9 ms·

Chrome, the perfect antitrust villain?

244 points by rargulati 7y ago

snek 7y ago
Honestly it would be pretty incredible for Chrome to be split out of Google, and I for one would love to see that happen.
- JoshTriplett 7y ago
  In what possible way would Chrome make money as a standalone company without utterly alienating its userbase? Chrome is subsidized by the rest of Google.
  - cm2187 7y ago
    By doing like firefox, making money out of making google the default search engine. Which means their unique source of revenue (and client) would be google. Full circle...
    - CharlesColeman 7y ago
      > By doing like firefox, making money out of making google the default search engine. Which means their unique source of revenue (and client) would be google. Full circle... However, a Chrome-with-Google-revenue would be far more independent of Google than Chrome-the-Google-Subsidiary. Mozilla/Firefox has shown that it's still possible to advance privacy even within such an arrangement. Also, its far from clear who would have the most power in such an arrangement. Without a popular browser of its own, Google will be forced to pay the browser vendors to stay the default, unless it wants to give a search engine competitor a chance to unseat it.
      - whatshisface 7y ago
        It only seems like Mozilla is independent because they are the most independent - a truly independent browser would probably do something shocking, like bundling adblock.
        CharlesColeman 7y ago
        Independence comes in degrees, and I'm not convinced a "truly independent" browser would by truly better for consumers. It'd need a revenue model, and its not clear to me what that would be besides bundling with a paid product or displaying banner and text ads. Essentially Mozilla is selling ads, but only to one advertiser (Google) which is easy to disable.
        whatshisface 7y ago
        Linux doesn't have a revenue model... Although, doesn't Linus work for Google? There's also Blender. I'm sure we could think of a long list of others.
        abdullahkhalids 7y ago
        A good chunk of linux and related development is done by programmers being paid by some for-profit company in whose interest is it either to have those chunks developed or who want to keep their employees happy by letting them do open source contributions. Without this invisible injection of funds, linux development would slow down significantly and it might not remain competitive. Browsers are a lot less modular than operating systems and they operate in a different market (eg. contributing to their development doesn't help the bottom line of any company particularly), so Firefox doesn't get a lot of paid for third-party developer time. Hence, Mozilla makes unfortunate compromises.
        dredmorbius 7y ago
        Torvalds is employed by the Linux Foundation.
        antisthenes 7y ago
        Wait, hold on. Why does a browser need a revenue model? Why can't a browser just be a piece of software that's "finished", with the occasional security patch? Chrome is incredibly overcomplex because it attempts to be more than just a browser, and it is part of Google's strategy. A regular browser doesn't have to be an OS in itself.
  - sfotm 7y ago
    Only in the same way that Gmail and Android are "subsidized" by Google. They're sources of data and play directly into how they generate revenue. I agree that without those motivations it would be hard to fund these projects without them going paid or taking donations, but I take issue with calling them "subsidized".
  - 43920 7y ago
    Google (or another search engine) would pay Chrome to be included as the default search engine, the same way that Firefox exists now.
    - stingraycharles 7y ago
      Would this not defeat the purpose of splitting them up? Are they then not equally likely to behave in a way that favors Google?
      - vageli 7y ago
        > Would this not defeat the purpose of splitting them up? Are they then not equally likely to behave in a way that favors Google? Would you characterize Mozilla as behaving in ways that favor Google?
  - ForHackernews 7y ago
    Charge money to any OEM that wants to ship with Chrome: i.e. every single non-Apple manufacturer of phones, tablets or computers.
- kyrra 7y ago
  I'd think it's a bit more difficult. You have ChromeOS (which is based on Chromium OS)[0]. And ChromeOS is used in places that aren't just Chromebooks. For example, Google's Wifi points are based on ChromeOS[1]. [0] https://www.chromium.org/chromium-os/chromium-os-faq https://www.chromium.org/chromium-os/chromium-os-faq [1] https://www.chromium.org/chromium-os/developer-information-for-chrome-os-devices https://www.chromium.org/chromium-os/developer-information-f...
- iamnothere 7y ago
  Becoming a separate for-profit company (as opposed to a nonprofit like Mozilla) could result in some really bad things. Chrome-the-company would have to find new sources of revenue; in the process, it would likely increase its tracking, and it might end up selling info to companies other than Google, which at least tends to hoard user data internally. It may also develop even more industry partnerships around things like DRM that aren't in the interest of users. If Chrome could somehow be forcefully split off into a decently funded nonprofit, I'd be all for it. I'm not sure that anyone but Google could make that happen, though.
joshuamorton 7y ago
This is an interesting, and relatively fair, article. There are two big issues with it's reasoning though. First, chrome isn't yet close to IEs peak dominance. Ie peaked at over 90% market share. Second, DRM isn't necessary for watching video, it's needed for watching certain liscenced video. In practice, this means Netflix and streamed televison. You can still watch YouTube just fine, minus YouTube red originals, without widevine. Is a browser that keeps you off Netflix so bad for google?
- ImprovedSilence 7y ago
  Amp. Amp is what really scares me about the future of web browsing in chrome.
  - pmoriarty 7y ago
    Pardon my ignorance, but could you elaborate? What is Amp, and why is it so scary?
    - JoshMnem 7y ago
      https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/05/19/open_source_insider_google_amp_bad_bad_bad/ https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/05/19/open_source_insider... https://www.google.com/search?q=amp+sucks&num=100 https://www.google.com/search?q=amp+sucks&num=100
    - dnissley 7y ago
      Here's an amp page (although it will redirect to regular reddit if you're not on a mobile device): https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5d4x2h/eli5_the_purposebenefit_of_googles_new_amp/ https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimf... Basically it's a way for google to promote web pages that are better formatted for mobile devices that use a limited subset of html and restrict use of javascript. The pages are hosted on google.com as additional assurance that they will load quickly. I do believe it's scary to some because it seems like it's giving google a lot of power and control over content on the web.
writepub 7y ago
I don't faintly see the logic in this! The proof is in the pudding on Chrome's tangible open source impact: 1. V8 is used in a multitude of projects, node being the most impact-ful. And node has changed desktop (with electron and CLI apps), server and developer workflow 2. Brave, Edge, Opera are just some of the WideVine licensed Chromium based browsers On the contrary, iOS has banned almost every tenet of common sense general purpose computing: 1. Safari for iOS is purposefully crippled to drive devs and users to it's app store 2. App store has fluid, whimsical, retroactively applied approval laws, ahem whims. 3. It's a general purpose computer that you can own the hardware of, but need the manufacturer's consent to run software on. You know, like needing your fridge maker's approval for the groceries you stock in it. 4. They purposefully stymie competition: - Spotify, Google-Maps, etc. are denied APIs that give competing Apple offerings an edge. - 30% tax on external apps again gives Apple's competing offerings unfair edge - Complete ban on Just-In-Time compiled code and alternate browser engines is intentional - to stymie features and quality to a default of "below Apple's competing offerings" How one rationalizes Chrome to be more "anti-trust-y" is contrary to logic
- MaxBarraclough 7y ago
  > Brave, Edge, Opera are just some of the WideVine licensed Chromium based browsers Today I learned: the new Edge has both WideVine and PlayReady. I figured they'd just go with PlayReady and be done with it - does WideVine have any real advantages? https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/microsoft/chromium-microsoft-edge-can-play-4k-netflix-video-unlike-chrome/ https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/microsoft/chromium-mic... https://www.ghacks.net/2019/04/03/chromium-based-microsoft-edge-to-support-hd-and-4k-streams-netflix/ https://www.ghacks.net/2019/04/03/chromium-based-microsoft-e...
  - Avery3R 7y ago
    some content distributors only support widevine
  - vatueil 7y ago
    Microsoft PlayReady DRM still the only way to play Netflix in 4K on a PC, correct? I guess there's no reason not to include Widevine as well, but it's funny how this means the new Microsoft Edge supports features no other Chromium-based browser is allowed to use, including Google Chrome. Getting rid of DRM in general is fine with me, but I don't understand why the focus on Widevine in particular given that its availability is relatively less restricted.
skybrian 7y ago
It would be weird for a mustache-twirling villain to give most of their source code to their competitors, hence allowing them to start out compatible with nearly every website on the Internet. (With a bit of DRM needed for video, so those competitors can't be pure open source. But still, it's not going to stop Microsoft.) The article admits to this, then kind of ignores it.
- CharlesColeman 7y ago
  > It would be weird for a mustache-twirling villain to give most of their source code to their competitors, hence allowing them to start out compatible with nearly every website on the Internet. No it wouldn't, if the mustache-twirling villain's indent was control. Those competitors are following most if not all of Chrome's implementation decisions, and economically they're highly incentivized follow whatever Google does.
  - skybrian 7y ago
    Google didn't follow all of Safari's decisions, and eventually they forked WebKit. Why shouldn't Microsoft do something similar when they have different goals? They'd likely remain mostly compatible because all browser vendors do try to follow web standards nowadays. But maybe not more than Safari and Chrome are compatible. And it helps maintain Microsoft's veto on web standards (like Firefox has vetoed previous Chrome proposals).
    - CharlesColeman 7y ago
      > Google didn't follow all of Safari's decisions, and eventually they forked WebKit. Why shouldn't Microsoft do something similar when they have different goals? Didn't Microsoft recently throw in the towel with Edge, and switch to Chromium, because they thought it was too much trouble to maintain their own engine?
      - skybrian 7y ago
        Yes, it's a smart move that frees up the engineering effort that was previously devoted to catching up to Chrome, rather than improving on it. How they redeploy them isn't something we can tell from the outside. There are occasional debates on Hacker News about when you should rewrite your codebase. Similar arguments apply here: when should you rewrite someone else's codebase?
Havoc 7y ago
>without Google Services and the Google Play Store, it’s a brick. They’ve mastered separation of the strategic openness of Android with the accompanying strategic closed-ness of everything that runs on it and makes it actually worth something. It's scary how true this is. Especially how it's only obvious in hindsight (to me at least). Yet clearly this was orchestrated. In both Chrome & Androids case it's the non-free tie-in that's the catch. Either play store or DRM/codecs. hmm...who owns the biggest video site..ah right.
- Barrin92 7y ago
  Amazon's anti-trust paradox by Lina Khan hit the nail on the head a few years ago. When anti-trust moved towards the chicago school logic of judging merely based on price rather than taking market structure and power into account, we really screwed ourselves over. We've really only got ourselves to blame for elevating consumer satisfaction above all else and losing sight of the long term.
  - InvisibleCities 7y ago
    Who is "we" in this scenario? Changes to antitrust legislation was largely foisted upon the public by financial oligarchs that used the new rules to cement their own wealth and power, and unfortunately for my great-grandchildren, I am not one of them.
    - JamesBarney 7y ago
      No it was the "Antitrust Paradox" by Bork who made a very compelling argument that at the time trust busting was too aggressive and we should focus not on the effect of monopolies on competitors but on consumers. In the recent decide it might have swung too far in the other direction.
      - dredmorbius 7y ago
        Bork made the argument. But as with all ideologies, that was then embraced and, with the aid of monopoly-money billions (the real kind), reamplified throughout the "public" (monopoly-fed) discourse and corridors of policy definition (legislatures, regulators, academe). Jane Mayer's Dark Money tells much of that story. Some who find themselves so embraced shun the contact. Bork reveled in it.
jiveturkey 7y ago
Sorry, but this is a very weak article. First, not having competition does not make one a monopoly. It's anti-competitive (unfair) practices that make one a monopoly. IE, now that had the form of a monopoly, in its day. Then, he goes on to ignore WHATWG, which is the real authority, and is comprised of Apple, Mozilla, Google, Microsoft. I don't follow closely enough, but I'd be surprised to learn that Google has outsized power. Lastly, to the extent that widevine is important, it isn't restricted to Chrome.
- tedivm 7y ago
  You're literally redefining monopoly in a way that's different than every economist and most of society.
- Kaiyou 7y ago
  Not having competition is exactly what a monopoly is. That's why copyright is a state granted monopoly.
DubiousPusher 7y ago
The main problem I have with the predominant discussions around antitrust in contemporary internet software is that they largely ignore one quality that truly makes something a monopoply. That is, truly onerous monopolies don't just own a vast majority of some market share. They hamper the ability to switch to another product. Facebook, Google Search and Chrome, the most discussed products in current antitrust discussions all have viable quality alternatives. Don't like Chrome? Pick up Firefox, it's quick and easy to change. And it's the best product it's probably ever been. Don't like Google search? There's Bing, there's DuckDuckGo and more. Don't like Facebook? Try any of the bajillion other social networks. Hell, quite social networks and call your grandma instead. It's better for ya. Antitrust isn't supposed to be a bludgeon to knock whoever is on top off the top. It's supposed to be a tool to break open markets where companies have successfully closed off competition and made it impossible for opponents to succeed. I just don't see that in the web right now. There is no conceivable reason Facebook couldn't be replaced and there's ample research showing that young people are already making that transition to other platforms. Meanwhile, industries like internet service, cellular and in some places water provision, leave consumers with essentially no alternative and no choice. I see this wave of anti-web 2.0 furvor as people championing a good cause, antitrust, in utterly the wrong place for our time.
- dralley 7y ago
  >Facebook, Google Search and Chrome, the most discussed products in current antitrust discussions all have viable quality alternatives. People need to stop thinking of Google and Facebook as if they offer consumer services. They don't. Their product is their ads, and their consumers are corporate marketing departments, and through this lens they are both thoroughly monopolists. Or at least "duopolists". https://www.emarketer.com/content/global-ad-spending-update https://www.emarketer.com/content/global-ad-spending-update See also: AMP, internet.org
  - m463 7y ago
    Don't think ads, they are identification services.
  - DubiousPusher 7y ago
daodedickinson 7y ago
All the other browsers have been complaining more and more recently about patches and improvements they can't make because they can't get permission or explanation from Chromium's overseers.
jechamt 7y ago
E) All of the above.
dustfinger 7y ago
Let's not forget that Google has great influence over webRTC [1]. The source code is kept in their repositories [2]. [1]https://webrtc.org/ https://webrtc.org/ [2]https://webrtc.googlesource.com/ https://webrtc.googlesource.com/
cromwellian 7y ago
"But what’s completely correct here is that Chrome is, quite explicitly, blocking users’ freedom to use their web browser the way they would expect with a piece of open source software; " No, what you expect from Open Source software is to be able to fork it, modify it, recompile it, and use the modifications. Open Source isn't about end-user features, it's about development freedom. A completely open source piece of software could have a set of APIs and UX that keeps you on the rails and doesn't let the end user do what they want. What Open Source shouldn't do, is prevent you from modifying it to edit the app to do what you want after a recompile, and ship and share your modifications with others, that's the freedom open source provides. Arguably the DRM binary blob angle results in Tivoization, but the idea that this is some elaborate plot for Chrome lock-in by Google is ludicrous. Patent-encumbered compression codecs also created similar headaches and Google went out of their way to try break the MPEG-LA consortium monopoly. The DRM issue is basically forced on the industry by the content publishing industry. If you want to stop this particular issue from making open source browsers hard to develop, you need to talk Netflix, Hulu, Disney, and all of the other players. Or you just accept that you can't watch most Hollywood produced content in a web browser and leave it up to native apps. Or, we could just mandate everyone have to continue to support Adobe Flash players. DRM isn't going to magically go away if Chrome were a separate company. What no one has articulated in any of these conversations is any actual harm that's been done to them. There's a lot of catastrophizing about theoretical harms, but the Web and Mobile industries are far more vibrant than they were in the 90s, and launching some device that includes a browser, mobile OS, or embedded kernel is a fraction of the cost and effort it was in the 90s to do something similar. Things have gotten easier across the board. Someone launching a new IoT device these days forks chromium, webkit, or android for the UI. This would have cost you huge licensing fees a decade ago and a large engineering team. How many successful startups are running off node (v8) now? Or Electron (e.g. Discord, Slack, etc)?
- f1refly 7y ago
  > No, what you expect from Open Source software is to be able to fork it, modify it, recompile it, and use the modifications. Thats wrong. What you expect from open source software is to be able to see the source. This source may be available without the right to modify or redistribute it in any way whatsoever. You're looking for free software as preferred by the fsf, not open source.
headsoup 7y ago
Couple of simple but perhaps naive questions: Can Microsoft pay Google to have it recommend Edge on the Google search homepage? Should Chrome, rather than have Google.com as the default homepage, offer a list of Search engines for the user to choose from? Should Chrome be the default browser on Android or should the user choose from a list?
- gsnedders 7y ago
  Can Android OEMs who ship Google Play Store ship with a browser that isn't Chrome as the default browser?
soniman 7y ago
I had the same impression as the author. Google was tiptoeing up to the line of antitrust scrutiny with its search dominance (95%), the Google Play Store tax, and Youtube demonetizations, but when I saw it was banning ad blockers on Chrome, I said, that's it. This is such an obvious exploitation of market dominance that it really can't be ignored. You could explain the business logic to a ten year old. It's not an accident that Microsoft's antitrust problems started with browsers too. One of the funny things though is that ad blockers are becoming increasingly useless. Nearly every site now makes you deactivate the blocker so it's now more trouble than it's worth.
Phait 7y ago
This whole antitrust debate around Google feels weird to me. People act like Google is not a for-profit company, but some sort of philanthropic association that is law-bound to provide good technology to the people. Google has only one goal, which is selling advertisements. To do so, it provides, FOR FREE, the best technology services of the planet, including what is basically the entrance door to the internet and a piece of software to make the experience of browsing pleasant. Nobody forces Google to do so. They could easily make people pay for the services, and nobody could say a thing. And yet they give this all for free, even allowing you to block the only stream of revenue that they get from you (ads). The antitrust controversy around Google is just a major case of wanting to have the cake and eating it too. It's like we've had somebody giving us free food for decades, and now we're suropriesd that the terms of a deal that is extremely advantageous for us are changing. We've become accustomed to the idea of fre Google, and we've forgot that Google could make us pay a fee for their services, and we would all shut up and pay.
- millstone 7y ago
  Wikipedia provides information FOR FREE yet isn't the subject of an antitrust probe.
- feanaro 7y ago
  > They could easily make people pay for the services, and nobody could say a thing. I don't think people would pay for much of Google's products. Google is candy served so that the target is complacent while it is being invisibly surveiled.
- TeMPOraL 7y ago
  "Google is not a for-profit company, but some sort of philanthropic association [providing] good technology" is an image Google created for itself and pushed hard. The good ol' "don't do evil" was part of it.
- ionised 7y ago
  I've never once gotten the impression that people think Google should behave like a non-profit.
akarki15 7y ago
People here seem to assume all monopolies are illegal. THAT'S NOT TRUE! Source: https://www.classlawgroup.com/antitrust/unlawful-practices/monopoly/ https://www.classlawgroup.com/antitrust/unlawful-practices/m... A monopoly is when a company has exclusive control over a good or service in a particular market. Not all monopolies are illegal. For example, businesses might legally corner their market if they produce a superior product or are well managed. Antitrust law doesn’t penalize successful companies just for being successful. Competitors may be at a legitimate disadvantage if their product or service is inferior to the monopolist’s. But monopolies are illegal if they are established or maintained through improper conduct, such as exclusionary or predatory acts. This is known as anticompetitive monopolization
jillesvangurp 7y ago
There are plenty of opinions on what is or isn't a monopoly. What matters is that the opinion that what the likes of Google, Facebook, Apple, and others are doing amounts to being something that needs action from governments is both popular and becoming a talking point for a lot of politicians in both the EU and the US. So, what matters less is whether they are right or wrong and what matters more is what the before mentioned companies are doing about mitigating the risks of being confronted with excessive fines, rulings, and other forms of damage. The answer is, so far not a lot and that may become a problem as it seems pretty clear there is wide spread support for action against them. I'd say both Google and Apple are pretty far down the road where they will have multi billion euro or dollar fines at some point. They are both highly profitable as well so that in it self would not necessarily be that much of a problem. What would be a problem is governments interfering with their business models. IMHO, some action here would be good. These companies are getting a bit complacent about their position in the market and quite arrogant about casually snuffing out competition when it suits them. In general, it's time for a shake up in the mobile space. Google and Apple earned their position with the work they did last decade but nothing is forever and I remember a time when there were more credible options then just them.

244 points by rargulati 7y ago

snek 7y ago

Honestly it would be pretty incredible for Chrome to be split out of Google, and I for one would love to see that happen.

JoshTriplett 7y ago
In what possible way would Chrome make money as a standalone company without utterly alienating its userbase? Chrome is subsidized by the rest of Google.
- cm2187 7y ago
  By doing like firefox, making money out of making google the default search engine. Which means their unique source of revenue (and client) would be google. Full circle...
  - CharlesColeman 7y ago
    > By doing like firefox, making money out of making google the default search engine. Which means their unique source of revenue (and client) would be google. Full circle... However, a Chrome-with-Google-revenue would be far more independent of Google than Chrome-the-Google-Subsidiary. Mozilla/Firefox has shown that it's still possible to advance privacy even within such an arrangement. Also, its far from clear who would have the most power in such an arrangement. Without a popular browser of its own, Google will be forced to pay the browser vendors to stay the default, unless it wants to give a search engine competitor a chance to unseat it.
    - whatshisface 7y ago
      It only seems like Mozilla is independent because they are the most independent - a truly independent browser would probably do something shocking, like bundling adblock.
      - CharlesColeman 7y ago
        Independence comes in degrees, and I'm not convinced a "truly independent" browser would by truly better for consumers. It'd need a revenue model, and its not clear to me what that would be besides bundling with a paid product or displaying banner and text ads. Essentially Mozilla is selling ads, but only to one advertiser (Google) which is easy to disable.
        whatshisface 7y ago
        Linux doesn't have a revenue model... Although, doesn't Linus work for Google? There's also Blender. I'm sure we could think of a long list of others.
        abdullahkhalids 7y ago
        A good chunk of linux and related development is done by programmers being paid by some for-profit company in whose interest is it either to have those chunks developed or who want to keep their employees happy by letting them do open source contributions. Without this invisible injection of funds, linux development would slow down significantly and it might not remain competitive. Browsers are a lot less modular than operating systems and they operate in a different market (eg. contributing to their development doesn't help the bottom line of any company particularly), so Firefox doesn't get a lot of paid for third-party developer time. Hence, Mozilla makes unfortunate compromises.
        dredmorbius 7y ago
        Torvalds is employed by the Linux Foundation.
        antisthenes 7y ago
        Wait, hold on. Why does a browser need a revenue model? Why can't a browser just be a piece of software that's "finished", with the occasional security patch? Chrome is incredibly overcomplex because it attempts to be more than just a browser, and it is part of Google's strategy. A regular browser doesn't have to be an OS in itself.
- sfotm 7y ago
  Only in the same way that Gmail and Android are "subsidized" by Google. They're sources of data and play directly into how they generate revenue. I agree that without those motivations it would be hard to fund these projects without them going paid or taking donations, but I take issue with calling them "subsidized".
- 43920 7y ago
  Google (or another search engine) would pay Chrome to be included as the default search engine, the same way that Firefox exists now.
  - stingraycharles 7y ago
    Would this not defeat the purpose of splitting them up? Are they then not equally likely to behave in a way that favors Google?
    - vageli 7y ago
      > Would this not defeat the purpose of splitting them up? Are they then not equally likely to behave in a way that favors Google? Would you characterize Mozilla as behaving in ways that favor Google?
- ForHackernews 7y ago
  Charge money to any OEM that wants to ship with Chrome: i.e. every single non-Apple manufacturer of phones, tablets or computers.
kyrra 7y ago
I'd think it's a bit more difficult. You have ChromeOS (which is based on Chromium OS)[0]. And ChromeOS is used in places that aren't just Chromebooks. For example, Google's Wifi points are based on ChromeOS[1]. [0] https://www.chromium.org/chromium-os/chromium-os-faq https://www.chromium.org/chromium-os/chromium-os-faq [1] https://www.chromium.org/chromium-os/developer-information-for-chrome-os-devices https://www.chromium.org/chromium-os/developer-information-f...
iamnothere 7y ago
Becoming a separate for-profit company (as opposed to a nonprofit like Mozilla) could result in some really bad things. Chrome-the-company would have to find new sources of revenue; in the process, it would likely increase its tracking, and it might end up selling info to companies other than Google, which at least tends to hoard user data internally. It may also develop even more industry partnerships around things like DRM that aren't in the interest of users. If Chrome could somehow be forcefully split off into a decently funded nonprofit, I'd be all for it. I'm not sure that anyone but Google could make that happen, though.

joshuamorton 7y ago

This is an interesting, and relatively fair, article. There are two big issues with it's reasoning though. First, chrome isn't yet close to IEs peak dominance. Ie peaked at over 90% market share. Second, DRM isn't necessary for watching video, it's needed for watching certain liscenced video. In practice, this means Netflix and streamed televison. You can still watch YouTube just fine, minus YouTube red originals, without widevine. Is a browser that keeps you off Netflix so bad for google?

ImprovedSilence 7y ago
Amp. Amp is what really scares me about the future of web browsing in chrome.
- pmoriarty 7y ago
  Pardon my ignorance, but could you elaborate? What is Amp, and why is it so scary?
  - JoshMnem 7y ago
    https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/05/19/open_source_insider_google_amp_bad_bad_bad/ https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/05/19/open_source_insider... https://www.google.com/search?q=amp+sucks&num=100 https://www.google.com/search?q=amp+sucks&num=100
  - dnissley 7y ago
    Here's an amp page (although it will redirect to regular reddit if you're not on a mobile device): https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5d4x2h/eli5_the_purposebenefit_of_googles_new_amp/ https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimf... Basically it's a way for google to promote web pages that are better formatted for mobile devices that use a limited subset of html and restrict use of javascript. The pages are hosted on google.com as additional assurance that they will load quickly. I do believe it's scary to some because it seems like it's giving google a lot of power and control over content on the web.

writepub 7y ago

I don't faintly see the logic in this! The proof is in the pudding on Chrome's tangible open source impact: 1. V8 is used in a multitude of projects, node being the most impact-ful. And node has changed desktop (with electron and CLI apps), server and developer workflow 2. Brave, Edge, Opera are just some of the WideVine licensed Chromium based browsers On the contrary, iOS has banned almost every tenet of common sense general purpose computing: 1. Safari for iOS is purposefully crippled to drive devs and users to it's app store 2. App store has fluid, whimsical, retroactively applied approval laws, ahem whims. 3. It's a general purpose computer that you can own the hardware of, but need the manufacturer's consent to run software on. You know, like needing your fridge maker's approval for the groceries you stock in it. 4. They purposefully stymie competition: - Spotify, Google-Maps, etc. are denied APIs that give competing Apple offerings an edge. - 30% tax on external apps again gives Apple's competing offerings unfair edge - Complete ban on Just-In-Time compiled code and alternate browser engines is intentional - to stymie features and quality to a default of "below Apple's competing offerings" How one rationalizes Chrome to be more "anti-trust-y" is contrary to logic

MaxBarraclough 7y ago
> Brave, Edge, Opera are just some of the WideVine licensed Chromium based browsers Today I learned: the new Edge has both WideVine and PlayReady. I figured they'd just go with PlayReady and be done with it - does WideVine have any real advantages? https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/microsoft/chromium-microsoft-edge-can-play-4k-netflix-video-unlike-chrome/ https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/microsoft/chromium-mic... https://www.ghacks.net/2019/04/03/chromium-based-microsoft-edge-to-support-hd-and-4k-streams-netflix/ https://www.ghacks.net/2019/04/03/chromium-based-microsoft-e...
- Avery3R 7y ago
  some content distributors only support widevine
- vatueil 7y ago
  Microsoft PlayReady DRM still the only way to play Netflix in 4K on a PC, correct? I guess there's no reason not to include Widevine as well, but it's funny how this means the new Microsoft Edge supports features no other Chromium-based browser is allowed to use, including Google Chrome. Getting rid of DRM in general is fine with me, but I don't understand why the focus on Widevine in particular given that its availability is relatively less restricted.

skybrian 7y ago

It would be weird for a mustache-twirling villain to give most of their source code to their competitors, hence allowing them to start out compatible with nearly every website on the Internet. (With a bit of DRM needed for video, so those competitors can't be pure open source. But still, it's not going to stop Microsoft.) The article admits to this, then kind of ignores it.

CharlesColeman 7y ago
> It would be weird for a mustache-twirling villain to give most of their source code to their competitors, hence allowing them to start out compatible with nearly every website on the Internet. No it wouldn't, if the mustache-twirling villain's indent was control. Those competitors are following most if not all of Chrome's implementation decisions, and economically they're highly incentivized follow whatever Google does.
- skybrian 7y ago
  Google didn't follow all of Safari's decisions, and eventually they forked WebKit. Why shouldn't Microsoft do something similar when they have different goals? They'd likely remain mostly compatible because all browser vendors do try to follow web standards nowadays. But maybe not more than Safari and Chrome are compatible. And it helps maintain Microsoft's veto on web standards (like Firefox has vetoed previous Chrome proposals).
  - CharlesColeman 7y ago
    > Google didn't follow all of Safari's decisions, and eventually they forked WebKit. Why shouldn't Microsoft do something similar when they have different goals? Didn't Microsoft recently throw in the towel with Edge, and switch to Chromium, because they thought it was too much trouble to maintain their own engine?
    - skybrian 7y ago
      Yes, it's a smart move that frees up the engineering effort that was previously devoted to catching up to Chrome, rather than improving on it. How they redeploy them isn't something we can tell from the outside. There are occasional debates on Hacker News about when you should rewrite your codebase. Similar arguments apply here: when should you rewrite someone else's codebase?

Havoc 7y ago

>without Google Services and the Google Play Store, it’s a brick. They’ve mastered separation of the strategic openness of Android with the accompanying strategic closed-ness of everything that runs on it and makes it actually worth something. It's scary how true this is. Especially how it's only obvious in hindsight (to me at least). Yet clearly this was orchestrated. In both Chrome & Androids case it's the non-free tie-in that's the catch. Either play store or DRM/codecs. hmm...who owns the biggest video site..ah right.

Barrin92 7y ago
Amazon's anti-trust paradox by Lina Khan hit the nail on the head a few years ago. When anti-trust moved towards the chicago school logic of judging merely based on price rather than taking market structure and power into account, we really screwed ourselves over. We've really only got ourselves to blame for elevating consumer satisfaction above all else and losing sight of the long term.
- InvisibleCities 7y ago
  Who is "we" in this scenario? Changes to antitrust legislation was largely foisted upon the public by financial oligarchs that used the new rules to cement their own wealth and power, and unfortunately for my great-grandchildren, I am not one of them.
  - JamesBarney 7y ago
    No it was the "Antitrust Paradox" by Bork who made a very compelling argument that at the time trust busting was too aggressive and we should focus not on the effect of monopolies on competitors but on consumers. In the recent decide it might have swung too far in the other direction.
    - dredmorbius 7y ago
      Bork made the argument. But as with all ideologies, that was then embraced and, with the aid of monopoly-money billions (the real kind), reamplified throughout the "public" (monopoly-fed) discourse and corridors of policy definition (legislatures, regulators, academe). Jane Mayer's Dark Money tells much of that story. Some who find themselves so embraced shun the contact. Bork reveled in it.

jiveturkey 7y ago

Sorry, but this is a very weak article. First, not having competition does not make one a monopoly. It's anti-competitive (unfair) practices that make one a monopoly. IE, now that had the form of a monopoly, in its day. Then, he goes on to ignore WHATWG, which is the real authority, and is comprised of Apple, Mozilla, Google, Microsoft. I don't follow closely enough, but I'd be surprised to learn that Google has outsized power. Lastly, to the extent that widevine is important, it isn't restricted to Chrome.

tedivm 7y ago
You're literally redefining monopoly in a way that's different than every economist and most of society.
Kaiyou 7y ago
Not having competition is exactly what a monopoly is. That's why copyright is a state granted monopoly.

DubiousPusher 7y ago

The main problem I have with the predominant discussions around antitrust in contemporary internet software is that they largely ignore one quality that truly makes something a monopoply. That is, truly onerous monopolies don't just own a vast majority of some market share. They hamper the ability to switch to another product. Facebook, Google Search and Chrome, the most discussed products in current antitrust discussions all have viable quality alternatives. Don't like Chrome? Pick up Firefox, it's quick and easy to change. And it's the best product it's probably ever been. Don't like Google search? There's Bing, there's DuckDuckGo and more. Don't like Facebook? Try any of the bajillion other social networks. Hell, quite social networks and call your grandma instead. It's better for ya. Antitrust isn't supposed to be a bludgeon to knock whoever is on top off the top. It's supposed to be a tool to break open markets where companies have successfully closed off competition and made it impossible for opponents to succeed. I just don't see that in the web right now. There is no conceivable reason Facebook couldn't be replaced and there's ample research showing that young people are already making that transition to other platforms. Meanwhile, industries like internet service, cellular and in some places water provision, leave consumers with essentially no alternative and no choice. I see this wave of anti-web 2.0 furvor as people championing a good cause, antitrust, in utterly the wrong place for our time.

dralley 7y ago
>Facebook, Google Search and Chrome, the most discussed products in current antitrust discussions all have viable quality alternatives. People need to stop thinking of Google and Facebook as if they offer consumer services. They don't. Their product is their ads, and their consumers are corporate marketing departments, and through this lens they are both thoroughly monopolists. Or at least "duopolists". https://www.emarketer.com/content/global-ad-spending-update https://www.emarketer.com/content/global-ad-spending-update See also: AMP, internet.org
- m463 7y ago
  Don't think ads, they are identification services.
- DubiousPusher 7y ago

daodedickinson 7y ago

All the other browsers have been complaining more and more recently about patches and improvements they can't make because they can't get permission or explanation from Chromium's overseers.

jechamt 7y ago

E) All of the above.

dustfinger 7y ago

Let's not forget that Google has great influence over webRTC [1]. The source code is kept in their repositories [2]. [1]https://webrtc.org/ https://webrtc.org/ [2]https://webrtc.googlesource.com/ https://webrtc.googlesource.com/

cromwellian 7y ago

"But what’s completely correct here is that Chrome is, quite explicitly, blocking users’ freedom to use their web browser the way they would expect with a piece of open source software; " No, what you expect from Open Source software is to be able to fork it, modify it, recompile it, and use the modifications. Open Source isn't about end-user features, it's about development freedom. A completely open source piece of software could have a set of APIs and UX that keeps you on the rails and doesn't let the end user do what they want. What Open Source shouldn't do, is prevent you from modifying it to edit the app to do what you want after a recompile, and ship and share your modifications with others, that's the freedom open source provides. Arguably the DRM binary blob angle results in Tivoization, but the idea that this is some elaborate plot for Chrome lock-in by Google is ludicrous. Patent-encumbered compression codecs also created similar headaches and Google went out of their way to try break the MPEG-LA consortium monopoly. The DRM issue is basically forced on the industry by the content publishing industry. If you want to stop this particular issue from making open source browsers hard to develop, you need to talk Netflix, Hulu, Disney, and all of the other players. Or you just accept that you can't watch most Hollywood produced content in a web browser and leave it up to native apps. Or, we could just mandate everyone have to continue to support Adobe Flash players. DRM isn't going to magically go away if Chrome were a separate company. What no one has articulated in any of these conversations is any actual harm that's been done to them. There's a lot of catastrophizing about theoretical harms, but the Web and Mobile industries are far more vibrant than they were in the 90s, and launching some device that includes a browser, mobile OS, or embedded kernel is a fraction of the cost and effort it was in the 90s to do something similar. Things have gotten easier across the board. Someone launching a new IoT device these days forks chromium, webkit, or android for the UI. This would have cost you huge licensing fees a decade ago and a large engineering team. How many successful startups are running off node (v8) now? Or Electron (e.g. Discord, Slack, etc)?

f1refly 7y ago
> No, what you expect from Open Source software is to be able to fork it, modify it, recompile it, and use the modifications. Thats wrong. What you expect from open source software is to be able to see the source. This source may be available without the right to modify or redistribute it in any way whatsoever. You're looking for free software as preferred by the fsf, not open source.

headsoup 7y ago

Couple of simple but perhaps naive questions: Can Microsoft pay Google to have it recommend Edge on the Google search homepage? Should Chrome, rather than have Google.com as the default homepage, offer a list of Search engines for the user to choose from? Should Chrome be the default browser on Android or should the user choose from a list?

gsnedders 7y ago
Can Android OEMs who ship Google Play Store ship with a browser that isn't Chrome as the default browser?

soniman 7y ago

I had the same impression as the author. Google was tiptoeing up to the line of antitrust scrutiny with its search dominance (95%), the Google Play Store tax, and Youtube demonetizations, but when I saw it was banning ad blockers on Chrome, I said, that's it. This is such an obvious exploitation of market dominance that it really can't be ignored. You could explain the business logic to a ten year old. It's not an accident that Microsoft's antitrust problems started with browsers too. One of the funny things though is that ad blockers are becoming increasingly useless. Nearly every site now makes you deactivate the blocker so it's now more trouble than it's worth.

Phait 7y ago

This whole antitrust debate around Google feels weird to me. People act like Google is not a for-profit company, but some sort of philanthropic association that is law-bound to provide good technology to the people. Google has only one goal, which is selling advertisements. To do so, it provides, FOR FREE, the best technology services of the planet, including what is basically the entrance door to the internet and a piece of software to make the experience of browsing pleasant. Nobody forces Google to do so. They could easily make people pay for the services, and nobody could say a thing. And yet they give this all for free, even allowing you to block the only stream of revenue that they get from you (ads). The antitrust controversy around Google is just a major case of wanting to have the cake and eating it too. It's like we've had somebody giving us free food for decades, and now we're suropriesd that the terms of a deal that is extremely advantageous for us are changing. We've become accustomed to the idea of fre Google, and we've forgot that Google could make us pay a fee for their services, and we would all shut up and pay.

millstone 7y ago
Wikipedia provides information FOR FREE yet isn't the subject of an antitrust probe.
feanaro 7y ago
> They could easily make people pay for the services, and nobody could say a thing. I don't think people would pay for much of Google's products. Google is candy served so that the target is complacent while it is being invisibly surveiled.
TeMPOraL 7y ago
"Google is not a for-profit company, but some sort of philanthropic association [providing] good technology" is an image Google created for itself and pushed hard. The good ol' "don't do evil" was part of it.
ionised 7y ago
I've never once gotten the impression that people think Google should behave like a non-profit.

akarki15 7y ago

People here seem to assume all monopolies are illegal. THAT'S NOT TRUE! Source: https://www.classlawgroup.com/antitrust/unlawful-practices/monopoly/ https://www.classlawgroup.com/antitrust/unlawful-practices/m... A monopoly is when a company has exclusive control over a good or service in a particular market. Not all monopolies are illegal. For example, businesses might legally corner their market if they produce a superior product or are well managed. Antitrust law doesn’t penalize successful companies just for being successful. Competitors may be at a legitimate disadvantage if their product or service is inferior to the monopolist’s. But monopolies are illegal if they are established or maintained through improper conduct, such as exclusionary or predatory acts. This is known as anticompetitive monopolization

jillesvangurp 7y ago

There are plenty of opinions on what is or isn't a monopoly. What matters is that the opinion that what the likes of Google, Facebook, Apple, and others are doing amounts to being something that needs action from governments is both popular and becoming a talking point for a lot of politicians in both the EU and the US. So, what matters less is whether they are right or wrong and what matters more is what the before mentioned companies are doing about mitigating the risks of being confronted with excessive fines, rulings, and other forms of damage. The answer is, so far not a lot and that may become a problem as it seems pretty clear there is wide spread support for action against them. I'd say both Google and Apple are pretty far down the road where they will have multi billion euro or dollar fines at some point. They are both highly profitable as well so that in it self would not necessarily be that much of a problem. What would be a problem is governments interfering with their business models. IMHO, some action here would be good. These companies are getting a bit complacent about their position in the market and quite arrogant about casually snuffing out competition when it suits them. In general, it's time for a shake up in the mobile space. Google and Apple earned their position with the work they did last decade but nothing is forever and I remember a time when there were more credible options then just them.