I'm very surprised by the number of people in this thread who don't seem to understand that monopolies are _very_ bad for consumers.
I should ask a doctor about that, it keeps happening.
The direction of the tide has been obvious for 15-20 years and AMD fumbled it, they earned and deserve where they now sit.
If the tech was comparable maybe we could entertain the idea but Nvidia was just so absurdly ahead in tooling than AMD that the better dev team won.
For sure the better dev team won there, but on the long run, especially once CUDA becomes the only way to do "professional real world work", I'd like the hardware company to sell the hardware and the software company to sell the software, to avoid a dominant market position that hurts consumers and the industry, which is forced to pay premiums to monopolists.
I'm a bigger fan of the approach that AMD had over the years, their software frameworks are open and hardware agnostic, which resulted in improvements for everyone and not just their customers (e.g. Vulkan which came from Mantle, games with FSR or TressFX run well on all hardware, those with DLSS or Hairworks don't) and enable competition that brings prices down.
It's about protecting the customer and the market. Yes, Nvidia deserves their success - of course - but the concentration isn't good for the market. Companies exist to provide services and products to customers and should enjoy no special treatment from us, no matter how successful.
Also, any measure should be not as disruptive as to bankrupt the company or even put it in second place in the market. It's just about leveling the playing field.
That doesn't mean this makes any sense.
How are they going to separate Chrome from Chromium? If they do, what incentive does Google have to keep maintaining Chromium? Can Google make another new fork of Chromium and start yet another browser? Or are they now banned from making browsers? What company has the resources to maintain Chrome's massive codebase? What profit incentive is there in maintaining Chrome without Google's ad business? What about ChromeOS? How are they going to handle the extensions store and ecosystem? How is this going to impact web standards?
There's just a lot of significant unknowns surrounding this.
No wonder nobody can compete, loss leaders tend to kill competition as they can be maintained without direct business revenue at all.
The same issue plagues domesticated cats, they don’t need to hunt for food since they have an abundance at home so instead without risk of starvation they are free to hunt all birds in the territory for fun.
There are no browsers left except the artificial ecosystem of Safari. Firefox is not a blip on the radar.
So, everything is chrome and chrome is the web standard. Having a single private company in charge of what is and what is not web standards is a little bit scary, as, like the cat, they don’t really need to see and serve the needs of the environment. They are fed at home.
It is the only way to build a browser and push adoption.
The problem is not the lack of direct revenues. It is the lack of marketing budget and control of platforms (Chrome dominates on Android for exactly the same reason Safari does on Apple).
Firefox is a perfectly good browser, but has lost its market share because Google has huge marketing advantage.
Mozilla Corporation revenue is about half a billion, most of it coming from Google and only 2% (from what I found) going to the foundation. The foundation gets most of its money from Google as well, but separately, and the foundation's revenue is about 10% of Mozilla Corporation's. So overall over 90% of Mozilla's budget goes to software development and to cost centers that are associated to Mozilla Corporation.
Software development was 220 out of a total 425 M$ of expenses. General and administrative coming in second at 108 M$.
I don't know exactly what comparable software companies invest, but assuming that the 220 is entirely SWE salaries this seems appropriate overhead to my mind.
Edit, all of this is 2022:
https://assets.mozilla.net/annualreport/2022/mozilla-fdn-202...
With 750 employees for Mozilla Corp, that's unlikely. Even if 80% are developers that would be $350,000 salary on average.
There's lots of hidden costs, licenses, insurances, computers/servers, email hosting, document editing suites; that's before you get to the big stuff like office space and social contributions. -- then there's managers, HR etc;
Anyway, it's a reasonable rule of thumb. YMMV.
Somewhat ironically that metric is often used to cut-costs on the long term budget at an increased expense to hire tempts when a team is understaffed for whatever reason. (I’m not sure if “temp” is the correct word for when a team of nurses is staffed to only function within the law when nobody is on vacation/sick. It’s what Google translate gives me for “vikar”.)
Ding ding ding. This is a classic monopolist strategy. It poisons the market for any other potential competitors by removing all possibility of profit from the category.
It's kind of eyebrow-raising that more people in this thread don't notice this. And instead just assume of COURSE browsers can't be funded except by a monopolist using it to shore up their surveillance business.
> The same issue plagues domesticated cats, they don’t need to hunt for food since they have an abundance at home so instead without risk of starvation they are free to hunt all birds in the territory for fun.
Please could you help me understand.
- If they don't _need_ to hunt for food, the frequency of hunting birds should go down (even if they still do it for fun sometimes)
- If they don't need to take risks to get food, why would they then take those same risks now for the purpose of entertainment? (That cancels out any meaning of there no longer being any risk in killing birds, so why mention it at all?)
My understanding is that you are implying that cats not having to kill birds out of necessity leading to them now being able to do it for fun is a bad thing. Is that correct? And if so, I don't follow that logic because of my above two points.
- Instinctively, cats will hunt.
- Lack of care about food source will make cats outlast prey who have to leave safe areas to find food.
- Lack of care about food availability can (and has been proven to) cause cats to hunt more often, not less- as the "cost" of going for a hunt is basically zero; there's no consequences for failure and even success is met with satisfaction but no "cost".
Anyway,there's better info on this subject: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cat_predation_on_wildlife
The Wikipedia article was also a good read.
Is it because they would be focused on more efficient sources of food like mice instead?
Essentially, in the wild, cats would be forced to hunt based on hunger, so they'd have to pick and choose what to hunt.
Since they're never hungry, they do it based on fun, and they can "out-starve" their prey who may be hiding but have a higher need to eat and thus: leave their safety.
IME cats are hungry as soon as they have finished their food.
Safari came into the world on a similar timeline so this isn't true
I agree, this is a problem, but there should be a trivial solution: Users of the browser should pay a small amount of "money" for the product they use all day every day. This money should go into paying to maintain it.
Anything else is perpetuating the Trash Web as it's come to be.
The only reason a "web browser" is "free" (as in beer) is because Microsoft in the 90s was (belatedly) very worried about a world where Netscape held a lot of power, and realized making and giving away a slightly better browser would neutralize this upstart. Everything flowed from that one tactical decision by a couple of execs at MS.
I'd argue that a browser should be a part of the OS or be a paid product, but funding it with ad money from under the same corporate umbrella is a gross practice which promotes things like... Google nerfing adblocker plugins, and Google trying to kill cookies in favor of something only they control. (Although on that last one, by some miracle their hand was stayed and they backed down.)
Of course the DOJ can't ban the idea of a browser funded by ad money (and most are) but separating it from the other side of the business which should have zero say in how it's implemented, that's common sense to me.
There were free as in beer browsers before IE (although many were free for non-commercial use only).
Chromium is a fork (well, a fork of a fork) of a FOSS browser specifically developed to be a FOSS browser for FOSS OSes (primarily Linux).
unless you ban "Free" products, this is going to keep happening. People seems to think that just because something is "Free" it must therefore cost nothing to make. I mean, downloading Chrome takes 2 minutes max and seems trivial to me? Whats the problem?
People think Youtube should just allow them to watch videos without any ads nor paying any money. Clearly, the consumer is not rational.
I pay for all my games, all good services which ainuse. I try and donate to open source project wherever and when I can. But I couldnt care less about FAANG like companies. If they want us to be good to them, let them be good first.
Hell, its just the other day we were talking about Youtube showing ads to paying customers. I really dont care whether a company is big or small. When companies are bad, they just are. That is it. I dont lose sleep over using FreeTube for watching youtube videos for free. Paying will solve issues, yeah right!
Edit: Language
If getting people to pay for stuff they use were trivial then advertising wouldn't be as big as it is.
We also don't pay for open TV which is ad supported.
This isn't a single decision that someone madennn it's actually very natural.
We don't pay for most of the web, not only browsers. Indirect monetization is great because making a consumer open his/her wallet takes a lot, no matter the price.
Not knowing anyone who admits to having done something, doesn't mean that thing never happens.
It's easy to just say "well, a company should charge money for a browser", but a company is free to write their own browser and charge for it right now. Chromium though, is bound by its open-source license and its copyright is owned by thousands of different contributors.
Sure, it's BSD licensed, all future development could be done closed-source. Note that the name "Chromium" would need to stay with the open source side of the project, so it would be more like a closed fork than a re-licencing.
99% sure you could just keep using the name "Chrome", though, and stop releasing code into chromium instead.
(I'm, of course, speaking in the context of xp84's suggestion that the browser should cost money. It's a fine idea, but I don't see how it applies here.)
If you want your project to remain the currently dominant web browser, you better keep developing APIs people love, you better keep doing it faster than your competition can keep up with implementing them, and you better keep dominating the web standards committees.
Doing this from a position of a Chromium fork is orders of magnitude more difficult than just buying Chrome (and then keeping up pumping money into it at the rate Google has been doing).
Hey look, an incidental collision with my point!
I'd argue that Google specifically doesn't have nearly the obligation to keep doing these things as long as they are the ones who own Chrome, due to how many other things they can do to put their finger on the scales.
For instance, they could do things like:
- Show overwhelming amounts of ads in everyone's Gmail and say "Switch to Chrome for an ad-light experience."
- Or limit YouTube to 360p in non-Chrome browsers.
- Or only show the sponsored Google Search results (no organic) to non-Chrome browsers (let's be honest though, most non-nerds never click non-sponsored results anyway, and could scarcely find them even in the current Search UI).
- Or limit any new features on Google Workspace to Chrome browsers.
Google can maintain the Chrome near-monopoly using leverage from their other monopolies and near-monopolies. And they can use the Chrome near-monopoly to preserve and expand their marketshare of those other products. A very neat virtuous cycle (for Google). I don't think it promotes the health of free markets or consumer choice.
How do you do this for something that's a basic necessity at this point? There must be a free browser because so many services depend on their user having access to them through one, and browsers aren't in the category of product where you can provide users a basic browser without features and then selling them a better version. If it's not Chrome that's free, any other free issue would inevitably run into the same issue. If not bankrolled by a company, browsers would need to be government funded
You mean like government funded food, housing, health care and other basic necessities?
Making browsers paid would create all sorts of problems for people with lower incomes if not properly considered. Note the last part of the sentence, thank you.
The argument that browsers somehow "need" to be free because they are a necessity makes little sense. Compare that phone or laptop the browser is running on is not provided free of charge either. A working automobile is arguably a necessity in large parts of the US and I don't see anyone handing out cars.
Of course this could also be done for browser but still would leave people vulnerable.
To get back to the US. So you think it is a good idea to add yet another expense to vulnerable incomes in a country where there is much less of a safety net?
Of course you can define "subsidies of some degree" to prove your point, but that doesn't change the fact that most people in the world generally have to pay for things, even necessities. The major exception being basic education which seems to be universally provided for free.
I have no idea what sort of a burden paying $5 for browser software would place on poor people, but I am sure that society would find a way, much like it does with other necessities. I also disagree that a browser financed by advertising is less of a burden to the vulnerable. The advertising revenue comes from the products they purchase.
- Various benefits and subsidies for various necessities like rental support, support for child care, etc.
And to make it extra clear, a lot of these need to be requested through digital portals these days as well.
$5 might not seem that much to you (I am assuming you are talking about a monthly subscription here), but I assure you it is a lot if you have to reconsider every single purchase to make sure you will make ends meet.
And I am fully aware that there are workable solutions to make it less impactful. I do however disagree with the simple sentiment of "just make browsers paid software and be done with it" without those considerations.
The response is further in OP’s comment:
> I'd argue that a browser should be a part of the OS or be a paid product
I am getting Microsoft flashbacks now. There is no way that bundling browsers with OSes and making all the others paid will have negative side effects! Oh wait... The 90s just called, it is Netscape and they would like to have a stern word.
What a brain-dead idea. Having to pay for something does not affect the openness of a platform. You just create a de-facto tax that benefits no one at all.
I think it cannot get much worse than it currently is, with one company dictating the web's future and raking in the money from that. So while there are significant unknowns, probably the result will be something at least a little bit better. I am a little worried about Chrome being only fake sold, to some company that is indirectly controlled by Google again.
As an aside, maybe this is part of the issue. We have been privileged to enjoy some of the most advanced and complex software created for free since basically their inception. Nobody every paid for a web browser.
But then look around the software industry and every software of even remotely similar complexity need to be paid for, or are a kept free due to a convergence of interest of people who can make money out of it (most notably: Linux).
Now, a web browser could be seen exactly the same way Linux is: Many, many, (many!) company makes ton of profit from people have access to a web browser, therefor, they should be fine with paying people to develop it. And in some way, considering that chromium and firefox are open-source, this is what could happen. But it does not really happen. Google is bankrolling both FF and Chromium, and they have basically total control over Chromium development. Who else is even giving remotely even money for 1 FTE for FF or Chromium ? Thing is, no company would do it for Chromium because it is seen as a Google product, so why pay them for something they will do in any case. Company could have financed Firefox, but now that it is the underdog (and that the Mozilla Foundation makes questionable decision), it doesn't seem like a very good investment.
This is in many way crazy to me that almost every tech company heavily really on people having free access to a web browser, yet nobody is really trying to finance one. But I do think it is a political issue, and that, maybe just maybe, separating Chromium from Google would actually give incentive to the rest of the industry to finance the development of a browser that is not directly own by neither of them. Again, some what just like Linux.
> Nobody every paid for a web browser.
Sure we did! Back in the day when the choices were Internet Explorer, Netscape Navigator, and Opera, many people -- me included -- paid for Opera. I continued to do so up to version 5 in 2004 or 2006, can't remember, when I noticed that Phoenix aka. Firebird aka. Firefox were good enough for me. Have been a Firefox (and derivatives) user ever since.
Anyone who follows standards discourse would probably appreciate the prospect of this open source codebase having independent stewards much more than any fears over maintenance resources.
The web existed before Chrome, and will continue to exist afterward.
(The browser is different in that it doesn't need a separate download to acquire the code and makes partial code downloads easy. And from search to opening an app is a single click and very quick.)
Web - available in 1993, content authoring/hosting become available through blogger, wordpress, etc, in about 7-10 years. Authoring tools Frontpage and ColdFusion were available in 1995, Netscape Composer in 1997. In other words, one could build a basic website with a bare minimum of technical knowledge with the help of widely available tools within 5 years of the web becoming available (it would take many more years for the web to become pervasive).
Mobile - It has been 17 years since the iphone was launched, 19 years since Google acquired Android. To my knowledge, there are no easy ways for a non-technical person to author a basic app, let alone one that runs on both platforms.
That's what happen when you let anomalies like this become the norm. Antitrust actions should have been taken against Google 15 years ago, and at that point it wouldn't have undermined the whole web because back then didn't yet control the entire web (but the trend was clear and that's why action should have been taken).
---
[1] https://assets.mozilla.net/annualreport/2022/mozilla-fdn-202...
Long road towards independence, but moving in the right direction at least.
And the default spot in the search bar is valuable to people outside of Google. Even if we assume that Google is overpaying, Mozilla could keep operating as is with another entity paying significantly less...
https://fortune.com/2024/08/05/mozilla-firefox-biggest-poten...
Whatever decrease we see to our browsing experience will be worth the gains I expect to see from dealing a blow to a monopoly like Google.
keeping chrome alive isn't the goal, keeping the web not being at whims of a single company is.
Bad for consumers, how? Financially? How does that translate to the current situation? The average "consumer" here is paying $0.00 for Google, Chrome, Gmail, Maps, Flights, Docs, Sheets, Chat, Meet, Books, Scholar, Shopping, YouTube, News, Groups, Voice... how are you going to argue that this "monopoly" (?) is bad for consumers? Do you imagine Microsoft or Apple would've created better search, email, news, etc., or that the mom & pop shop down the store would've done that?
I can think of so many other arguments you could use to suggest the current situation is bad, but monopolies are bad for consumers seems like a really tough argument to apply here.
Edit: You need to argue more than "the current situation is bad". Because that in itself does not imply "removing the 'monopoly' would necessarily lead to the better outcome in my imagination." Exhibit A is all the behemoths trying to compete against Google and still offering objectively worse products.
I could see a similar argument being made by plantation owners in the past "we are lodging these guests from africa for FREE", they don't even have to PAY to live in the houses we offer them! There is only the small detail of the activities they will have to do in OUR fields, which will kill them off in 10-15 years, but that is another matter which should not be confused".
"Deals" of the kind google and facebook offer are not to the consumer's advantage. Insisting on not having a facebook account is akin to choosing not to use the paved asphalt roads the society makes available to you. I could "choose" not to have a facebook account, but it would lock me out of effectively both my friends group and my family's daily communication.
That is, in fact, what it means. "Free" (in the transaction sense) means you didn't pay money for it. Just because Krispy Kreme hopes you buy some donuts while you're in the store doesn't make the loss leader donut not free. Just because Google gets something other than money from the deal doesn't mean that the product isn't free.
I know you specified in the transaction sense but it's almost never a one-off interaction. The ecosystem and repeated interactions shape things.
Seriously?
> "Deals" of the kind google and facebook offer are not to the consumer's advantage.
Again -- explain how "splitting up" the "monopoly" would realistically get you out of this situation? Pointing to something and saying it's bad doesn't imply your solution would solve the problem.
All products which lose money and are propped up by money firehoses from other parts of their dominant owners, are products that enjoy an unfair advantage in the market leaving less marketshare (often strikingly less) for anyone who might be better.
Is it your opinion that every product is monetizable, and should be if that would make it self-sufficient? Do you not feel some would just get killed entirely if they couldn't be subsidized through other products?
I feel that when a company is in a super dominant, dare I say monopoly position (Google Search is the most obvious example) with one of its product lines, it usually is destructive to free markets when they aim the money firehose at another, money-losing product. It does this by driving out competition against that second product, which results in less choice for consumers.
I don't think it's necessarily a problem when a company that isn't a monopoly subsidizes another product. I agree that's pretty normal.
> It does this by driving out competition against that second product
Again, we come back to my question: what about when that product would not make money on its own?
Google has been the one pushing for getting rid of the v2 manifest for browsers extensions, which just so happens to seriously nerf ad blockers. Because so many browsers are forks of Chromium v2 will disappear from a majority of browsers. Meanwhile if you try to use a non-Chrome browser like Firefox a lot of websites are buggy and outright don't work. Opening images in issues broke in GitHub for firefox a year ago and they still haven't fixed it.
You are being *very* naive if you think that Google having this sort of monopolistic power over the web does not hurt consumers.
> You are being very naive if you think that Google having this sort of monopolistic power over the web does not hurt consumers.
No, I think you're being incredibly naive if you think the outcome you imagine would necessarily come to fruition without Google being a "monopoly" (however you define it). It didn't happen for Microsoft (Chrome is an angel compared to Edge), and nobody has managed to create comparable solutions for so many other products Google offers that have nothing to do with the browser or search.
Google was also caught giving special treatment to google-related domains in chrome, and had to revert the advantages around cookies that they gave to themselves.
It rather sounds like a great marketing opportunity for anyone trying to compete with Chrome, whether they keep the v2 or just implement ad-blocking themselves.
But in reality it just doesn't work out that way, the negatives from abusing their monopoly can be overshadowed by the power of the monopoly itself, for example Google promoting Chrome every time you you gmail, google search, or youtube. Or making their services not work well in non-Chrome browsers.
Or in the case of microsoft, their monopolistic behavior is overshadowed by the fact that too much important software only works on Windows. It's a tale as old as tech.
It was bad because it effectively ended innovation in the browser space for decades by pushing Netscape out of business (and discouraging others from entering that space).
Similarly, many consumers are unaware of alternative search engines, if Chrome pushes Google as the default. This kills innovation and puts more power in Google's hands as to what parts of the web get promoted.
Many a business owner can tell you that when Google changes their search ranking it can have an effect on the bottom line. This is also bad for consumers, as only bigger businesses which have the dough to pay for many Google ads get returned in a search.
Yes, enthusiastically yes. With the exception of maybe search, products like gmail, docs, and sheets are basic projects tossed out into the ecosystem for free to suck up all the oxygen for minimal dev cost. How is an upstart supposed to compete with a better mail/doc/spreadsheet app if the basic use case is covered for free by some loss leader funded from a different vertical?
Most of these classes of apps have been stagnant for decades.
Chrome is pushing ManifestV3 with extreme prejudice and Youtube pushes ever more malvertising by the day. Why can Google do this?
Because there is no competition.
Malvertising? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malvertising
Also, have you missed how terrible e.g. Edge is for user privacy? It's trying hard as heck to compete, and even playing dirty to get there. What happened to competition making things better?
There are so many things I could say in response to this, and at the risk of getting off topic: is it your belief that if you put the average user (not you, but the average user) in front of a default install of all the major browsers and had them use the browsers for a while on completely unaffiliated websites, they would find Firefox better than the others based on its merits?
Even as a privacy-conscious techie (and former Firefox user) who has repeatedly tried to switch back, I've found Firefox to be objectively worse in general, regardless of the website.
Yes, malvertising. There is no such thing as non-malicious advertising in this day and age.
>Also, have you missed how terrible e.g. Edge is for user privacy?
I mean, Edge is Chrome.
The only saving grace is that it all goes to Microsoft instead of Google, which probably isn't as damaging because if you're using Edge you're probably using Windows already anyway.
On other hand splitting "free" product is somewhat questionable. When the competitor don't have exactly viable business model. Pushing for something that will clearly in not too distant future kill the split product is not helpful.
You never get to compare the products that never got to exist.
related, I think google supported firefox to have a "viable" competitor to chrome and prevent monopoly scrutiny.
At first it was a free market success story, now it’s not
Antichrist seems like a typo here. Perhaps you meant antitrust?
We all like to have a high minded ideal of some kind of wonderful fully independent for-the-good-of-society entity stewarding Chrome, but history has shown us that’s not what will happen.
The new Chrome company could stop contributing back to Chromium if they wanted, but it would mean they'd diverge from the other browsers backed by the OSS project which is one of their big advantages.
I'm not saying they wouldn't do that or it wouldn't work out, but it's not an obvious win.
[edit] the same way zero rating certain data traffic is still a net neutrality violation.
Look at the new entrant browsers out there: all of them are based on Chromium. The existence of Chrome as an OSS project enabled competition in practice - the cost of entry is orders of magnitude lower when you have a mature browser engine at your disposal.
They’re not considering this because of Chrome’s market share, but because of Google’s power in the search engine market. Indirectly killing Chrome may be acceptable if it makes the market for search engines more competitive.
Having said that, I don’t think it will matter much as long as Apple and, in particular (because they also have a search engine) Microsoft can ship browsers with preconfigured search engines with their OSes, but we will see.
Google could do this if they wanted very very easily but they wouldn’t make any money because as you know they sell advertising, for things they don’t provide.
The problem isn't the Browser it is the other services it has that makes it a monopoly.
Don't let, "Oh we sell off our loss leader so we are not a monopoly." fool you. It has YouTube, office solutions and even every other software under the sun.
Without Chrome being managed or maintain it becomes vulnerable exposing customers to viruses or attacks. It is a service because it stores passwords and manages bookmarks in a secure location for Google products. It is ingrained.
To me this sound like Edge wants to be king, but oh wait Edge is also part of a monopoly. So should not Microsoft experience this too?
Monopolistic practices are not necessarily monopolies, but rather require regulation to encourage fairness.
But to come back to the original point I was making, is that it’s really not akin to a bakery window. If I wanted to allow the metaphor to be further tortured I’d allow “Sears” or something.
But it’s more than that, as Google’s business model is largely parasitic to what users would be doing anyway.
We are talking about the most advertised, most installed most used program. Asking users to pay will do more good than harm
Seems like a good reason for a product to die.
Why? "Big companies bad" are one of those fundamental truthiness we are all supposed to believe for some reason but as a European I wish we had more US/Chinese-style megacorps who have dominant positions in some fields that allows them to innovate or provide free/cost-cutting products in other niches.
Maybe we should reconsider what we consider monopolies in the 21st century. I'm already using ChatGPT and Perplexity more than Google.
Capitalism without regulation can’t reach a stable equilibrium.
What the DoJ should be pursuing is having Google divest YouTube. Now we're talking real change.
Splitting Google, Microsoft, Apple, Amazon, etc up all at once and into multiple separate pieces each would be great for consumers. But that's a huge undertaking, and the bigger the changes required, the less likely they are to happen. Taking it one step at a time, with the first step being Chrome and Google search (two products that strongly push users of one to use the other) being split up, is better than no progress at all.
At the very least, the biggest force in killing adblockers (Google gradually gutting them in Chrome) will have fewer means to kill them in browsers. That's a win for consumers.
We (public) don't know that. Google never splits YouTube's costs out, only revenue, and the only reason I can think of is that it's losing money. IMO it's highly likely that YouTube costs a lot to run (just imagine the costs of storing zettabytes of videos, 99.9% of which will get watched less than 10 times ever, in 4K, and be ready to quickly stream them anywhere in the world) and Google lose money on it, but compensate with user data they use for their wider ad business. People complain about YouTube ads today, and how expensive Premium is; maybe a future independent YouTube can cut costs, shed some old/unwatched content, and become profitable.
Goggle would compete with other search engines for being the default search. So this would have knock on effects on search as well.
So I don't see how an independent Chrome would be much different.
Meta & TikTok decidedly don't have monopolies, yet still come under fierce scrutiny for their pervasive handling of consumer behaviour & data. What seems to be less evident to people is that Google's monopolies give them far greater reach in these areas than either of the other two. The majority of that reach is entirely invisible to most: I think if this negative impact was more visible it might drive home the downside of these particular monopolies.
They're not, technically. They're hegemons, which doesn't make them much better. In fact, I'd argue the situation is worse.
Chrome predominantly owns the web at this point. There are few contenders, and making a new browser is a lot of work (see the Verso browser). Google has the arguably unearned luxury of dictating what APIs and protocols the nebulous "web" should use, can throw a bunch of money at adding them quickly, and leave competitors struggling to keep up, effectively buying chrome's guaranteed superiority.
"But there are standards committees!" Yes, but it really doesn't matter when Chrome either uses its own APIs privately on its sites[0] or just adds new APIs without any committee consideration for people to use and fall in love with and demand that other vendors add them (or something similar, such as proposing a great idea at the committee, it's accepted, and the other vendors lagging for months or even years - see WebGPU as an example).
One might think "it's just a browser". Yes, but browsers are -for better or for worse - the global defacto for sending and receiving almost all of our sensitive data. Even "desktop apps" like Whatsapp, Signal, and Bitwarden all either use or have used Chromium to display their contents (via Electron).
Much of the community has asserted Google owns the web at this point, and I tend to agree. It's very, very hard for smaller vendors to have much of a day these days without Google getting theirs, too.
As an example: Microsoft is building Edge on open source Chromium. Are you sure Microsoft is the little guy that needs protection? I'm fairly sure they have enough heft that they can fork Chromium and do their own thing, if Google does anything sinister.
But in any case, there's still Safari with a substantial market share, too.
> "But there are standards committees!" [...]
I agree with you here: commercial standards are more important than whatever a standards committee says.
I agree that Google has a large share in many markets. I just don't see the monopoly.
They were already doing their own thing and they couldn't keep up with Google. Although, starting from a Chromium fork, it could take longer for the code to diverge.
Google can use their web dominance to push another service of their, or cripple a competitor's in a completely different domain.
Google (the search engine) has a market share of over 85% worldwide. [0]
Google therefore controls what can be found on the Internet for 85% of search engine users. Recent updates, or Core Updates, have demonstrated how easy it is for Google to put businesses out of business by removing their visibility. [1]
It seems to me that this is a problem.
Ditto for Chrome, which has +60% market share [2]. A failed or deliberate update could make a website inaccessible to 60% of the population.
[0] https://gs.statcounter.com/search-engine-market-share [1] https://retrododo.com/google-is-killing-retro-dodo/ [2] https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share
There are billions of Web browser users and, from a fast Google search, 1.1 billion Web sites, still a large number if count only the ones that still have traffic.
So, billions of listeners and many millions of talkers. Without good, stable, universal standards, we'd have the biggest "Tower of Babel" problem in history.
Hypothetical examples:
(1) Maybe Company A wants to change the standards so that Web sites will have to revise their code. Hmm!!! Many millions of Web site owners will say "no way". Company A just left the party.
(2) Web site B wants to change their Web site so that only certain Web browsers will be able to use that site. Hmm!!! Site B won't get much traffic. Even if that site is Google -- people will use Bing, etc.
(3) Maybe Google announces that as of July 1, 2025 the Google search engine Web site will work only with Google's latest Chrome Web browser. Hmm .... There are billions of people who will want a search engine that works with the old, standard Web browser they already have -- "billions of people"!! Sounds like, with Bing, Microsoft's stock just doubled! And July Google's searches per day fell by 50+%.
E.g., I still like Windows 7 Professional. Occasionally I run Microsoft's Web browser Edge, and when I do there is a message that Windows 7 won't get updates for Edge and I should convert to Windows 10/11. I don't really want an update to Edge -- what I have does work; I don't like it; occasionally I use it to check some issues. Hmm!!!!
Microsoft, one of your most important business assets is that old applications will still run on the latest versions of Windows. So, I run Kedit, Object Rexx, Firefox, VLC media player, PhotoDraw, Media Player, PhotoViewer, Sketchup, Office 20??, IBM's OSL (Optimization Subroutine Library and a certain Watcom Fortran compiler), LINPACK, etc., .NET 3??, and I do not want to lose use of any of those old programs.
(4) Some company tries to have all the Internet ads flowing through their software, servers, etc. Hmm!! Sites have a file ads.txt that usually shows one heck of a long list of Internet ad brokers. Not easy for one company to dominate the ad market or even just the Web site ad market.
Quote: The Supreme Court has defined (...) monopoly power as "the power to control prices or exclude competition".
[https://www.justice.gov/archives/atr/competition-and-monopol...]
The problem is these sprawling companies who make so many interrelated services and can suppress competition in one area (browsers, e-mail, video-over-the-internet) due to extreme profits in another area (ads).
* Google effectively holds a monopoly of the browser market (Chrome). Apple (Safari) only exists because of vendor lock-in, and Mozilla (Firefox) is a vassal state; all "other" browsers are Chrome.
* Google shares a duopoly of the mobile OS market with Apple (Android vs. iOS).
* Google holds a monopoly of the video streaming market (Youtube).
* Google holds a monopoly of the malvertising market (Adsense, Doubleclick, et al.).
* Google effectively holds a monopoly of the web search market (Google Search).
* Google holds the vast majority of the email market (Gmail).
* Google is the absolutely dominant player in the consumer cloud market (Google Drive).
* Google shares a duopoly with Apple in the cloud photo market (Google Photos vs. iCloud Photos).
* Google shares a duopoly with Microsoft in the consumer office software market (Google Docs vs. Office 365).
* Google shares a duopoly with Apple in the digital wallet market (Google Pay/Wallet vs. Apple Pay).
I can go on, but with this being said let me ask you: Why the hell should Google not be split and cut apart nine ways to Sunday?
You mentioned some as 'monopolies'. Let's go through them:
Browsers: as far as I can tell, the other browsers that 'are Chrome' are Chromium at most. Eg Microsoft is surely capable of forking Chromium, if Google does anything untoward.
Video streaming: I hear TikTok and Instagram and Netflix etc are popular for streaming videos, too? People also seem to be getting a lot of videos via telegram channels? (I don't know the exact numbers here. So I can't say anything definite.)
Web search: Google used to be really dominant, but they are arguably on a downward trend without any government interference: more and more people are using the likes of ChatGPT to fill the same niche in their lives.
> Why the hell should Google not be split and cut apart nine ways to Sunday?
Presumably because there's a presumption of non-interference in the markets? The same reason the government doesn't just lock you and me up for no good reason, or confiscates our property.
Yes. The EU "dominant position" terminology is better because otherwise someone will do an "well achscually" about it being a 90% market position or whatever. In practical terms, you can assume "monopoly" is used as "too big" or "too dominant" not, "sole player". It's best to just accept it.
And the combination thereof is an unholy abomination.
Namely the unholy trinity of Browser + Malvertising + Search. Nothing can compete against Google so long as that trinity stands, and it protects all the other mono/duopolies from incursions with impunity.
In any case, it's easy to switch to an alternative search engine. Users seems to like Google Search enough to stick with it.
A bit unrelated but News Corp and Random House should also end up on the chopping block.
Indeed, why not?
In any case, it's really easy to use alternative search engines, if you don't like what Google offers. They are dominant, because people are happy enough with what they are getting.
You have to have a much deeper understanding of tech to understand why they're bad, yet the examples of why they're good are obvious when a consumer stays within one ecosystem.
There are a lot of other browsers.
A lot of people use them.
Most people use one of them.
They chose to do it. If you ask them, they think it's good.
But no.
There is a monopoly.
It is bad for you.
Only we the State can save you from it.
A lie repeated a thousand times becomes truth.
Would it make users smarter about their choice ? Probably not. But at least, they could smell there is an actual choice.
Monopolies tends to maintain users in ignorance. This way, although they can look elsewhere, they won't feel the urge to do so.
Users must be helped to make their own choice, not guided to make the monopoly's choice. And that must be done before the choice is made.
As long as there will be monoplies, this tension will exist and people like me will continue to explain that the State is the best way to push the balance in favor of those who don't get the importance of the choice.
The problem is not that there is a dominant player. The problem is the dominant player uses ignorance and subtle strategies to make sure users saty with it.
There is market dominance: Chrome has 65%, Safari has 18% but that’s because of iOS, and the few others have the rest. It’s false to say there are "a lot" of other browsers when nobody can enter the space anymore.
> They chose to do it. If you ask them, they think it's good.
Most people don’t choose their browser, they just take whatever comes preinstalled. Even then, Google pushes you to use their browser every time you use their services: I know a lot of non-tech people who use Chrome on iOS not because they chose to, but because they got a pop-in on Google that told them to do so.
> It is bad for you.
The current situation is indeed bad for the consumer, even if it’s not a monopoly per se.
In fact, windows keeps on making it the default for many file extensions and still no one uses it
In UK you have to subscribe to so many channels just to watch football. Because apparently this would stop monopolies.
The very same users believe that such companies aren't "bad" yet, but in some kind of intermediate stage between successful startup and evil MEGAcorp.
I don't know. I think it's the mix of nostalgia, and being too invested in their ecosystem/products. Fanboying, basically.
When Microsoft did it 25 years ago, it was bad. When Google does it now, it's not bad.