DOJ to request Federal Judge to order Google to sell chrome browser.

A

atarione

2[H]4U
Joined
Mar 17, 2011
Messages
2,403
https://www.reuters.com/technology/...sell-off-chrome-bloomberg-reports-2024-11-18/

WASHINGTON, Nov 18 (Reuters) - The U.S. Department of Justice will ask a judge to force Alphabet's Google
to sell off its Chrome internet browser, Bloomberg News reported on Monday, citing people familiar with the plans.
The DOJ will also ask the judge, who ruled in August that Google illegally monopolized the search market, to require measures related to artificial intelligence and its Android smartphone operating system, the report said.

Google controls how people view the internet and what ads they see in part through its Chrome browser, which typically uses Google search, gathers information important to Google's ad business, and is estimated to have about two-thirds of the global browser market.
The DOJ declined to comment. Google, in a statement from Lee-Anne Mulholland, vice president, Google Regulatory Affairs, said the DOJ is pushing a "radical agenda that goes far beyond the legal issues in this case," and would harm consumers.
Click to expand...

Interesting, That could be quite a dramatic development? With some pretty far reaching consequences? I will be very curious to see how this progresses.
 
that could make google stockholder quite rich (chance are that some of those part get a bit undervalued in the mass), could create some dynamism, but google having so much cash flow and feeling obligated to spend a lot of it to keep regulator off their back all this time had giant amount of positives.

Like there is a non 0 chance that's google that cure cancer, make quantic computer relevant, near room temperature and near atmosphere super-conductor if we do not touch it.... and continue to have too much money + a feeling they need to spend it on potential homerun
 
LukeTbk said:
that could make google stockholder quite rich (chance are that some of those part get a bit undervalued in the mass), could create some dynamism, but google having so much cash flow and feeling obligated to spend a lot of it to keep regulator off their back all this time had giant amount of positives.

Like there is a non 0 chance that's google that cure cancer, make quantic computer relevant, near room temperature and near atmosphere super-conductor if we do not touch it.... and continue to have too much money + a feeling they need to spend it on potential homerun
Click to expand...
Or the Trump administration may seek to withdraw the case against Google. I normally don't get into politics here, but this is a special case.
 
I am sure you are right (i.e. that it would take a very long process if they decide to go with it, if Google try to decide themselve, they could try to make it their ways instead of being forced so it is more strategic, but again it would probably not be something fast and quick to do)
 
Anything that negatively affects Google's influence over Chromium (not merely Chrome) would be appreciated. While Chromium is open source Google effectively still leads its major decisions, leading to things like their planned Web Integrity API which received heavy criticism across the board.

That said I'm dubious what effect this would make in that regard.
 
Okatis said:
That said I'm dubious what effect this would make in that regard.
Click to expand...
If ads become a different company (or part a different company) than android-chrome, I can see people being please in that regard but how much money and relevant those would be if they are not part of google ads business.
 
Man, I don't think I've bought a browser in a while. Pretty sure I "borrowed" my neighbor's boxed copy of Netscape Navigator. :p

I'd rather see them spin off the browser than sell it; because first, who would buy it, and second, aren't they just going to buy it to monopolize it anyway? Do an AT&T style breakup and limit the markets of the baby Gs. At least for 30 years until everything is different and one of the kids can buy up everybody and reform like T-1000.
 
This is little more than the current regime trying to make it look like something is being done. Removing Chromium from Google does jack shit. If they were serious about doing something about Google they would force a split between Google and the advertisement arm of Google. That's where the real problem and the real monopoly is.

This is an empty gesture.
 
SmokeRngs said:
This is little more than the current regime trying to make it look like something is being done. Removing Chromium from Google does jack shit. If they were serious about doing something about Google they would force a split between Google and the advertisement arm of Google. That's where the real problem and the real monopoly is.

This is an empty gesture.
Click to expand...
Exactly. Isn't tiktok "banned"? lol
 
To what company?

Without integration into Google's massive, monopolistic conglomerate it instantly becomes "just another browser." I understand the idea, and it's makes sense at any level of examination from a consumer standpoint, but as a potential owner..? Not so much.
 
Chromium is open source, and the license is nearly as free as the MIT license.

Code: 
// Copyright 2015 The Chromium Authors
//
// Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
// modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are
// met:
//
//    * Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
// notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
//    * Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above
// copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer
// in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the
// distribution.
//    * Neither the name of Google LLC nor the names of its
// contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from
// this software without specific prior written permission.
//
// THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS
// "AS IS" AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT
// LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR
// A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT
// OWNER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL,
// SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT
// LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE,
// DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY
// THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT
// (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE
// OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.

What, exactly, does the DOJ think they're accomplishing by making this move? That is kind of rhetorical, as this is more a virtue signal than anything to make it look like they're doing something to try to appease the normies.
SmokeRngs said:
This is little more than the current regime trying to make it look like something is being done. Removing Chromium from Google does jack shit. If they were serious about doing something about Google they would force a split between Google and the advertisement arm of Google. That's where the real problem and the real monopoly is.

This is an empty gesture.
Click to expand...
This is what really needs to be done. Alphabet has a stranglehold over the entire internet with its advertising business.
 
Armenius said:
Chromium is open source, and the license is nearly as free as the MIT license.

Code: 
// Copyright 2015 The Chromium Authors
//
// Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
// modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are
// met:
//
//    * Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
// notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
//    * Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above
// copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer
// in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the
// distribution.
//    * Neither the name of Google LLC nor the names of its
// contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from
// this software without specific prior written permission.
//
// THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS
// "AS IS" AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT
// LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR
// A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT
// OWNER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL,
// SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT
// LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE,
// DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY
// THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT
// (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE
// OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.

What, exactly, does the DOJ think they're accomplishing by making this move? That is kind of rhetorical, as this is more a virtue signal than anything to make it look like they're doing something to try to appease the normies.

This is what really needs to be done. Alphabet has a stranglehold over the entire internet with its advertising business.
Click to expand...


What do they really offer aside from advertising and data brokerage?
Android is open source leading to ad revenue, Pixel is sold as another advertising revenue source, I'm sure they are getting some kind of data brokerage off of Fi, Chrome is ad rev and harvesting.
Without advertising, is there anything left?
 
Armenius said:
What, exactly, does the DOJ think they're accomplishing by making this move? That is kind of rhetorical, as this is more a virtue signal than anything to make it look like they're doing something to try to appease the normies.

This is what really needs to be done. Alphabet has a stranglehold over the entire internet with its advertising business.
Click to expand...

See, I get the reasoning, Chromium's value comes from Google's rampant anti-consumer conduct. I just question who the flip would ant it if they can't leverage their ability to enshitify the entire internet with Chromium. I also understand that this is the primary goal of the DOJ, Google is making the internet as a whole progressively less functional, and they want to stop that. I just don't know that "sell off" is going to go as easily as they think.

Don't forget that Google's incredible grip on control of the modern internet is a not-insignificant part of why so many sites that used to do written news articles no longer exist. They were driven to YouTube to make money, another part of the google enterprise.
 
Yeah, really can't sell something that isn't worth money to someone else. Google makes money off advertising, not the browser itself, so who would want to buy a browser if they can't make money off it? The only people who might buy it would be someone big who just wants to control Chromium (MS? Apple?) but that brings along just as many concerns as Google owning Chrome.
 
mullet said:
X browser, let that sink in.
Click to expand...
Might be a good case for letting Google hang on to Chrome... Musk has been making numerous stupid business decisions in the past few years (moreso than in past years, at least), so he'd probably find a way to sour the tech and make everyone go to Edge or Firefox instead.
 
It is essentially a non-profit subdivision. Who would buy that? How would it operate as an independent company? Off donations like Mozilla?

And it is mostly(!) open source, so Google engineers could still contribute the majority of the future code changes. I am all against monopolies with many tentacles, but this proposal makes no logical sense.
 
uOpt said:
It is essentially a non-profit subdivision. Who would buy that? How would it operate as an independent company? Off donations like Mozilla?

And it is mostly(!) open source, so Google engineers could still contribute the majority of the future code changes. I am all against monopolies with many tentacles, but this proposal makes no logical sense.
Click to expand...

It makes complete sense, at least the intention does. The problem is that competition laws are so weak that lawmakers generally can't do anything until the damage done by companies like Alphabet are irreparable. Google's tendrils are the reason a great many sites have died, they're a major reason so much of the internet is getting demonstrably worse, both for content and for performance. The DOJ can see exactly what Alphabet is doing, but they just don't have the tools to do much at all about it. I think the real intent is to force Google to cede their control of Chromium thus releasing their stranglehold on the internet. Don't lose sight of the fact that Chrome isn't where it is because it was just plain better then anything ever, it's where it is because Google keeps making it harder and harder to not use Chromium.

Google's strategy hasn't been to improve Chrome and Chromium for a long time now, it's been to degrade everything else.
 
Realistically what would happen is some company will buy Chrome, they will do all the same collection that Google did when it was first party, only they will then take on the roll if selling that data to whoever can pay for it.

Google will then double down on their app only approach for their services. YouTube app, Sheets, Docs, etc…

Nothing will really change at a fundamental level only more people will have access to the collected data.
 
Twisted Kidney said:
It makes complete sense, at least the intention does. The problem is that competition laws are so weak that lawmakers generally can't do anything until the damage done by companies like Alphabet are irreparable. Google's tendrils are the reason a great many sites have died, they're a major reason so much of the internet is getting demonstrably worse, both for content and for performance. The DOJ can see exactly what Alphabet is doing, but they just don't have the tools to do much at all about it. I think the real intent is to force Google to cede their control of Chromium thus releasing their stranglehold on the internet. Don't lose sight of the fact that Chrome isn't where it is because it was just plain better then anything ever, it's where it is because Google keeps making it harder and harder to not use Chromium.

Google's strategy hasn't been to improve Chrome and Chromium for a long time now, it's been to degrade everything else.
Click to expand...
This is a load of bullshit.

Chromium means jack shit compared to everything else Google is and does.

Google's stranglehold has everything to do with control of most of the search market and the manipulation thereof as well as Google's stranglehold on advertisement. Both of these are monopoly positions and the government has more than enough laws and power to handle the situation. The fact of the matter is the government doesn't want to break the Google monopolies because it benefits by having second hand control over them for their own uses as well as large money transfers to quite a few politicians.

Going after Chromium is lip service to make it look like the government is "doing something" while not doing anything.
 
Google's interest is to have secure web browser out there that is updated with new web features that allow them to improve their web based services, especially their office-like services.

Of all the problems that Google causes this is just down the list.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top