS 1y ago
        So let’s say that Google doesn’t own Chrome. Does that affect where Google actually makes its money? In 2025 when most people first by a Windows computer, do they use Bing or go to Google? Google does not have a monopoly on ads. Billions are spent on ads on Facebook properties, Amazon, Apple (app store), TikTok. People choose to use Google for search and can go to any other search engine if they choose. In 2025, Google search is so bad more and more people are using LLM based search tools.
        philistine 1y ago
        While the vibes around Google Search are indeed bad, the numbers haven't shown a dip in usage. And it's not like Google has rested on its laurels. They're shoving AI in search as much as they can.
      - ocdtrekkie 1y ago
        This is an extremely naive take. Sundar Pichai's claim to fame was getting the Google Toolbar and Chrome pushed into the Adobe Reader installer back in the day. So many OEMs were shoving Chrome and Google into their default loads that Microsoft had to make a "Bing Edition" of Windows for a bit with a lower price to include Bing and Edge as default, and have now outright blocked the practice I believe. When you visit Google Search or Gmail on your default browser, you get at least one but sometimes as many as three separate popups telling you to install Chrome for "faster" ability to search/email. Today many product vendors incorrectly claim that their website or service will only work on Chrome, and refuse to provide support unless you switch to it. Oh, and my personal favorite: If you aren't the admin of a PC, Chrome malware-installs in the user profile folder so you can circumvent your IT department! Google's power to force Chrome on people is insane, and as the government has now determined, illegally anticompetitive.
  - philistine 1y ago
    That’s ultimately for the courts to decide but what’s at issue is not the control of Chrome itself but wether Google is allowed to offer a browser. Any browser. People on this site seem to forget that courts can compel companies. Open-source is not a magic bullet that invalidates consent decrees. If Google is forced to sell off Chrome and forbidden from offering a browser due to their monopoly in the ad market, they can’t shout open-source and it no longer applies. Google could probably keep spending engineer hours working on Chromium, but wouldn’t be allowed to offer it bundled with its products, and have it on their own website.
    - scarface_74 1y ago
      Are they going to compel Google to not allow people to go to their sites? Even when it’s not the default search engine (Windows), they still voluntarily go there. Who is going to fund the browser development? Is it going to be funded like Firefox dependent on Google ad revenue? The only product bundled with Chrome are ChromeOS notebooks and Android phones and neither has a majority market share in the US.
      - philistine 1y ago
        You're discussing the wrong thing; Google might have to sell Chrome because they have a monopoly on search and ads. Not on the browser.
        scarface_74 1y ago
        And getting rid of Chrome is not going to stop people from choosing to go to Google. The desktop with the largest market share neither comes with Chrome nor has Google as the default search engine and people still go there. As far as ads, there are three trillion+ market cap companies with a thriving ad business - Google, Amazon and Meta.
- digitcatphd 1y ago
  Also likely a political PR stunt.
  - ocdtrekkie 1y ago
    This is a completely bipartisan aligned issue. Trump's administration has basically said that Biden's antitrust enforcement is the one thing they did right (in their opinion). These investigations started under Trump 1, continued under Biden, and will likely be successfully enforced under Trump 2. There's a lot of reason big corps were trying to get Harris to agree to fire Lina Khan in exchange for support: The only way they get out of this is a bribe. And we've already seen Trump is both happy to take the bribe... and still punish you anyways.
techMac111 1y ago
No core AI model, Its a wrapper, And valuation at $18 billion is just fabricated fake PR, After deep seek and other free Core AI models based AI tools it has no future and its CEO knows that is why he is just focusing on public stunts & then raising as much as he can and withdraw by packing massive paychecks to himself.

echelon 1y ago

> would cripple their moat. Would end their unfair monopolistic control over the web, search, and digital advertising. The DOJ or the FTC need to force this dismantlement.

ocdtrekkie 1y ago

You may be unaware that Google has lost an antitrust suit and that the DOJ has asked the courts to require Google sell Chrome. Whether or not Google can bribe their way out of it is yet to be seen, but they may not have a choice, so it's a pretty big one time opportunity.

scarface_74 1y ago
Yes and the courts are idiots. Why buy Chrome when you they can get Chromium for free? What good is Chrome outside of Google? Not to mention what does that mean for ChromeOS?
- ocdtrekkie 1y ago
  The courts have, for the first time in decades, done their job. It seems ridiculous now but it should've been done ten years ago. The impact is in removing Google's control of the customer base, not in a copy of the code.
  - JustExAWS 1y ago
    And the customer base is still is going to voluntarily choose to go to Google search and YouTube like they always have. That’s where the money is. Windows still has the majority of the desk to market share and Google search is not the default. Yet people still choose to use Google. As far as Chrome itself, every single desktop OS user except for those forced to use ChromeOS went out of their way to willingly download Chrome.
    - philistine 1y ago
      And how, pray tell, where all of these people made aware of Chrome? Google made the first ad for its front page for Chrome. This is not in itself a problem, but Google has a monopoly in search and ads. They cannot be allowed to also have a monopoly in browsers. That’s the whole point of American monopoly laws. Once you have a monopoly, you can’t do everything you want. There are limits. Owning a browser is too much power in one monopolistic giant.
      - JustExAWS 1y ago
        So let’s say that Google doesn’t own Chrome. Does that affect where Google actually makes its money? In 2025 when most people first by a Windows computer, do they use Bing or go to Google? Google does not have a monopoly on ads. Billions are spent on ads on Facebook properties, Amazon, Apple (app store), TikTok. People choose to use Google for search and can go to any other search engine if they choose. In 2025, Google search is so bad more and more people are using LLM based search tools.
        philistine 1y ago
        While the vibes around Google Search are indeed bad, the numbers haven't shown a dip in usage. And it's not like Google has rested on its laurels. They're shoving AI in search as much as they can.
    - ocdtrekkie 1y ago
      This is an extremely naive take. Sundar Pichai's claim to fame was getting the Google Toolbar and Chrome pushed into the Adobe Reader installer back in the day. So many OEMs were shoving Chrome and Google into their default loads that Microsoft had to make a "Bing Edition" of Windows for a bit with a lower price to include Bing and Edge as default, and have now outright blocked the practice I believe. When you visit Google Search or Gmail on your default browser, you get at least one but sometimes as many as three separate popups telling you to install Chrome for "faster" ability to search/email. Today many product vendors incorrectly claim that their website or service will only work on Chrome, and refuse to provide support unless you switch to it. Oh, and my personal favorite: If you aren't the admin of a PC, Chrome malware-installs in the user profile folder so you can circumvent your IT department! Google's power to force Chrome on people is insane, and as the government has now determined, illegally anticompetitive.
- philistine 1y ago
  That’s ultimately for the courts to decide but what’s at issue is not the control of Chrome itself but wether Google is allowed to offer a browser. Any browser. People on this site seem to forget that courts can compel companies. Open-source is not a magic bullet that invalidates consent decrees. If Google is forced to sell off Chrome and forbidden from offering a browser due to their monopoly in the ad market, they can’t shout open-source and it no longer applies. Google could probably keep spending engineer hours working on Chromium, but wouldn’t be allowed to offer it bundled with its products, and have it on their own website.
  - scarface_74 1y ago
    Are they going to compel Google to not allow people to go to their sites? Even when it’s not the default search engine (Windows), they still voluntarily go there. Who is going to fund the browser development? Is it going to be funded like Firefox dependent on Google ad revenue? The only product bundled with Chrome are ChromeOS notebooks and Android phones and neither has a majority market share in the US.
    - philistine 1y ago
      You're discussing the wrong thing; Google might have to sell Chrome because they have a monopoly on search and ads. Not on the browser.
      - scarface_74 1y ago
        And getting rid of Chrome is not going to stop people from choosing to go to Google. The desktop with the largest market share neither comes with Chrome nor has Google as the default search engine and people still go there. As far as ads, there are three trillion+ market cap companies with a thriving ad business - Google, Amazon and Meta.
digitcatphd 1y ago
Also likely a political PR stunt.
- ocdtrekkie 1y ago
  This is a completely bipartisan aligned issue. Trump's administration has basically said that Biden's antitrust enforcement is the one thing they did right (in their opinion). These investigations started under Trump 1, continued under Biden, and will likely be successfully enforced under Trump 2. There's a lot of reason big corps were trying to get Harris to agree to fire Lina Khan in exchange for support: The only way they get out of this is a bribe. And we've already seen Trump is both happy to take the bribe... and still punish you anyways.

techMac111 1y ago

No core AI model, Its a wrapper, And valuation at $18 billion is just fabricated fake PR, After deep seek and other free Core AI models based AI tools it has no future and its CEO knows that is why he is just focusing on public stunts & then raising as much as he can and withdraw by packing massive paychecks to himself.