Comment by dessant | Hacker News Reader

Comment by dessant | Hacker News Reader

Google must be forced to open up Chrome to third-party extension stores.

A monopoly deciding on the kind of browser extensions we get to distribute and use is sickening. As Chrome is a dominant platform, our work is prevented from reaching users if it does not align with the bussiness goals of Google, and extensions that users want on their devices are effectively censored out of existence.

Again, the solution in the face of this company is not to ask them to behave nicely, but to force them to open up their platforms, so that the future of software we enjoy today does not depend on the whims of Google.

As an example of their behavior, I've shared my discussion [1] with Chrome Web Store reviewers when the time came for one of my projects to be taken down. You cannot expect them to respond properly and apply critical thinking, and showing even slight resistance may lead to further retaliation from their part.

The extension review process at Firefox is not flawless either, but you get to talk to human beings who respond appropiately, offer sensible viewpoints, listen to your feedback, and adjust their position during reviews.

[1] https://github.com/dessant/search-by-image/issues/57

Google must be forced to divest of its search business, Android business, ad business, browser business, office software, and web properties into wholly separate corporate entities.

The same should happen to Apple.

Both companies are anti-consumer monopolies.

How would this actually improve competition? I agree there is a problem, but in my view and opinion the solution is enforcing a regulated market that protects consumers and allows for new competition to enter even lacking scale.

Competition is means to an end, not an end goal itself. The goal is user-friendliness, and solutions improving on that are OK even if they don't improve market competitiveness.

It would reduce conflicts of interest. For example, The Chrome Company would optimize for user experience rather than advertising profits.

No, the Chrome company would go out of business.

If it will go out of business in a functioning market, it should.

Separate companies can still collude and cooperate for larger mutual ends... especially if they're only nominally separate.

Are you arguing that there are no costs associated with collusion vs. being an actual monopoly?

Do you think that being broken up will have no impact whatsoever on the incentives and outcomes for consumers?

Or simply that the effect will be insignificant?

Cartel activities are illegal, though.

I hear this and I’m just curious, what would prevent CompanyA from bundling and requiring CompanyB’s product on the build?

Switching browsers is easy. I have 3 on my desktop.

This is a non issue for me.

But I agree with your premise, Apple has been pulling this for a decade, consumers and developers all lose.

Safari has only weak protections, basically url-level blocking equivalent to Pihole. Last I checked ublock origin does allow blocking elements by DOM selector.

One day ads will start being plexed with content over websockets and the DOM-level protections will be all we have. Firefox is really the only alternative here.

Yup I really wish uBlock origin was available for Safari 13...

> Safari has only weak protections, basically url-level blocking equivalent to Pihole. Last I checked ublock origin does allow blocking elements by DOM selector.

No, Safari content blockers can target selectors as well.

Yup, the only problem is the limit on the number of filters, which many people think is way too small.

Oh wow, my bad.

Still, I’m not a fan—I don’t trust apple to be a good judge of behavior here.

The top ranked comment on the page is a call to switch to Firefox. Google clearly does not have a monopoly on browsers, and we should let the market decide which extensions policy is preferred.

Now, whether Google is abusing its monopoly on Search to prop up its Chrome install numbers is a different matter.

> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_web_browsers

Chrome has 2/3 of the browser market and growing. At what point does it become a monopoly? Also don't forget the vast majority of Firefox's revenue is a royalty from Google.

https://fourweekmba.com/how-does-mozilla-make-money/

It becomes a monopoly when the supply of browsers is controlled by a single entity and the entry of new market participants is prevented or highly restricted.

Having a large market share does not make you a monopoly if you do not control the supply and restrict or prevent new market participants.

Since a browser is a piece of software you can install with a couple clicks in a couple minutes, and anyone who wants to can make one, even mostly based on the same code as Chrome in fact - I fail to see how Chrome can be considered a monopoly. Even if it had 90% market share.

Chrome got where it is by computer savvy users telling everyone who would listen to just install Chrome and going to every computer they helped keep running and installing Chrome on it. The exact same thing could happen for Firefox over the next 5 years if the winds really start blowing in that direction.

> Since a browser is a piece of software you can install with a couple clicks in a couple minutes

Only on Legacy Windows. This is not so clear cut on nuWindows or even Android. Ignoring iOS for this particular discussion, that's a separate monopoly.

Why not on Android? You can just install Firefox: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=org.mozilla.fi...

On the store controlled by Firefox's main competitor for browsers.

It's a precarious situation, but so far Google hasn't asserted their power on that front.

> Ignoring iOS...

iOS is also not a monopoly. When you contort the definition of "monopoly" to mean a "non-open ecosystem" then IMO you seek to abuse the anti-trust regulations on the books to promote an open-ecosystem ideology.

iOS is a closed ecosystem in a highly competitive marketplace. Customers -- when given the choice -- have chosen to opt-in to that closed ecosystem billions of times over the last decade.

There are absolutely pros and cons to a closed ecosystem. Which is why it's so great that we have so many options for computing devices on the market occupying various spaces on that closed-open spectrum to choose from!

> iOS is a closed ecosystem in a highly competitive marketplace.

And yet, Apple's profits grow, including per-unit. Not much competition there.

Firefox compiled for iOS cannot be distributed on the store, and since there is no way to sideload apps, Apple has a literal monopoly on Browsers. Where's the choice there?

Can't Chromium be modified in order to use other extension sources?

It can be, but then you'll be left with a modified browser that has little or no users.

It depends on amount of people willing to use it. Bromite and Ungoogled-Chromium have some userbase.

What a horror show of a response! I would try in the future to avoid making projects that depend on that kind of feedback.

Limiting our creativity and avoiding to take certain routes because Google might disapprove is horrifying. Though in this case the takedown was arbitrary, there is no defense against your project being singled out.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com