4 ms·
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.
by 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 agoAre 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 agoYou'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 agoAnd 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.