OpenAI Would Buy Google's Chrome, Exec Testifies At Trial (reuters.com) 59
At Google's antitrust trial, OpenAI's head of product revealed the company would consider buying Chrome if regulators force Alphabet to sell it, arguing such a move could help improve ChatGPT's search capabilities. Reuters reports: ChatGPT head of product Nick Turley made the statement while testifying at trial in Washington where U.S. Department of Justice seeks to require Google to undertake far-reaching measures restore competition in online search. The judge overseeing the trial found last year that Google has a monopoly in online search and related advertising. Google has not offered Chrome for sale. The company plans to appeal the ruling that it holds a monopoly.
Turley wrote last year that ChatGPT was leading in the consumer chatbot market and did not see Google as its biggest competitor, according to an internal OpenAI document Google's lawyer showed at trial. He testified that the document was meant to inspire OpenAI employees and that the company would still benefit from distribution partnerships. Turley, a witness for the government, testified earlier in the day that Google shot down a bid by OpenAI to use its search technology within ChatGPT. OpenAI had reached out to Google after experiencing issues with its own search provider, Turley said, without naming the provider. ChatGPT uses technology from Microsoft's search engine, Bing. "We believe having multiple partners, and in particular Google's API, would enable us to provide a better product to users," OpenAI told Google, according to an email shown at trial.
OpenAI first reached out in July, and Google declined the request in August, saying it would involve too many competitors, according to the email. "We have no partnership with Google today," Turley said. The DOJ's proposal to make Google share search data with competitors as one means of restoring competition would help accelerate efforts to improve ChatGPT, Turley said. Search is a critical part of ChatGPT to provide answers to user queries that are up to date and factual, Turley said. ChatGPT is years away from its goal of being able to use its own search technology to answer 80% of queries, he added.
Turley wrote last year that ChatGPT was leading in the consumer chatbot market and did not see Google as its biggest competitor, according to an internal OpenAI document Google's lawyer showed at trial. He testified that the document was meant to inspire OpenAI employees and that the company would still benefit from distribution partnerships. Turley, a witness for the government, testified earlier in the day that Google shot down a bid by OpenAI to use its search technology within ChatGPT. OpenAI had reached out to Google after experiencing issues with its own search provider, Turley said, without naming the provider. ChatGPT uses technology from Microsoft's search engine, Bing. "We believe having multiple partners, and in particular Google's API, would enable us to provide a better product to users," OpenAI told Google, according to an email shown at trial.
OpenAI first reached out in July, and Google declined the request in August, saying it would involve too many competitors, according to the email. "We have no partnership with Google today," Turley said. The DOJ's proposal to make Google share search data with competitors as one means of restoring competition would help accelerate efforts to improve ChatGPT, Turley said. Search is a critical part of ChatGPT to provide answers to user queries that are up to date and factual, Turley said. ChatGPT is years away from its goal of being able to use its own search technology to answer 80% of queries, he added.
OpenAI search sucks (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
i know they downfalled themselves into a trillion dollars, oh no!
And we all know that the only measure that matters at all in the modern world is profit. That's why TayTay is the most talented singer/songwriter of all time, McDonald's the highest quality restaurant, and Starbucks the best coffee ever created.
Re: (Score:3)
Chrome has nothing to do with search.
They want to buy it to train on browsing data. They want to harvest the search queries you type in, the result pages that come back and which results you click on.
Re: (Score:2)
By running code both in the browser and on most web servers on the Internet, Google can track not just what you search, but what you actually do after you've left the search page. That includes what you do after you've left
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
If you want to search with AI, use perplexity. Other than ChatGPT it is made for that.
It wasn't actually that guy who came up with this (Score:2)
It was some guy named "Joe Firefox", apparently he thinks it's a fantastic idea.
Strongest argument yet (Score:3, Funny)
Strongest argument yet to keep Chrome in Google's hands.
Re: (Score:2)
This, entirely this.
Re: (Score:3)
In all seriousness, it's difficult to think of a good option for Chrome.
It's already open source, but almost all the improvements being made are done by Google. Firefox is also open source, but almost all the work is done by Mozilla. Browsers are just so big and complicated, and so integrated with the web standards process, that the most it seems like you can hope for is for some other companies to contribute the odd patch and fork.
If the profit motive is removed, Chrome will probably stagnate.
There are a f
Re: (Score:2)
Does Blink still import changes to WebKit? I assume WebKit has been ignoring KHTML for a while, but it seems like the WebKit and Blink code bases are similar enough that some degree of unified cross-corporate cross-project development is practical.
I'm one of those rare people who'd be happy if web development froze for a bit. When we have APIs like WebUSB, we're looking at feature creep well outside where these systems should be going.
Re: (Score:2)
Awesome! (Score:1)
This would be sure to tank Chrome and give other browsers a chance. I'm in favor of it but I'm also bias because I'm a Firefox user.
Re: (Score:2)
People generally have to download either firefox or chrome (or stick with the browser on their computer); it's similar effort no matter what they download. Most people seem to prefer chrome (strongly). So you are saying "I insist that people use a browser they dislike, just because I wanna." I mean, it's got some promise as an Evil Overlord plot if you add some nuclear missile silos on the moon somehow, but otherwise it's just confusing.
Re: (Score:2)
Most people seem to prefer chrome (strongly).
What's the evidence for that? Most people wind up with Chrome, that doesn't mean they even compared them. They got bombarded with ads for Chrome by Google, so they got Chrome, why do they need another browser if it works?
Re: (Score:2)
So you are saying "I insist that people use a browser they dislike, just because I wanna."
Not at all. Chrome has shown to be harmful to people's privacy but they seem to go along with it. I think it's mostly inertia kinda like all the fools that sticking to Windows for no reason but enough of a shock and they'll look elsewhere.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
You're not wrong but that doesn't mean Chrome is better for people. Just look at the difference in privacy protections.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Weird, that's not how I remember it happening.
I remember Google aggressively pushing Chrome at every opportunity, including from their google.com search portal. At one point, they even went so far as to create a click-to-run Windows installer that basically started the installation immediately if the user clicked on the place Google was pointing them to click.
I remember working in the MSP field in those days and was flabbergasted at the shady tactics Google was using to force their way into the market.
Hooray, problem solved! (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
No it's not. Chrome differs quite significantly from Chromium. In any case the openness of the code is only one very minor point here and not the one principally complained about. The problem is how much influence the owner of Chrome has for things such as setting standards on the internet.
Re: (Score:1)
Chrome Browser is not for end users (Score:2, Flamebait)
Silly goose! Browsers are for selling the metrics of its users.
Everything on Earth must serve our new god: BigData
Re: (Score:2)
Better BigData than Big Ballz.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't blame Big Ballz for what he is. I blame the person that gave him all the login credentials.
Re: (Score:2)
Silly goose! Browsers are for selling the metrics of its users.
Everything on Earth must serve our new god: BigData
BigData is a puny demi-god serving the one true god: Greed. BigData is just an offshoot of Greed, a particularly faithful servant of the true One God Over All.
Re: (Score:2)
Mac and Windows users⦠(Score:3)
Users of Mac and Windows get safari and edge preinstalled, so these browsers have a clear and distinct advantage. However, almost all users decided to only use those default browsers to install Chrome and set it as their default⦠so a judge decided it is part of an illegal monopoly and must be removed from Googleâ(TM)s control?
The expensive backroom-deal brandy and cigar smoke coming from the judges chamber canâ(TM)t mask the smell of fecal matter in this decision.
Re: (Score:2)
That is incorrect.
Chromium is open-source but Chromium != Chrome
Re: (Score:1)
That is incorrect.
Chromium is open-source but Chromium != Chrome
Chromium != Chrome, but if you removed all the Google integration from Chrome what's left would be indistinguishable from Chromium.
Re: (Score:2)
When people search anything on Google or check their Gmail, it throws up a scary warning that they're using the internet wrong because they're not using Chrome. I think it's crazy more people don't use Firefox. The things the people on ./ complain about regarding Firefox are so minor. Oh no! The tabs are up there instead of down here!
Re: (Score:1)
No it does not... Just started Firefox and went to google.com: no warning...
Re: (Score:2)
When people search anything on Google or check their Gmail, it throws up a scary warning that they're using the internet wrong because they're not using Chrome.
I just checked with Firefox, Safari and Edge, on Debian Linux, OS X and Windows, respectively. I did some searches, logged into gmail, checked my Google account settings and asked Gemini some questions. No warnings about not using Chrome. What can I do to see this warning?
Re: (Score:2)
It's because lazy devs do the "it works with Chrome *shrug*" thing.
Plenty of people that I talk to are convinced that they *need* Chrome because it has the best web compatibility. It's like Internet Explorer syndrome all over again.
Re:Mac and Windows users (Score:2)
However, almost all users decided to only use those default browsers to install Chrome and set it as their default
Only - only because Google nags you incessantly if you don't.
I'd wager that most people don't otherwise care or even know.
A gigantic sea of data (Score:2)
Google collects a monstrous amount of data about us every day through interactions with its browser and search engine. Very clear to see how that would be an incredibly valuable resource for an AI company. OpenAI would pour all that into training data and fuse AI directly into browsing and search. The OpenAI personal assistant you will be renting for a few dollars a month will be directly hooked in to all that.
Is that good for the rest of us? I don't know. Doesn't sound like it.
Re: (Score:1)
This is the problem with these decisions (Score:3, Interesting)
The last thing any of us should want is for OpenAI to take over from Google.
I really don't understand this decision that Google should be broken up as though its 'monopoly' in search isn't entirely based on skill and talent. But if we *are* going to force companies to break up into components, can we make sure new monoliths aren't just created as a result?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I really don't understand this decision that Google should be broken up as though its 'monopoly' in search isn't entirely based on skill and talent.
Because they abuse their search monopoly to get dominance in other areas where they are not otherwise a clear winner.
can we make sure new monoliths aren't just created as a result?
Enforcing the law requires constant vigilance. That requirement doesn't mean we should just give up.
Re: (Score:2)
The last thing any of us should want is for OpenAI to take over from Google.
I really don't understand this decision that Google should be broken up as though its 'monopoly' in search isn't entirely based on skill and talent. But if we *are* going to force companies to break up into components, can we make sure new monoliths aren't just created as a result?
Honestly, this judgment is stupid, because Chrome isn't the issue. Advertising is the one tie that binds together all the other functions Google/Alphabet own, and is the main reason they've started to be terrible at almost every aspect of their "web stewardship" as they seem to believe themselves the ultimate arbiters of all things Internet. Sell off the advertising business, break it off from the parent, place some sort of business doctrine so that advertising can not be a part of the rest, and the rest of
Re: (Score:2)
Sell off the advertising business, break it off from the parent, place some sort of business doctrine so that advertising can not be a part of the rest,
How would the rest be funded?
In a minority of cases I can see some options. Android could charge fees to device makers (in theory; I don't think that would work out in practice. More likely, Samsung would fork Android and the rest of the Android ecosystem would die, leaving an Apple/Samsung smartphone duopoly), and it does have revenue from the Play store. Gmail and Docs could charge user fees (they already do for enterprises). Cloud is already fee-based, not ad-supported. But Search? Maps? Photos? YouT
Re: (Score:2)
Sell off the advertising business, break it off from the parent, place some sort of business doctrine so that advertising can not be a part of the rest,
How would the rest be funded?
In a minority of cases I can see some options. Android could charge fees to device makers (in theory; I don't think that would work out in practice. More likely, Samsung would fork Android and the rest of the Android ecosystem would die, leaving an Apple/Samsung smartphone duopoly), and it does have revenue from the Play store. Gmail and Docs could charge user fees (they already do for enterprises). Cloud is already fee-based, not ad-supported. But Search? Maps? Photos? YouTube? Chrome?
It seems to me that most of Google would simply not be viable without ad funding, so those products would simply cease. More likely, Google would sell them off to other companies that aren't barred from using an ad-based model, because advertising is the natural way to fund them. And, honestly, I doubt those other companies would be nearly as ethical or careful about how they monetize users.
FWIW, here's Claude.ai's take on what would happen to Google without ads:
I think this is a pretty fair analysis.
Oh, the horror of them no longer providing consumer products. How would humanity survive!?
Yes, that's sarcasm. I don't disagree with your post. I just think the outcome isn't that terrible. So what if they make less money and have to focus on something else? Isn't that the point?
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, the horror of them no longer providing consumer products. How would humanity survive!?
Humanity would survive, sure. It's less clear that humanity would be better off. All of those ad-supported products would just be replaced by similar ad-supported products from other companies, companies that have less ability and motivation to protect user data.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, the horror of them no longer providing consumer products. How would humanity survive!?
Humanity would survive, sure. It's less clear that humanity would be better off. All of those ad-supported products would just be replaced by similar ad-supported products from other companies, companies that have less ability and motivation to protect user data.
Protecting user data needs to be codified into law or it's just going to remain the free-for-all that it is today. Today, the only motivation a company has to protect user data is that they don't want the competition to use it for nefarious purposes before they do. Google's hardly immune from that particular stance.
LOL (Score:2)
Toss it from one pile of shit to the other! Genius!
Re: (Score:2)
TBF, Chrome is garbage adjacent so a midden is probably where it belongs.
/o\ | \o/ (Score:1)
Time to use Firefox again
Privacy out the window for OpenAI users (Score:2)
Guess what, even if your company somehow contracted with OpenAI to not steal and train on your secrets, now they can do so under the guise of targeted advertising or maybe employee monitoring. They can do both while also training and triple-dip! If they buy Chrome you might want to change your browser or your LLM provider in an attempt to limit introspection into your private affairs. I doubt it would work though since your cross-site activity data can be purchased regardless of your browser. Consider them
Treat Chrome like a non-profit utility. (Score:2)
OpenAI wants it for the data mining. I argue that is WORSE than letting google continuing to own it.