3 ms·

Just a year prior, I would have been against a decision to force Google to part with either Android or Chrome. Now, I'm of the opinion that they should have be

Just a year prior, I would have been against a decision to force Google to part with either Android or Chrome. Now, I'm of the opinion that they should have been forced to sell off both, and maybe Chromebooks too, for the good measure. No company with a direction as vile and openly user-hostile as what Google currently demonstrates should have anywhere near this level of control over the ecosystem.

wmf 1y ago
I wonder if Android and Chrome would support open source even less as independent companies though.
- SpaghettiCthulu 1y ago
  Why not spin them each off into an independent non-profit?
  - wmf 1y ago
    Because people don't just throw away money.
    - const_cast 1y ago
      Non-profits can make a lot of money, they just have to reinvest said money back into capital, labor, or R&D. Non-profits can absolutely charge a license as well, if they want. You can do that with OSS, too. Just make it GPL and then charge for a more generous license like Qt does.
    - SpaghettiCthulu 1y ago
      Of course they don't. But the courts/government should force them to do so in this case. If the company or its shareholders need to be compensated then so be it. Better to pay them off and get Android and Chrome out of their hands before they can cause further damage.
scottbez1 1y ago
The sad thing is I think Google keeping Chrome is actually likely the better of two possible bad outcomes... Anyone else interested and willing to pay the true value of owning the entire Internet ecosystem is almost certainly going to look to extract value from that, and that's almost certainly worse than what Google does today. E.g. using everyone's browser to extract training data for AI without getting IP blocked.
- palata 1y ago
  Split it to a point where no one company can own the entire Internet ecosystem. Apply antitrust laws to keep it like this. Maybe the development will slow down, but let's be honest: we would still be fine if Android and iOS had stopped "improving" years ago. Now it's mostly about adding shiny AI features and squeeze the users.
  - gruez 1y ago
    >Split it to a point where no one company can own the entire Internet ecosystem. Apply antitrust laws to keep it like this. Facebook was once small too. Yet people happily signed up, giving up their privacy in the process. What makes you think the remaining companies offering a free browser wouldn't try to monetize users in a similar way? How many people are willing to pay $5/month for a browser?
    - palata 1y ago
      > Yet people happily signed up, giving up their privacy in the process. When Facebook started, it was a different era. And since then, Facebook has clearly abused their position with anti-competitive behaviours. > How many people are willing to pay $5/month for a browser? If they can keep using Google Chrome for free, we already know the answer. If the only way for them to have a reasonable browser would to pay... who knows? People pay more than that to access movies that they could download as torrents. Also does it have to be 5$ per month? Do browsers need to keep adding so many features, and hence so many bugs and security issues, that only huge companies can keep up and nobody wants to pay for that work? Maybe it's enough to pay 1$/year for a company to maintain a reasonably secure browser with the features that people actually need. Do people actually need QUIC? Not sure.
izacus 1y ago
And by destroying the Android development team you'd achieve what exactly? Magical appearance of the security patches you're complaining about here? Would you start to actually pay for all those hundreds of engineers maintaining the OS?
- ACCount37 1y ago
  Either the new company takes over maintaining Android, or it fumbles the bag and the development becomes less centralized for a while - until some leader emerges and takes over. Either way, the new control center of Android wouldn't be Google. A decade ago, I would have seen that as a very bad thing. Now, I'm almost certain that this would be a change for the better. Google is not what it once was.
  - wstrange 1y ago
    Or a more likely scenario is that Apple picks up even more market share, and we go from a duopoly to a monopoly.
    - rs186 1y ago
      Well, there is barely any new Android feature worth talking about for the past three years (no, new skins definitely don't count). I seriously doubt there is going to be any change in the market share if Android were controlled by a different company. We would have already seen that by now.
- palata 1y ago
  Drone manufacturers like Samsung, Xiaomi etc need an OS. Right now it's more profitable for them to just pay licences to Google. But if Google lost Android... they would need to find a solution. I would like to see this, at least something would be happening.
  - thewebguyd 1y ago
    I could see sort of an Android consortium taking over developing it and keeping it going outside of Google. Samsung, Oppo, Xiaomi, Huwawei, Motorola, etc. Honestly it'd probably be better off that way. Google has far too much influence and control.
thewebguyd 1y ago
They should lose YouTube as well. Remember how they used their control over YouTube to kill Windows Phone back in the day also. They should have lost it right then. Google is very clearly an abusive monopoly, and has been for a very long time. We all overlooked it because they were mostly benevolent. That is no longer the case.
- overfeed 1y ago
  > YouTube to kill Windows Phone back in the day also. I hope you're not referring to YouTube blocking the 3rd party YT Windows Phone client that didn't play or display ads? At the time, Microsoft was threatening Android OEMs with patent infringement (without disclosing the specific patents!), and making it go away if they agreed to make Windows phone models[1]. Google refusing to make a first-party YouTube client for Windows Phone was to be expected, it was an ugly, hand-to-hand fight and all parties used the weapons they had at hand. 1. The agreements were never made public, but HTC and Samsung disclosed they'd be making Windows phones in their respective agreements with Microsoft. Microsoft also initially filed an Amicus brief in Google v Oracle - supporting Oracle's position.

wmf 1y ago

I wonder if Android and Chrome would support open source even less as independent companies though.

SpaghettiCthulu 1y ago
Why not spin them each off into an independent non-profit?
- wmf 1y ago
  Because people don't just throw away money.
  - const_cast 1y ago
    Non-profits can make a lot of money, they just have to reinvest said money back into capital, labor, or R&D. Non-profits can absolutely charge a license as well, if they want. You can do that with OSS, too. Just make it GPL and then charge for a more generous license like Qt does.
  - SpaghettiCthulu 1y ago
    Of course they don't. But the courts/government should force them to do so in this case. If the company or its shareholders need to be compensated then so be it. Better to pay them off and get Android and Chrome out of their hands before they can cause further damage.

scottbez1 1y ago

The sad thing is I think Google keeping Chrome is actually likely the better of two possible bad outcomes... Anyone else interested and willing to pay the true value of owning the entire Internet ecosystem is almost certainly going to look to extract value from that, and that's almost certainly worse than what Google does today. E.g. using everyone's browser to extract training data for AI without getting IP blocked.

palata 1y ago
Split it to a point where no one company can own the entire Internet ecosystem. Apply antitrust laws to keep it like this. Maybe the development will slow down, but let's be honest: we would still be fine if Android and iOS had stopped "improving" years ago. Now it's mostly about adding shiny AI features and squeeze the users.
- gruez 1y ago
  >Split it to a point where no one company can own the entire Internet ecosystem. Apply antitrust laws to keep it like this. Facebook was once small too. Yet people happily signed up, giving up their privacy in the process. What makes you think the remaining companies offering a free browser wouldn't try to monetize users in a similar way? How many people are willing to pay $5/month for a browser?
  - palata 1y ago
    > Yet people happily signed up, giving up their privacy in the process. When Facebook started, it was a different era. And since then, Facebook has clearly abused their position with anti-competitive behaviours. > How many people are willing to pay $5/month for a browser? If they can keep using Google Chrome for free, we already know the answer. If the only way for them to have a reasonable browser would to pay... who knows? People pay more than that to access movies that they could download as torrents. Also does it have to be 5$ per month? Do browsers need to keep adding so many features, and hence so many bugs and security issues, that only huge companies can keep up and nobody wants to pay for that work? Maybe it's enough to pay 1$/year for a company to maintain a reasonably secure browser with the features that people actually need. Do people actually need QUIC? Not sure.

izacus 1y ago

And by destroying the Android development team you'd achieve what exactly? Magical appearance of the security patches you're complaining about here? Would you start to actually pay for all those hundreds of engineers maintaining the OS?

ACCount37 1y ago
Either the new company takes over maintaining Android, or it fumbles the bag and the development becomes less centralized for a while - until some leader emerges and takes over. Either way, the new control center of Android wouldn't be Google. A decade ago, I would have seen that as a very bad thing. Now, I'm almost certain that this would be a change for the better. Google is not what it once was.
- wstrange 1y ago
  Or a more likely scenario is that Apple picks up even more market share, and we go from a duopoly to a monopoly.
  - rs186 1y ago
    Well, there is barely any new Android feature worth talking about for the past three years (no, new skins definitely don't count). I seriously doubt there is going to be any change in the market share if Android were controlled by a different company. We would have already seen that by now.
palata 1y ago
Drone manufacturers like Samsung, Xiaomi etc need an OS. Right now it's more profitable for them to just pay licences to Google. But if Google lost Android... they would need to find a solution. I would like to see this, at least something would be happening.
- thewebguyd 1y ago
  I could see sort of an Android consortium taking over developing it and keeping it going outside of Google. Samsung, Oppo, Xiaomi, Huwawei, Motorola, etc. Honestly it'd probably be better off that way. Google has far too much influence and control.

thewebguyd 1y ago

They should lose YouTube as well. Remember how they used their control over YouTube to kill Windows Phone back in the day also. They should have lost it right then. Google is very clearly an abusive monopoly, and has been for a very long time. We all overlooked it because they were mostly benevolent. That is no longer the case.

overfeed 1y ago
> YouTube to kill Windows Phone back in the day also. I hope you're not referring to YouTube blocking the 3rd party YT Windows Phone client that didn't play or display ads? At the time, Microsoft was threatening Android OEMs with patent infringement (without disclosing the specific patents!), and making it go away if they agreed to make Windows phone models[1]. Google refusing to make a first-party YouTube client for Windows Phone was to be expected, it was an ugly, hand-to-hand fight and all parties used the weapons they had at hand. 1. The agreements were never made public, but HTC and Samsung disclosed they'd be making Windows phones in their respective agreements with Microsoft. Microsoft also initially filed an Amicus brief in Google v Oracle - supporting Oracle's position.