Google is offering a far more pared-down solution to the court’s ruling that it illegally monopolized search
I wish I could get found guilty and still be able to negotiate on equal footing with the prosecution about what my punishment was going to be.
Can we just stop and appreciate for a moment what a fucking outrage it is that Google is allowed to negotiate its own punishment at all?
You are allowed to suggest sentencing. This isn’t preferential treatment to Google. Of course, the judge doesn’t have to listen to anybody’s suggestions, but you are definitely allowed to make them.
“Look I’m guilty as fuck. However, hear me out. I totally learned my lesson and believe that an appropriate punishment of you allowing me to continue my, let’s say ‘less than legal’, business practices is a great punishment! And before you say it, I know! I know! I can also alter the way we operate with one of our millions of partners in a way that will yet again benefit me somehow and skirt legal ramifications for another 25 years. But look on the bright side, I don’t want to do any of this…you’re forcing me to do it!”
They can keep chrome if they open source everything and remove all tracking, telemetry, and calling home of any sort, artificial crippling of addons via manifestV3, stop blocking blockers, stop injecting ads, stop breaking APIs, stop asynchronous and default DNS, stop forcing safebrowsing (URL monitoring).
What else have I missed?
They would still have disproportionate control over web standards. They should not be allowed to keep Chrome/Chromium under any circumstances.
I still don’t see how a standalone web browser survives financially. It seems like Firefox is always near death and has to make compromising decisions. Do you have any thoughts on how this ought to work?
I think it would thrive under a non-profit like the Linux foundation. It doesn’t need to make money. It’s a critical piece of our tech infrastructure, just like Linux, openssl and other open source projects. Having it in the hands of an ad company whose interests are against the open internet and open standards is not okay.
I think we might have to get used to the idea of paying for software again, if we want to sustain the development of good quality, privacy respecting products
This point comes up a lot, but how does Photoshop survive? If chrome were split, Im sure they would find ways to make it work.
Corporate licensing would probably be the #1 way they could survive easily. The general public sees alternatives as “junk” to the main thing when it comes to tech. This, imo, is why Firefox is near death.
Now idk if the licensing route would be better or worse for us.
I too want to know more about this. Also, what happens to all the Chromium based browsers once Google doesn’t maintain it?
pushing web standards in their user-hostile favour
… And most importantly, stop making it default browser in the most popular OS in the planet.
I’m guessing they would not be interested in keeping Chrome under those conditions. Those are all things that give them leverage, which is the reason they need to split
It’s a miracle that Google botched messengers, Google+, cloud ('member app engine?). They could have been even more dominant. I still like them more than MS and FB.
Ye they’re not the worst. I’d def pick then over apple for example, at least makes android which is sick
M chip MacBooks are pretty sweet. Especially if you want Xcode.
Does anyone ever actually ‘want’ Xcode? Is it not just a necessary evil to be able to do iOS development?
Agreed otherwise, M-series macs are sick as hell
I’ve met Android devs with iPhones, so the answer is probably yes. I don’t know if Xcode is worse than Android Studio or Flutter. I honestly just hate mobile development in general because it can’t be done on the same device as the code runs. It feels like driving while wearing boxing gloves.
It took Apple 15 years to break free from Intel, and that pushed Qualcomm to make laptop CPUs. In many aspects, it’s more impressive than the iPhone.
I don’t think the Android devs with iPhones are yearning for Xcode.
Having used both, Android Studio is far superior in my opinion. Most iOS devs I talk to seem to have a particular disdain for Xcode as well, so that seems to track.
Actually, the walled garden around xcode is infuriating. To develop for Apple you need current hardware running the latest operating systems. You have to stay squarely in their ecosystem to generate anything that builds for their mobile devices.
Are you a mobile dev?
My company has a multi-platform product. I have to support the developers in the build systems. Dealing with the iOS side of the build equation is the bain of my existence. Xcode updates locked to OS revisions, key chains that magically corrupt themselves, hardware lock-in keeping me from running real servers. Hostile attitude towards virtual machines.
Apple could really do a lot to make it easier.
How do you test without servers and VMs?
Perhaps Apple’s walled garden is the reason why so many shitty mobile web apps exist. In a civilized world, Apple and Google would agree on a UI standard.
I don’t think it’s the reason why the app economy largely failed (sure, mobile games are a big exception). I hope the vibe shifts back to software being a tool to enhance productivity rather than a rube Goldberg machine for entertainment and ads.
Individual developers develop on Mac hardware. They do primary tests on Mac mobile devices.
For production and QA, our CI pipeline builds on a cluster of bare metal Mac Minis. Basic unit tests happen during the build. We deploy to mobile devices.
Mac doesn’t make any server equipment anymore, We could technically run VMs on the minis. But they’re not so expensive that we can’t just have a cluster of them around. We even tried to do the hackintosh route with VMs. It was incredibly difficult to keep it stable, and every time we had to do a xcode update, It needed an OS update and it fucked over the hackintosh. I would have had to keep somebody on staff full-time just to keep the hackintosh VMs going.
We don’t need to pay bribes to stay the default search engine so long as we get to keep making the monopolist browser that bans adblockers.
no.
FFS the Chrome thing is nothing even. Who would even want it?
it’s a huge deal for google. they control the browser used by the vast majority of users, and the engine behind the one (such as edge, opera, vivaldi, etc) used by still more. they rely on those users to see and interact with ads to make money.
besides the obvious–driving traffic to their web properties that have their ads; they get to siphon off all that sweet user data which makes their ads ‘more valuable’, and control addon functionality and restrictions as well as the primary ‘marketplace’ where those addons come from. their ultimate goal of killing off ad blockers completely, the limits mv3 puts on adblockers is just the next step in that direction.
should a third-party acquire control over chrome’s development, mv3 gets shredded. restrictions and limitations on adblockers get scaled-back or reverted outright.
should a third-party acquire control over chrome’s development, mv3 gets shredded. restrictions and limitations on adblockers get scaled-back or reverted outright.
That is far too optimistic. If the courts force a sale then a for profit company will but it expecting a return on investment. Which very likely means more monetisation efforts like embedding ads or even more tracking built into it. It is a fantasy to think who ever gets it will scale anything you dislike about it back.
I’d be interested in what restrictions are between those two companies, because it seems to me like there’d be a lot of money in making Chrome what Google wants it to be.
I’m already out. Linux desktop, Firefox browser. It’s enough for me. Fuck MS, fuck Google, fuck Apple.
Unless they monetize the wanted Features Like Ad-Blocking. 10$/Month for No Ads everywhere is a Deal that many people would probably Take. Sponsorblock, DeArrow, Video Background Player Fix, there are many QoL Improvements that a Browser Company might include to sell a Browser Subscription or likewise
Just like paying for no ads on prime video? I’d rather donate to one or more independent plugin developers.
Same
But there are a Lot of people Out there WHO pay 15$ for YouTube Premium, If you can get way better content for that Money elsewhere
it also allows them to push web standards in whatever direction they feel like
All good points, but even without Chrome they became one of the biggest companies in the history of Earth. Even without Chrome they’ll still have Android and will undoubtedly spit out a Chromev2 browser experience that suckers will flock to - and even without Chrome they’ll still likely control all of that search traffic.
Hey if it kills their fingerprinting plans, I’m all for it, but are they going to be prevented from developing a browser? That’s like not being allowed to develop a car. Which - again, fine by me, but still unlikely.
Chrome, as the damn-near-monopoly rendering engine, gives Google hegemony over web standards. That’s incredibly valuable because it puts them in a position to (e.g.) inflict DRM on the world.
Fair point.
Their desperation to hold onto it speaks volumes about how valuable it is to them. I’m sure they get tons of juicy browsing data that they don’t want to give up.
Yes but how will some other company who doesn’t run a successful ad network make aenough money from owning Chrome browser to keep it going?
It’s a good question because maintaining a modern web browser is a complicated and expensive project, which any potential buyer would have to sustain financially somehow. Chrome without the integrated ad service business would probably be highly unprofitable - so why would any business take it on?
The only real answer I can come up with is pretty ugly: data mining. Lots of services are dependent on Chrome that can’t just move to a new platform on short notice. Chrome is not just the web browser, it’s also the web engine for most mobile apps (a lot of apps are just stripped-down Chrome with a hard-coded server target).
Chrome has basically sucked all the air out of the room for other browser projects, so maybe taking it away from Google will create some space for new projects to grow… but it’s hard to see any of them becoming well-developed and trustworthy for things like health data, government services, financial transactions &etc anytime soon.
but it’s hard to see any of them becoming well-developed and trustworthy for things like health data, government services, financial transactions &etc anytime soon.
I honestly don’t See the Relation to Chrome.
You’re suggesting that a PWA running on Firefox isn’t suitable for this?
Oh no, Firefox is fine, possibly better than Chrome in that aspect. I’m thinking more about any other browser projects that might come up if Chrome is taken from Google and then collapses.
Or, what happens if a potentially bad actor acquires Chrome, and where does that leave all of the apps that are built around it?
Then they will Switch to another Browser, or there will be a drop-In replacement for Electron.
It’s Not that hard for the developers to Block Chrome then
I don’t get the boner the feds have for making Google sell Chrome. Maintaining a browser looks like a huge investment and as bad as Google is, there are much worse companies that would jump at the chance to buy it. Imagine some Tencent-tier corporation making you pay to have the ability to install extensions.
Google can Set Standards to their own Advantage, e.g. with regards to Tracking which reinforces their Monopoly on Things Like Ads, the Same reason they crippled all the AdBlockers with ManifestV3 on Chromium-based Browsers
And the only alternative that isn’t Chromium-based is Firefox. (Or Safari with WebKit). All other Browsers use Chromium
So it would be really good for everyone if they were forced to sell Chrome
Chrome’s ubiquity is bad for browsers.
I’m glad I switched back to Firefox after learning that Google removed AdNauseam from their addon store. It’s an app that clicks ads in addition to blocking them. It wasn’t breaking any rules, but google removed it and since there wasn’t sufficient backlash it was never restored.
That kind of scummy behavior should never be rewarded with continued patronage.
So it would be really good for everyone if they were forced to sell Chrome
And who do you think would buy it? Loads of companies will be jumping at the chance not out of the goodness of their hearts but because they can see massive profits if they can control it. Very likely will start to squeeze it for all the profit they can and the enshitification process will begin.
For all the bad the Google has done they have kept chrome relatively free from the enshitification process. Likely as so much of their business would not exist if people didn’t have a good browser to access their services on.
How is Manifest v3, Fingerprinting and the proposed “Web Integrity API” not enshittification?
They would have gone even further with this, if Firefox wouldn’t exist. And Firefox is on life Support, because they can’t afford for it to Go away otherwise they would have the Antitrust regulators Breathing down their neck
Any company can do that. That’s why it’s more important to have new browsers (THAT AREN’T CHROMIUM, LOOKING AT YOU EDGE) for competition. Making a company sell the browser used by the majority of people is absolutely not the answer. That’s gambling.
No, not every company can afford to Bulldoze the competition in the Browser Market because they have indefinite deep pockets from the Ad Business.
If that unfair advantage goes away there will be more competition again in the Browser Segment .
Also Marketshare can grow and shrink quick
With the expected costs of a web browser by the general public being $0, what company would want it that isn’t going to do that? Even Firefox survives off ad revenue. There is no “browser market”, there’s an ad market.
Gambling? LOL.
The normal solution to a monopoly is forced breakup and divesture. Why does Google deserve to be above the law?
deleted by creator
Pretty sure you totally misinterpreted their intent, mate.
