- cross-posted to:
- google@lemmy.ml
- cross-posted to:
- google@lemmy.ml
Note: Original report by Bloomberg, article by Reuters proxied by Neuters to bypass paywall.
You must log in or register to comment.
Lit. It’s a good ask although it’s not clear what separation means here. Not going to hold my breath, the big corpos seem to usually win these kind of games.
Chrome is now owned by a company, owned by a company, owned by another company, that is owned by Google.
And even in the case where there is actual separation, and competition, it will only be temporary!
Chrome is now owned by a separate conpany with the same major stock holders.
It’s like they’re a company pretending to be another company, disguised as another company. Tropic Thunder all the way down.
Google will bribe trump and this’ll be undone immediately
Google is such a good company, one the best. Everybody says it. I was just talking to John Google the other day, and he tells me, no really he did, he tells me we’re going to do amazing things together. Oogles of googles. That’s what we’ll sell. Everybody will know about google by this time next year. It’s true.
You forgot the unrelated rant in the middle about toasters being too dark these days or some shit.
He also didn’t say his name three times in 10 seconds. Then sort of fade off and vaguely look off into the distance.
They said to me Donald, Donald, they said Donald, they do amazing things, real bigly things, my father, my father, said to me Donald, they do big things Google land. Really good things… Yeah… Big things…
I love to see professionals in action.
That’s craft(wo)manship right there.
And a series of words that sounds kinda like a complex sentence when you listen to it, but actually means nothing whatsoever
And he says to me… a very smart guy, Mark, he’s really doing… he’s really got to show… when he does things he really does them, you know, like he really does, very impressive, very modern
God damnit.
Username checks out
<Fellates microphone>
…I mean, you do you buddy.
But (s)he is doing the microphone!
Oogles of googles
Google: furiously writing down cereal ideas
That would be the logical thing according to common sense and probably according to pichai a few weeks ago, but trump just nominated an anti big tech and musk friend to the FCC. musk is behind almost everybody in ai and autonomous cars so he’ll definitely push to hamper all competitors.
Sure, we don’t know how far would they go or how long will musk keep having white house influence and I personally think breaking up google is now off the table, but I don’t think they will get off the hook too easily.
So surely a very big bribe.
This seems like a sensible consumer protection to not let the ad company control the biggest web browser. I won’t hold my breath, but I’m glad they are trying something.
AWS should also be split from Amazon.
AWS is amazing’s money maker, they might as well just sell Amazon and keep AWS lol
Why force one company to sell off their browser? Shouldn’t MS have to sell Edge and Apple sell Safari?
Microsoft having IE/Edge as the default browser has already cost them in the past. I don’t think Apple faced anything with Safari.
The problem today with chrome is how prevalent it is and how that influences the main product of the internet (advertising), which happens to be Google’s mais product too. Apple can at least make the argument that they make their money with the hardware, not the browser.
Either way, I think all OS should at least give you a list of browsers on first use to choose from.
Either way, I think all OS should at least give you a list of browsers on first use to choose from.
I like this idea if only because it means I don’t have the default web browser hanging around only ever having been used to download another web browser.
apple has, on mobile.
Right, I remember the MS/IE issue in the past. I never understood why Apple wasn’t held to the same scrutiny. They don’t have the corporate hold like Windows does, so maybe that was why.
So if Google has to sell off Chrome, what happens to Chromebooks? It runs on ChromeOS with Chrome being the main interface. Could Google not spin off Chrome as another company?
Their overwhelming market share is probably the main problem.
I think this is something even Elon Musk could get behind.
Rad. Do Microsoft next.
If you’re talking about edge browser, edge is chrome.
Ew. So if someone likes their girlfriend to tie them up and edge them, that means they enjoy a breach of privacy, and getting google involved?
Google does like to watch.
Again! Again!
They can just wait it out until it becomes the corpo-friendly Dept. of Injustice on Jan. 20th.
If this happens, I’d be interested in seeing how this effects ChromeOS. I don’t use it but my mom does.
Also, if you’re confused as to why ChromeOS would be effected, while it’s based on Gentoo Linux, ChromeOS uses a modified version of Chrome as it’s Desktop Environment.
Yes I would like to know what that means for ChromeOS and Chromebooks. If the new “Chrome” company got ChromeOS also that would be huge. But if that is not a requirement Google could just put another Chromium browser in ChromeOS. They could also continue to sell Chromebooks but based on a ChromiumOS fork.
Its based on debian now :(
Depending on what version
According to Wikipedia, it’s still based on Gentoo, it just uses Debian for running Linux applications in Crostini.
Oh go figure, my bad :P
And whoever buys it won’t also have some kind of ulterior motive? Chrome isn’t likely to be a money-maker on its own. If it were, Firefox would have less trouble staying afloat. Anyone who buys Chrome most likely will have plans for it that are no more in the end-user’s best interest than Google’s.
It’s not about dispelling any ulterior motive. The idea of anti-monopoly enforcement actions is that if the “business ecosystem” is good and healthy, then other companies who don’t own Chrome will be able to compete with whoever owns Chrome, giving the consumer choice that people who like the free market say will reduce consumer exploitation. (If you can’t tell from my tone, I am dubious, at best, of this logic)
Removed by mod
I‘ve actually when something like this will happen. A few years ago German energy providers and distributors needed to split, because it gives you an unfair advantage if you own both. Whole companies were split in two. People working for years together would no longer work together. In the end consumer were much better off after the split. I feel the same way with internet browser. It is unfair if you own the infrastructure (Chrome, energy grid) and the services that run on it (YouTube, power plants).
The US did this to AT&T. It was broken up into dozens of “baby bells”. Then it gradually bought them all back up and now it’s as big as it ever was
Bell telephone. AT&T was one of the resulting companies.
Thats stupid of the US to not block the merges again then… :p
Well this process also spawned Verizon, so they do have legitimate competition now and that’s what matters to antitrust actions
Very true, but in due time verizon could also be bought. Hence fcc should technically block it, like the nvidia and arm merge.
Or microsoft and activision ( which was heavily contested ).
Both were heavily contested worldwide
Google: Sure, we’ll sell it to anyone who pays off our Russian Govt fine.
What Lemmy client do you use?
I am asking because it caught my attention that you didn’t upvote your own comment.
Also, funny reference 😂
The Lemmy web client, same as Reddit, allows you to de-upvote your posts.
It feels weird to upvote your own post anyway and I don’t do so unless I am asking for help and want it seen more, urgently.
Ugh. Just link to Reuters.
It has a soft paywall.
It has a soft paywall.
I think the common practice is to link to the original in the URL bar and then use the body text to do paywall/loginwall removals.
Then leave that to every one else to deal with; don’t make other people wear your tin-foil hat. Or just start your own community and call it “Dot’s Offbrand Extravaganza” or something.
Pretty sure this is more about access and performance than privacy. I never knew about this site before, but damn, a news article that only contains words on a page and loads quickly? I thought news websites were supposed to be hostile to users?
don’t make other people wear your tin-foil hat
The words, they mean nothing!
LoL they won’t, even if they buy it for 1 trillion dollar
It will never happen. But it would be a good thing for the openness of the web. More Firefox, less Chrome.
Yep.
Tech companies have extreme “Fuck You” money. They have learned a lot from the past two decades of Antitrust acts.
That politician is either going to quickly change their mind with some bribes, or watch their entire life disappear with an army of lawyers or paid off peers shutting them down.
Wouldn’t it put Firefox on a pickle? Say Chrome gets bought out of Google’s hands, would they still bother to pay half a billion to Firefox to stay as the default search engine? Could Firefox survive being financially independent?
I’d assume they would be willing to pay even more.
How do you force someone to sell something thats open source?
Can the government please force me to sell my open source software too? If they could be my sales department, I’d love that. Pretty please.
Chromium is open source, Google bases their Chrome off of it, but Chrome is not open source.
OK but 98% of chrome is open source then? Who would buy it?
Chrome isn’t open source?
I don’t see how a “Chrome” company would make any money. Now if the Chrome Company also owned ChromeOS and Chromebooks that might be interesting. But it could also be bad, because such a company would probably want to take a cut of every Chromebook in order to actually make money.
What if Linux foundation buys Chrome?
They already have Servo.
Do they have the money? What is the value of Chrome anyways, if you can’t do monopoly things with it? About as much as Firefox?
Yes, regulate the web browsers where you can just download librewolf or brave, but don’t do anything about the criminal ISPs and wireless network service providers.
I know, right? Why deal with Problem X when Problem Y also exists?
Except you’re not dealing with anything. What do you think happens once Google sells Chrome? They release a new browser a month later, and it will be better than Chrome because nobody has the manpower to develop a web browser at the same speed as Google. This is a waste of time.
I’d assume the ruling would also stipulate that they don’t develop a new browser for X years. Otherwise they could be right back in a day by forking Chromium.
So you’re saying a company should be prohibited from developing a product because it might be better than the competition? I don’t think you guys even realize what you’re advocating for.
I do. The exact reason this legal framework is in place
Can’t argue with that. Have a nice day.
