DoJ could force Google to sell Chrome - gHacks Tech News

[-]

skivtjerry@reddit

What's the point? It would not stop google's tracking or ad business. They just wouldn't have to maintain Chrome.

[-]

InterestedSkeptic@reddit

The point is they wouldn’t have ~96% market share of web browser backends that are impossible for a small company to compete with because they and the others in power keep bloating web standards.

[-]

KnowZeroX@reddit

Even if the web standards were not changed, a small company would not be able to compete. Developing a browser is a lot of work.

On top of that, web standards are set by the W3C, even if you own that much share the W3C may not approve it as seen when Chrome adds their own stuff only for the W3C to pick something else.

So far at least, google has followed W3C standards (unlike when Microsoft had the biggest share)

[-]

I’m aware of the W3C thing, hence why I specified the others in power as well. If you look at the member list, these are all companies who benefit from not having any competitors for something as big as a new web browser not done by them popping up. Google/Chrome won the market share race between these guys, and so they’re the top dog supported.

Regarding actually developing a web browser… I wanna give you the benefit of the doubt that I’m missing something big, so I wanna ask beforehand what exactly you mean by a small company being unable to compete? From my understanding, being someone who uses NoScript and has used forked browsers with less up-to-date standards such as Pale Moon in the past, you wouldn’t need to implement too too much for most functionality (for a small company anyways, of course it’s realistically a lot). HTML, CSS, JavaScript, a GUI, and relevant networking is already a long way no?

[-]

zordtk@reddit

How would selling it to another company fix that ? Whoever bought it would likely carry that market share over, just changing who it is

[-]

InterestedSkeptic@reddit

True, but Google also owning Google Search, Google Analytics (everywhere btw), and probably more I’m not thinking of right now essentially almost gives them a complete monopoly of the web. Splitting it off at least helps with that some.

[-]

Business_Reindeer910@reddit

It would mean that the new company (if they had a way to continue onwards at all) wouldn't be forced into implementing anything google wanted to make that ads and tracking business easier. In fact they could directly oppose it. They could roll back the forcing of manifest v3 for example.

[-]

cyril1991@reddit

You know you can already do that and the situation can only get worse? The chromium code base is open. Microsoft could potentially just acquire Chrome, stop making their updates open source for a few years to lock things up and then end up with something much much worse. The fact that competitors like Brave can even use open source chromium is unique in tech. I could slap new branding on chromium and start taking it out in a new direction - I would just need maintainers, not a team of hundreds over 10 years to recreate most of the functionalities. Try doing that with Windows, MS Office, iOS etc…

[-]

MegamanEXE2013@reddit

It depends on what they are requiring Google to sell. Chromium? Chrome? Because they could sell Chrome and do another one. Ditching Chromium would be problematic since Google is the biggest Chromium maintainer

[-]

Business_Reindeer910@reddit

it could happen yes, but so could lots of things. I imagine there would be restrictions on the sale.

[-]

Acrobatic_Bother4144@reddit

Yeah but the company buying something like this would be one that is poised to make money off of the trackings like Meta for example

This could be good for reducing a market monopoly but it’s not good for data privacy.

[-]

Business_Reindeer910@reddit

depends on who buys it and for what price. We don't know enough to say.

[-]

KnowZeroX@reddit

How will this new company make money? By making it easier to track so they get donations?

[-]

kudlitan@reddit

What does this make about Chromium?

[-]

The_4ngry_5quid@reddit

I feel like this is a bit of a clickbait title. They may force Google to sell. They also laid out various other options

[-]

oln@reddit

The incoming Trump admin may also be less interested in enforcing anti-trust laws than the current one.

[-]

Alfirin69@reddit

Well, of course, the other option is "may not force" a.k.a. "doing nothing". Because I very much doubt about Google acting upon a "kindly asking" option. But I guess you're right and I'm not aware of what are their possibilities.

And online titles are online titles... I read it twelve hours ago in French and it was the same kind of title.

[-]

mooky1977@reddit

Best I can do is $20.

[-]

ghost_in_a_jar_c137@reddit

$25

[-]

DorkyStud@reddit

3.50

[-]

mooky1977@reddit

God damn Loch Ness Monster!

[-]

Fire5auce@reddit

I gave him a dolla...

[-]

ChrisofCL24@reddit

If they do that then I hope Mozilla buys it

[-]

Rare_Cartoonist8561@reddit

Google has put in so much work in Chrome, this would be bad news. The only reason we even have a chromium which is the core of most of the popular browsers (Firefox is an exception here) is because there is chrome, if google stops developing chrome, they stop developing chromium which can mean that a lot of browsers won't get updates based on chromium. Google has really been adding a lot of great features to chromium, which in turn benefit the browsers based on chromium.

[-]

Whig4life@reddit

It’s open source anyway, what would be the point? So many of their competitors based the code off of chrome.

[-]

darklotus_26@reddit

I thought that Google had the major say in the direction of chromium because most of the contributors work for Google. For example if there were enough developers saying that manifest v3 could not be adopted, they could have done that? How would selling chrome affect this? Unless someone else starts funding as many developers.

[-]

vytah@reddit

How would selling chrome affect this?

The new owner might have no reason to block adblocks, which means no reason to block manifest v2.

[-]

darklotus_26@reddit

But Google got to do it not because they're the owners but because most of the developers are their employees? If tomorrow microsoft hires more developers than Google who end up maintaining chromium, they could take it in whichever direction they wanted?

[-]

vytah@reddit

But who decides who's maintaining Chromium? Google.

Microsoft could hire a million developers to work on Chromium, but if Google says "no", it means nothing. Other than Edge gaining an edge over Chrome. Pun very much intended.

[-]

CodingBuizel@reddit

Google owns the chromium codebase. Anyone who wants to take it in a different direction would have to fork it. And for the fork to have some effect, they would have to be a major browser vendor or convince one to use their fork instead of Google's.

[-]

OlivierB77@reddit

Chrome is based on Chromium (opensource). DoJ’s attorneys are dumbs. The problem isn't Google's Chrome ; the problem is Google already inside Chromium so inside all Chromium-based browsers.

Internet users need real alternative to Chrome, like Opera or Vivaldi, without Google inside.

Same for Google Android. Smartphone owners should have right to run, on theirs Android devices, an alternative ROM based on Android AOSP.

Using Google's products and services should be a free choice not mandatory.

[-]

InevitableMeh@reddit

Regulators that either don't understand or are taking "action" that will have no effect just for politics. I believe it's the latter.

I actually believe Alphabet is feeding plans to regulators to "break them up" as a political bone. The company is actually encumbered internally in many ways by conflicts of interest due to the giant umbrella they are.

Breaking them up will actually benefit them as certain components actually restrain each other currently because they have competing interests. It could be a huge break up to sell the public that actually doesn't do anything in the public interest.

I think this is all a game.

[-]

Marksm2n@reddit

So this is how conspiracy theories start

[-]

TheBrokenRail-Dev@reddit

I'm surprised how negatively people are taking this. If this actually happens, it eould be a good thing.

The big issue with Chrome is that Google controls it. If Google needs an API to better target ads, they can push it through unilaterally since Chrome has such a large narketshare. Or if they think an API (like Manifest v2) is hurting their profits, they can remove it unilaterally.

Having Chrome controlled by a company that doesn't serve most of the worlds ads would be a really good thing.

[-]

MegamanEXE2013@reddit

How? If it is based on the Chromium open source project, anybody can construct and control their own Chromium browser, just like Microsoft.

Purchasing it is like having all the ingredients to make bread but buy one just to end up making it with what you already have

[-]

vytah@reddit

Chrome is not only the browser itself, it's also the brand and the install base.

People are not going to switch from Chrome to NewGoogleChromium just because Google no longer owns Chrome.

[-]

MegamanEXE2013@reddit

Depends, if people see that they can't have a seamless integration with their Google accounts (which rule Android) across devices, probably they will switch, so the purchase of a user install base could be a temporary thing.

Also the brand, it is possible that they may purchase the name, but the brand is another thing entirely, since those are corporate logos and colors and Google wouldn't want to be associated in the future with that browser since they can't control if that new company will screw up stuff, and maybe it is possible to go the Disney route and change brand names after the purchase.

Also, Google can begin their installation and suggestions of their new browser

[-]

Herve-M@reddit

Image Broadcom buy it? Not like we know how bad it will become..

[-]

zippy72@reddit

Yeah but who will buy it? Microsoft? That would just be worse - they have more money than Google, less ethics and more greed.

[-]

MatchingTurret@reddit

So, they could sell Chrome and start a new browser based on the open source Chromium?

[-]

DividedContinuity@reddit

Also, who are they selling Chrome to? It's given away for free and doesn't generate any revenue.

Alright its got market share, but very few companies can leverage that for something without killing the goose.

[-]

Shished@reddit

Other browser developers (like apple Microsoft Mozilla etc) can form a consortium and will be a stakeholder in it, and develop Chrome together.

[-]

Imaginary-Problem914@reddit

Why would they do that when they already have browsers.

[-]

Shished@reddit

Those are chromium based (+ mozilla who develops a browser for decades) so they know how to maintain the chrome codebase.

[-]

mythrowawayuhccount@reddit

Chrome does indeed generate revenue. Its not direct, but indirect.

For instance through data collection and analytics, ads, and partnerships where other comlanies agree to package or use it.

Its like if toyota gave you a free car, but then had an in car camera and sold the video of your reactions to things. And sold your GPS data so the infotainment coukd advertise to you based on your reactions.

[-]

Ancient-Weird3574@reddit

And what company could use the data to create revenue? Options basicly are google, microsoft and meta. Microsoft has edge, so only options is meta.

[-]

Schlonzig@reddit

Question: could Google outsource Chrome, let it go public, and continue to buy the data from them?

[-]

MegamanEXE2013@reddit

But selling it would not be the same as selling the business in itself. I mean, all those data collectors should be changed for the new owner, which is basically Microsoft Edge but without Microsoft being the owner

[-]

LvS@reddit

Microsoft.

[-]

Faangdevmanager@reddit

Guess what engine edge uses…

[-]

LvS@reddit

So what. Microsoft just got rid of all competition in the browser space.

[-]

xinnerangrygod@reddit

Surely the DoJ would be so stupid as to allow that? Right? :/

[-]

CoppeliusGER@reddit

Oh look. Back there... Is that...? That IS soon to be Attorney General Matt Gaetz with the decapitated head of Lady Justice in one hand and her sword in the other!

[-]

ichugcaffeine@reddit

So just… fuck Firefox eh? Pretty sure it’s got a pretty good market share still. Quit talking out of your ass…

[-]

MatchingTurret@reddit

This also begs the question: What exactly is Chrome? Chrome without Google is just Chromium, right?

[-]

pinkmetap@reddit

Regarding Chromium... Somewhat, there is still some connectivity to Google within it. If you download it from Google's site, what some deem the "Official Chromium", then you're using their build of it. So in the end, you have to expect some baked-in connectivity to and from their services.

You would need to look at a 3rd party Chromium builds like Ungoogled-Chromium for it to be truly Google-free. Some of the "feature" removal they do is debatable depending on your taste.

[-]

Electronic_Topic1958@reddit

I can't answer the first one but Google absolutely does generate revenue with Chrome. They currently operate a 66% market share with this browser, the next in line is Safari at 18%. Making Chromium opensource ensures that website adhere to a Chromium standard and that any other potential rivals would prefer to fork their version of Chromium rather than use Mozilla's or start from scratch. So since all websites have to comply this makes their ad business far more cohesive as all websites have a certain standard which makes analytics and advertising significantly easier and the data generated more reliable.

Since they also control the majority of the alternative browsers indirectly, if they want to pass changes that would eliminate these browsers from gaining a competitive advantage (think of Brave with its built-in ad blocker) they can ensure that this cannot happen (as they did with their elimination of ad block) as when people are not looking at ads, regardless of browsers, Google is losing money.

Additionally the default search engine on Chrome is Google.com which ensures further mass adoption of their search engine ensuring further money. Just for the iPhone market, Google estimates that this value of being the default search engine is worth approximately $20 billion annually. I cannot imagine how it is with the PC market but it must also be considerable. Investing billions into an open source (albeit technically) browser that anyone can download and operate for "free" may make zero business sense, but it is important to remember that Google is not doing this out of the kindness of their hearts. There is a lot of money in this browser market. One of the largest (in terms of capital) technology investors of all time, Marc Andreesen, made his initial fortune by developing Netscape. Microsoft risked being broken up as a monopoly by trying to kill Netscape by having Internet Explorer prepackaged with Windows, only due to a technical error in the trial was this prevented.

The amount of money that one can generate by ensuring everyone uses the same technology, despite it being "free" is enormous. From data collection for advertising to now, the new adventure of so called "artificial intelligence", there is significant incentive for companies such as Google to develop their browsers and ensure mass adoption. Most of the technology industry operates on a philosophy of mass adoption, ranging from "free" products (web browsers, social media, search engines), to subscriptions (Adobe, Netflix, Salesfoce) to single payment options (Microsoft Windows), mass adoption is absolutely the name of the game. As Peter Thiel put it, competition is for losers, gaining a monopoly is for winners. Creating a product that has zero cost and is free to use is a good way to stamp out the competition and ensure that the entire global Internet adheres to the standards that your company sets. The value of this cannot be understated.

[-]

6e1a08c8047143c6869@reddit

It does provide revenue through the collection of telemetry though.

[-]

centosdude@reddit

I wonder if Chromium would remain open source and available in the various distros if that comes to pass.

[-]

Mr_Lumbergh@reddit

It’ll still suck. What difference does it make?

[-]

superraiden@reddit

Could May Possibly

Immediately dismiss article

[-]

cyb3rofficial@reddit

You mean just create a shell company? Google isn't going to let go of a free revenue stream that easy,

[-]

Moscato359@reddit

chrome doesn't really make money But it pushes people to using the google ecosystem

[-]

gex80@reddit

Okay so they "sell" chrome to someone else. Why can't they just make another clone of chrome with a different name?

[-]

Moscato359@reddit

Presumably an injunction

Though the other version of chrome would end up being installed taking over the userbase

[-]

that_one_wierd_guy@reddit

I'm not sure an injunction against using and modifying a piece of open source software, within the limits of its license would hold water

[-]

Moscato359@reddit

An injunction against creating and distributing a browser would hold water

[-]

Business_Reindeer910@reddit

They couldn't just "create a shell company". Otherwise things like the breakups of AT&T into the baby bells and wouldn't work have worked to the extent they did for the time.

[-]

cyb3rofficial@reddit

Sure they can, make some shell, borrow funds from investors and invest back into ABC, it's done almost in common place, wont stop them at all. https://www.theverge.com/2019/2/16/18227695/google-shell-companies-tax-breaks-land-texas-expansion-nda Google been doing shell companies for a long time, https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/jan/03/google-tax-haven-bermuda-netherlands there's countless shells google created and used for a long time. This will be nothing new at all.

Disney been doing it for decades too, government doesn't care, they get paid either way.

[-]

Business_Reindeer910@reddit

You act like it wouldn't be figured out for something like this. All those shell companies are legal. A sale to shift responsibility wouldn't.

[-]

KnowZeroX@reddit

It is called offshoring. If you create a company in another country outside US law, offload it to that company and now there is nothing the DOJ can do. Because unlike AT&T which was a granted monopoly which physical presence, a web browser is software that can be developed anywhere.

[-]