Hacker News Reader

Comment by batiudrami | Hacker News Reader

The only place I see Chrome is the objectively better product is when using google services, so your monopoly argument somewhat falls apart.

View on HN

So why doesn't the government get in and break apart that monopoly that is Chrome, today?

Chrome has the highest market share of internet browsers ~this side of the great firewall~ worldwide (just checked, still is the case in China today, assumed it changed)! Far worse has been done to companies with less control over their respective markets.

I am being a bit facetious when it comes to features though, fully admit, FF is better in getting a few of those, and don't deny history especially with Firebug.

> So why doesn't the government get in and break apart that monopoly that is Chrome, today?

Wake me up when the government finds the gumption to break up any of the monopolies that are begging for it. Google is but one of dozens that should have been broken up before now.

Two words: regulatory capture.

Regulators are usually underpowered, overworked and short of funds. Any attempt to regulate the likes of Google effectively would be faced with such opposition that it would swamp the officials. Check out what happened when DOJ had an ironclad anti-trust case against Microsoft and how it all ended up in the longer term.

For the same reason the government hasn't broken up anything since Bell System in 1983: those 500 million that Google pays Mozilla is higher than FTC's entire yearly budget (430 million in 2023). It takes years to build a strong case, and companies can easily throw more resources at a problem than that. Monopolies don't even need to win the case, just drag the whole process on until the next election cycle, when all of a sudden the next administration is far less interested in following through. Rinse and repeat indefinitely.

Technically even Bell didn't lose a case, it broke up "voluntarily" before that happened.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com