Note: Original report by Bloomberg, article by Reuters proxied by Neuters to bypass paywall.
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.
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?
apple has, on mobile.
Their overwhelming market share is probably the main problem.
I think this is something even Elon Musk could get behind.
They can just wait it out until it becomes the corpo-friendly Dept. of Injustice on Jan. 20th.
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
Better hurry, Trump’s rubber stamp DOJ will kill this faster than a cop encountering a dog.
For the right price.
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)
Yeah any company controlled by the rich will act immorally
We can at least make sure it’s multiple companies who will fight each other instead of one supreme leader megacorp
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.That is so odd, if you dont think what you are saying is relevant or necessary why say it?
Your conscientiousness will be lost in a sea of others self importance, at least level the playing field and support yourself.
if you dont think what you are saying is relevant or necessary why say it?
If I worried about necessity, I would probably not have a Lemmy account.
level the playing field
I’m not playing dependent upon others, just upon my own ideals. I feel like an upvote needs to mean something. In my case, it means, I need more people to see it, for me.
In most cases, the feeling behind my posts/comments are: If someone sees it, good, have fun.Your own upvote on your own comment doesn’t mean anything, because every single comment starts with one upvote by default, not zero. All you’re doing is moving your comments below everyone else’s.
Your own upvote on your own comment doesn’t mean anything
Neither do words, or little magnetic particles lain down nicely on a polymer disc, until people decide they mean something.
I don’t think anybody decided that an upvote count of 1 means anything.
Sometimes I downvote my own comment just to add a little chaos.
I see you being Chaotic-Chaotic over here.
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?
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.
Chrome isn’t open source?
Sell off? So who will buy
The Onion
Microsoft
doubtful. they replaced trident (in house engine) with chromium for edge because of the cost of maintenance.
they wouldn’t need edge anymore if they bought Chrome. The decades long struggle to make people use a Microsoft web browser would be over
They shutting force then to stop the advertising branch too
Sprint merged with TMobile
They are going to ask a judge like they have no fucking balls.
It’s called “Distribution of Power”.
We should be thankful it’s still here.Distribution of power into corporate hands. Oh, im willing to bet it is here to stay.
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.
I heard the same for Android and I was pretty supportive of the sentiment until I listened to the Android Faithful podcast episode discussing it…
If Google doesn’t develop Android, nobody will. Whoever buys Android, we don’t know if they will maintain the AOSP. Android has been an equal parts rollercoaster of good and bad ideas thanks to Google, but it has had someone do that…
Maybe LineageOS could take over, but that’s just insane wishful thinking.
Nokia, Siemens, Oracle, Linux Foundation, Tesla, IBM, OpenAI…there a hundreds of companies wealthy enough in that space that would not pose a consumer protection issue.
Fair point. I don’t think I thought of this lol.
Chrome isn’t even developed by anyone but Google.
Oh, the DOJ is ran by idiots, my bad.
What? The fact it’s owned & developed by Google is the whole point
This is how the DOJ is planning to approach dismantling Google’s illegal monopoly, by breaking chrome - the world’s most used browser - away from them
