'Don't Make Google Sell Chrome' (hey.com) 71
Ruby on Rails creator and Basecamp CTO David Heinemeier Hansson, makes a case for why Google shouldn't be forced to sell Chrome: First, Chrome won the browser war fair and square by building a better surfboard for the internet. This wasn't some opportune acquisition. This was the result of grand investments, great technical prowess, and markets doing what they're supposed to do: rewarding the best. Besides, we have a million alternatives. Firefox still exists, so does Safari, so does the billion Chromium-based browsers like Brave and Edge. And we finally even have new engines on the way with the Ladybird browser.
Look, Google's trillion-dollar business depends on a thriving web that can be searched by Google.com, that can be plastered in AdSense, and that now can feed the wisdom of AI. Thus, Google's incredible work to further the web isn't an act of charity, it's of economic self-interest, and that's why it works. Capitalism doesn't run on benevolence, but incentives.
We want an 800-pound gorilla in the web's corner! Because Apple would love nothing better (despite the admirable work to keep up with Chrome by Team Safari) to see the web's capacity as an application platform diminished. As would every other owner of a proprietary application platform. Microsoft fought the web tooth and nail back in the 90s because they knew that a free, open application platform would undermine lock-in -- and it did!
Look, Google's trillion-dollar business depends on a thriving web that can be searched by Google.com, that can be plastered in AdSense, and that now can feed the wisdom of AI. Thus, Google's incredible work to further the web isn't an act of charity, it's of economic self-interest, and that's why it works. Capitalism doesn't run on benevolence, but incentives.
We want an 800-pound gorilla in the web's corner! Because Apple would love nothing better (despite the admirable work to keep up with Chrome by Team Safari) to see the web's capacity as an application platform diminished. As would every other owner of a proprietary application platform. Microsoft fought the web tooth and nail back in the 90s because they knew that a free, open application platform would undermine lock-in -- and it did!
Ok but... (Score:5, Interesting)
MS got slapped for Antitrust because they forced Edge to use Bing search.
Why shouldn't Google be slapped for Antitrust for forcing Chrome (and most of the Chromium forks for that matter) to default to Google search rather than offering alternatives on setup?
Re: Ok but... (Score:5, Insightful)
If Google's functional monopoly on ad sales and search is as bad (OS is viewed as more difficult for a citizen to 'switch' from, vs browser or web search engine less so) is still up for debate.
Re: (Score:2)
If Google's functional monopoly on ad sales and search is as bad (OS is viewed as more difficult for a citizen to 'switch' from, vs browser or web search engine less so) is still up for debate
That is literally what we are debating right now....
Re: (Score:3)
If Google's functional monopoly on ad sales and search is as bad (OS is viewed as more difficult for a citizen to 'switch' from, vs browser or web search engine less so) is still up for debate
That is literally what we are debating right now....
There really shouldn't even be a debate about that. It's like debating whether Hitler is worse than Wesley Crusher.
The operating system you run determines the software you run. No software, no access to the data you created with that software. And at the time, consumers really didn't have any usable alternatives. Nobody in their right minds would have called Linux a viable consumer OS, Classic Mac OS did not run on Intel, and web-based applications did not exist yet because the web was in its infancy.
Re: (Score:2)
People doing searches are not the customer. Its not that easy for advertisers and publishers to give up on adsense.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
If a user switches search engines, they get better or worse search results in a given area of searching.
The antitrust isn't arguing about user choice, but about monopolistic power that comes from the vertical integration of Google's services. The way Google structured things, having the most used browser allows them to do telemetry on what users do that they in turn use to improve their search algorithms, information other search engines have no access to.
This all in turn is integrated into Google's ad business, which itself is also monopolistic and organized in such a way other ad serving and ad bidding netw
Re: (Score:2)
Linux still isn't a particularly viable alternative, except perhaps in the form of Chrome OS, which even still isn't anywhere close to being a full replacement for Windows compatibility-wise 27 years later despite the backing of a company that's bigger than Microsoft.
The billion or so Android devices sold over the last ten years disagrees. By the way, so does Microsoft, who runs a shedload of Linux in their own public cloud.
Re: Ok but... (Score:2)
Google used it's dominant position in the search market to promote chrome in a way that it never allowed other advertisers to.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Ok but... (Score:4, Informative)
Yeah, the real problem is the weak protection for individual privacy under American law. The fact that that attracted so much investment in browser technology is itself good, but not the reason they vendors were attracted to that in the first place.
Re: (Score:2)
However, that's a privacy question (also important, but in this discussion beside the point), not a monopoly / market manipulation question. There is also Facebook which is big in the ad-space and datamining business, Microsoft in search and datamining (you really think Windows 1X is free?) and a lot of other larger and smaller players.
The question here should be does Google actively hinder consumers who want to use an alternate browser and push those browsers out of the market, like Intel and Microsoft did
Re: (Score:2)
A slap on the wrist and Edge keeps getting forced on us with every update. all those political donations on Capitol hill sure paid off
Re: Ok but... (Score:2)
This isn't an issue with them saying Google shouldn't be dealing with issues/punishments about it's AdSense monopoly. No one is really complaining about that here. This is about why should the AdSense issue be dealt with by Google selling off Chrome, which has nothing to do with AdSense.
In your own example you made a comparison to Microsoft and Edge and Bing. This would be looking at that and saying "Ok, MS as punishment for this, you must s
Re: (Score:2)
Because in the US Apple has a far greater and more market disrupting monopoly power than Google.
Apple being vertically integrated threatens profitability of a huge swath of a still highly diverse electronics markets. Google mostly just deprives some other advertising louses from getting ahead.
Start dismantling Google after dismantling Apple first.
Re: Ok but... (Score:2)
Because Microsoft was using its monopoly position in OS's to force people to use IE. Google is using browsers to support their monopoly in search. One uses the monopoly to unfairly enter into a new market. The other uses a new market to synergize with their monopoly. From an antitrust perspective, that's a huge distinction.
People think antitrust law is about getting rid of monopolies. It's not. It's about shutting down ABUSIVE monopolies. In no way is Google abusing its monopoly (search) to make you use Chr
Let's get real... (Score:5, Insightful)
Google didn't invest in the web browser to help humanity.
It is full of all of their hooks to get every scrap of personal information out of you that it can, and they use this info to make billions of dollars as a result.
They had a vested interest in building and pushing Chrome. The push to sell is to separate the concerns, to let the browser & the web develop independently from the gorilla that wants to squeeze money out of you and everyone else.
Re:Let's get real... (Score:4, Insightful)
Also, the author's accounting of how Chrome won the browser war is a little rose-tinted.
I remember being very irritated by the aggressive tactics of Google to push their browser down people's throats.
For a time, you couldn't visit any Google property without getting Chrome pushed on you.
I remember some users that I supported during that time that had no idea how they had gotten Chrome installed on their computer. The reason was because Google was paying other popular app developers to embed the Chrome install as an "opt-out" (enabled by default) supplemental install to the app install. Google also created a Click-to-Run install vector from some of their properties which would launch a Chrome install from a single click on Windows
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't disagree, but ad blockers seem to work reasonably well on Chrome.
Re: Let's get real... (Score:2)
Monopolies can absolutely be good. Healthcare is an excellent example. Countries with a monopoly in healthcare tend to have much better health outcomes than those with competitive health markets.
Re: (Score:2)
Web developers have to deal with its "Google exceptions to the HTML5 standards" on a daily basis. Everyone else thinks it's fine, because it's the only browser they use.
When you run into some grossly non-standard behavior in Chrome, you'll go searching to see if it's a bug or not. You'll invariably running into Google saying: "We know what's best for our customers."
Why the fuck do we to
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Standards allow for more competition and big tech doesn't really want that, except when their scared of another company having more advantage than they do.
Bingo.
Chrome was, at a time, one of the most standards compliant HTML5 browsers in existence.
They did not waste a single iota of mindshare capital quickly turning that into vendor lock-in by subverting the standards.
Seriously, fuck Google.
There's a lot of really good work living inside of Chrome, but this era's Evil Empire shouldn't be in control of such an essential part of the internet.
Re:Let's get real... (Score:4, Interesting)
Actually I don't think this is right either. I think Google developed Chrome because they were tired of bullshit implementations from IE that were compatible with virtually nothing; and the inability of firefox to catch up in market share.
I think the turn to "all your data are belong to us" came as added benefits.
Re: Let's get real... (Score:1)
IE had a lot of compatibility, with everything that Microsoft did and all the people that developed only with IE in mind. It looks like Google and lazy devs are just doing the very same thing today, but with Chrome.
Either let them grab your data or pay (Score:2)
I wonder how many people would be willing to pay a subscription or per use fee to search the web? I suspect not many.
Servers and electricity arn't free and have to be paid for. I guess there's always government subsidy or wikipedia style donation! If someone can think of another option do let us know.
Re: (Score:2)
Google didn't invest in the web browser to help humanity.
It is full of all of their hooks to get every scrap of personal information out of you
No, the reason Google invested in Chrome was because Javascript implementations sucked at the time, and that was preventing Google from building sophisticated web apps. Google wanted to push the web as an "OS platform" an alternative to platforms like Windows and Mac OS, and to do that it was necessary to be able to embed sophisticated client-side logic in web apps, and to have it perform well.
Chrome's story started[*]with the idea of JIT for Javascript, and the resulting V8 Javascript engine (which was
"act of charity" (Score:3)
I had to clean coffee off my keyboard after reading that.
What does Chrome have to offer? (Score:3)
Chrome won the browser war fair and square by building a better surfboard for the internet.
Better than Internet Explorer 7, sure.
I can't think of anything Chrome ever did better than Firefox.
How many people actually chose Chrome back in the day, as opposed to having it installed along with something else?
Re: What does Chrome have to offer? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Early on, Chrome was much better. Firefox had gotten pretty bloated and slow. I remember how refreshing it was to have a lightweight browser that was fast, and was excited when the Linux build came out.
Re: (Score:2)
You're assuming a meaning of "fair and square". You need to think more like what SuperKendall would mean by that, that "fair and square" means an outcome the author likes.
Re: What does Chrome have to offer? (Score:2)
Firefox became a bloated mess requiring plugins for basic functionality Chrome had out of the box. Chrome was more secure and faster than Firefox. It was an easy decision to make. Firefox has always kind of sucked. No one pushed on Chrome on anyone I know. Everyone switched organically.
Missing the point (Score:4, Informative)
Anti-trust settlements don't concern themselves with whether something was created or was bought. It concerns itself with how it was used, and legally it has been confirmed that Chrome, AdSense and Search together have been used anti-competitively to monopolise the industry.
When you play silly games with your toys, one remedy is that your toys get taken away.
Re: (Score:2)
This is the literal purpose of the antitrust statutes.
They are, as you said, missing the point.
how did this make slashdot (Score:5, Interesting)
This is an opinion blog, with little to no facts. I'm not an expert but Google basically funds firefox from what I've read and I don't doubt that they have influence from that funding.
First he mixes up app platforms that are installed directly on an os, with the browser add-ons/extentions, which only run when the browser is running. I know that the add-ons/extentions are huge but it's still all in the browser. So, it's somewhat different. Also, arguing that it is needed to compete with other monopolies, doesn't make sense to me. Any and all benefit from capitalism depends on market competition and there is virtually none. Browsers except for firefox, and I guess Safari, are mostly based on chrome, and use the chrome store. Firefox is not really a competitor anymore, when google holds their purse strings and has so little market share.
Lastly, he's arguing two contrary things. One, that chrome won and therefor deserves it's monopoly. Two, that it's not a monopoly because of two other browsers, and of course, like I said, one of them is only still in existence because of google's funding
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not an expert but Google basically funds firefox from what I've read and I don't doubt that they have influence from that funding.
It's certainly not altruistic and I don't even think it's about default search (for Firefox at least, probably is about that for Safari). They are propping up a competitor to shield themselves from antitrust issues.
Firefox is not really a competitor anymore
Hence it not really working anymore on the anti-trust front.
Two, that it's not a monopoly because of two other browsers
MacOS was barely a consideration in the case of Microsoft's forced bundling of Internet Explorer. They were a viable alternative but marketshare definitely matters.
Also, arguing that it is needed to compete with other monopolies, doesn't make sense to me.
This kind of whataboutism just brings up the excellent point that more
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
but did he really make a case? (Score:2)
Ignoring the obvious tribalism and dishonesty, was there any law addressed in his comments? There is no case being made here.
Re: (Score:2)
I only commented on the article, which I did read. I'm no lawyer, but I don't really care for law to much. Law is purely political. Some are good i.e. meant to protect the populous and some are bad i.e. meant to protect the rich and powerful. There are also the co-opted laws, ones that were meant to protect the populous, but through lobbying go from good to bad e.g. The Cafe Standard. If not completely co-opted, then they can become virtually useless through loopholes and/or lack of enforcement or weak enfo
Re: but did he really make a case? (Score:2)
How about the case that Microsoft wasn't forced to sell off IE, and Microsoft was objectively a far worse actor in abusing their monopoly status.
The reason to break up Google (Score:4, Insightful)
All your data belongs to them. All of it. Almost every website has google trackers in it, and runs google scripts. Chrome spies on you too. Google search is documenting everything you ask it.
All of this is being datamined so that google knows more about you than you do, and it's one government order away from being weaponized.
It's probably already far too late, but nobody should have been allowed to build such a tracking database in the first place. It's too dangerous.
Re: The reason to break up Google (Score:2)
I'm not really sure what the issue is here. Nothing about trading data for services is illegal. It's the way the entire web works.
Google uses my data to make money and make things like search way better (I'm convinced most people who think Google search is getting worse probably use ad blockers). It's a fair trade for many people. No coercion is involved, using a monopoly or otherwise.
Re: (Score:2)
You will understand after the file Google has on you is used against you by the government.
Does not answer the important question (Score:2)
Which is - after you determined as the court has Google has unfairly used its leverage across markets to give it an unfair advantage in the ad tech / ad industry, how do stop them from doing that if you don't take away the most obvious vector for it: Chrome.
Second I think he is missing the point on App and Play store stuff. There are plenty of cross platform mobile development kits that work on both Android and iOS and neither store stops applications from built with these. They are not closed in that sen
Re: (Score:2)
Users demanded native apps because (FLAME ON) web applications universally suck!
Compared to what - "native" apps that are just a web view?
Re: (Score:2)
Apps that are just a web view tend to be apps that should be just a mobile website. There on tons of these from your physician's office to the place that sells you tires, and almost all of them are just a catalog shopping experience or kind of basic data intake form.
I don't understand why organizations make them or users want them. Just go to the URL...
But look at anything more complex and even Google does not try to deliver it on the web. Maps for example! Why because the know it would be comparatively
Re: Does not answer the important question (Score:2)
Web apps that built by competent people are great. For limited screen UIs, the ability to turn a website into an app makes it easier to navigate because the site becomes a top-level window instead of a tab within a browser app. It gets its own icon for fast switching. Etc.
It's a far nicer experience for a site you frequent often. Not optimal for sites you only visit once, but that's the great thing about web apps. You only have to write it once to get a consistent experience across apps and browsers.
Re: Does not answer the important question (Score:2)
Google Maps works fine in mobile browsers. What are you talking about? This is a convenience thing. People don't want to:
Open Browser > Tap Address Bar > Tap Out "maps" On Tiny Soft Keyboard > Tap Auto complete
When they can just:
Tap Icon
Re: Does not answer the important question (Score:2)
"used its leverage across markets to give it an unfair advantage in the ad tech / ad industry"
You don't seem to get what's going on here. They're not abusing their market position to give itself a monopoly in search. They're creating new products that synergize their search monopoly which they built organically by outcompeting everyone else. They got their monopoly fair and square, the way you're supposed to: by making everyone else's product look like shit by releasing a better product.
I wonder if there's
RoR creator says something = do the opposite! (Score:2)
I Went To Fug U and All I Got was This Stupid (Score:1)
What a long list of stupid things to say. Could have used an 800 pound gorilla protecting the original internet, sure, but after what Google's done to it, they do not deserve to continue to exist, and absolutely should have everything stripped away from them. Kill Google and kill the ISPs and their idiotic agenda and boneheaded infrastructure, and *do the fucking thing right*
Chrome == Internet Explorer... (Score:2)
I would be all for this except that I regularly get web apps that either only work with Chrome (for no good reason) or perform very badly on alternative browsers. Chrome is the new Internet Explorer and we don't want people writing web apps for Chrome, we want them writing web apps to standards that all of the browsers support.
These days you can develop a web site that renders correctly on dozens of different web browsers and you can write complex web applications that run on those same browsers. Let's not
Then and now. (Score:2)
Ultimately, it's not a question of how they got to being a monopoly. It's the fact that they are a monopoly at this moment in time. That's what it's all about - too much power in the same hands, not their history.
Dilemma (Score:2)
Only market share leaders benefit from lock-in. (Score:3)
Because Apple would love nothing better (despite the admirable work to keep up with Chrome by Team Safari) to see the web's capacity as an application platform diminished.
Apple doesn't want that. It almost killed them back in their PPC days. In fact few companies pushed for HTML5 and the adherence to web standards more then Apple. This is not because they are wonderful but because Microsoft was in the process of providing tools which would turn the web into a Microsoft only environment. But thanks to Apple (WebKit and iPhone), Google (Chrome), and Mozilla (Firefox) this never came to pass.
Apple will always be in the minority. As such, Apple will always benefit from an environment where making things cross-platform is easier rather then harder. Many companies appear to switch to a "lock-in" style ecosystem once they can no longer compete. They just milk their users for everything they can while bleeding users. But such actions are always the beginning of the end - companies or products generally don't survive. Oh VMWare, you will be missed.
Many complaints of Apple appear to originate from those who want web standards to move even faster. From their perspective Apple is holding everyone back. If I were in their shoes I would also be pissed. But there is a big difference between slowly adopting standards and introducing proprietary standards to own the web. Apple is slow, not malicious. They are not trying to diminish the web's capacity as an application platform. But it is true that Apple is not advancing web standards nearly as much as they used to.
But back to the main topic of should Google sell Chrome. No. At least not as long as all other Google services / applications also work with other browsers. If Google switches to only supporting Chrome then one would have an argument that Google is forcing Chrome on users thereby generating a Monopoly of sorts. So far I don't see that happening.
Re: (Score:2)
Many companies appear to switch to a "lock-in" style ecosystem once they can no longer compete.
That's simply not accurate.
In the vast majority of cases, it's once they no longer have to compete.
It's a natural tendency of capitalism, and it's why we have antitrust laws.
How would losing Chrome make Google anti-web? (Score:3)
Ok. I think I agree with that.
What I don't quite think I understand, though, is how being forced to sell Chrome will cause Google to stop being in the web's corner. They'd still be serving documents (*ahem* and other resources) to browsers. They'd still be creating that which Chrome and its competitors consume. No?
Pro-Monopoly Puppet (Score:2)
Standards, Idiot. (Score:2)
The author clearly doesn't remember what life was like before standards such as TCP/IP, HTTP and HTML. There was a reason why the Web won over AOL - the open standards.
Author also forgets Microsoft's attempt to create embrace-extend-extinguish supersets of Internet standards (i.e., Project Blackbird, poorly documented here - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] ), and how they continued that, to a lesser degree, with Internet Explorer.
Chrome's near-total-domination means that Google could start to do really c
Hey (Score:2)
Then Manifest v3 happened (Score:2)
You know, I might have agreed with you a few years ago, but then Manifest v3 happened. AKA: Let's kneecap ad-blockers in Chrome for no benefit to anyone but Google. Anti-consumer products are a red flag.
Clearly, it's a monopoly, because v3 is going to affect other browsers. This is because Google calls the shots for the entire web. Web standards go where Google goes. Chromium is no alternative to this unless someone forks. Even Mozilla will have to contend with it. You should see the list of things on Bugzi
Immediate bullshit argument (Score:4, Interesting)
. No, it 100% did not. Let's take the Ruby founder taking some technical appreciation for the improvements of Chrome (despite other issues).
Beyond Google and Google services heavily positioning Chrome installs, other freeware like Flash, Shockwave, Java, CCleaner would promote Chrome, because you'd get paid up to $1 per install. Software that did this would sometimes alternate based on either existing install or keeping other people on their toes installing other software like the Ask.com toolbar or "McAfee Security Scan Plus". This helped convert technically illiterate users who were pushed into what their trusted site told them was the best, or what they either trusted or clicked through on a shrinkwrap installer.
Secondly, Google has a history of using Chrome specific quirks to make other browsers behave worse. Like using deprecated Shadow DOM v0 calls only ever implemented in Chrome/Chromium derivatives that loaded 5x worse in alternative browsers like Firefox that weren't Chrome based [techradar.com].
Google now lets to define the web standards that succeed or fail by overwhelming marketshare. It is the same behavior that led the Justice Department to declare IE monopolistic, even though the origin market differed by company (Microsoft by desktop OS, Google by internet advertising/services), the end result of the tying is the same - one monopoly supporting the other to the detriment of the entire web.
The ManifestV3 force and Manifest V2 deprecation that deprecates much more effective privacy/ad blockers used under ManifestV2 is a prime example of Google using their dominant browser position to preserve their ad business.
Troll (Score:2)
Chrome won the browser war fair and square
I can't figure out who is the bigger troll here...this David Heinemeier Hansson fella, or mrmash for posting this onto Slashdot.
Is "fair and square" what you call Google using its search market and internet advertising market monopoly to litter every search result and webpage with "Download Google Chrome!" ads 15 years ago?
Missing the point (Score:2)
The issue isn't with Chrome... it's with Google. (Score:2)