Hacker News Reader

Comment by vel0city | Hacker News Reader

It cracks me up when people say Chrome is a monopoly, because a massive amount of computing devices do not even ship with Chrome. Windows computers, Macbooks, and iPhones require users go search out and install Chrome on their own out of their own volition, shipping with entirely functional and decent browsers out of the box that they have lots of patterns to push. Even many Android phones ship with browsers other than Chrome as a default still from what I understand.

How is Chrome, of all things, a monopoly? Have words just entirely lost all meaning and now monopoly just means "things which are popular that I dislike"?

View on HN

Chrome is a monopoly by extending the internet in ways that force users into chrome. Due to market share and Google's prevalence, they have the sway to introduce things that cannot meaningfully be avoided without extreme siloing.

Outside of WebUSB I personally haven't meaningfully been impacted in any ways. Can you share which ways this is?

Note, this is separate from a "so many things are just Chromium", which I agree is an issue, but isn't the same as a "Google Chrome is a monopoly". Because in the end there are still many non-Chrome browsers which support WebUSB which do not end up with a lot of the downsides of Chrome specifically about Google harvesting your data and what not.

Ah, the "this doesn't fit my very specific technicality argument"

You know full well what people mean when they say "Chrome"

> You know full well what people mean when they say "Chrome"

Yeah, Chrome, the web browser made by Google that bugs you to sign in with your Google Account. Most people don't mean Microsoft Edge when you say "Chrome". Do you call Microsoft Edge "Chrome"?

Chrome is a product made by Google that is a web browser. If the argument is Chromium is too interwoven, that's a separate argument.

But even then, what does it mean that "Chromium is a monopoly"? Is Linux a monopoly as well? Why or why not?

Note you haven't actually given me any other ways one would be impacted like I asked. What are the other majorly missing features Chrome pushes that other browsers don't have that most sites require? What else am I missing by not using a non-Chromium-based browser?

> what does it mean that "Chromium is a monopoly"

As someone else said earlier, it is a monopoly by extending the internet in ways that force users into using their browser engine. Due to market share and Google's prevalence, they have the sway to introduce things that cannot meaningfully be avoided without extreme siloing.

> What are the other majorly missing features Chrome pushes that other browsers don't have that most sites require?

This is a different question, please don't move the goalposts.

> by extending the internet in ways that force users into using their browser engine

And yet after multiple times of me asking you've yet to give me a single real feature lost.

> This is a different question

Its literally the thing we're saying is the problem, how is it a different question entirely?!

You're saying the problem is they're adding features that force Chromium, but asking about which features you're talking about is just bringing up unrelated and different questions.

It's not so much forcing people to Chrome/chromium for specific features, but trying to increase market share through more subtle means, like paying to have their search engine featured, advertising their products everywhere possible (including inside other people's apps), slowing down their sites (like youtube) on other browsers, or tying in other services (along with way too much personal info) to try to keep people within their sphere of influence.

Is Linux also a monopoly? In a way sure, but I think a big difference is they're not "doing evil" as people claim Google is, and all the development/decisions are still made out in the open in a democratic way.

Former Google execs have even compared their setup to "running the New York Stock Exchange while trading on it."

At least Linux isn't trying to tell people what to do with their software.

> it is a monopoly by extending the internet in ways that force users into using their browser engine

2 messages later that seems to be contradicted?

> It's not so much forcing people to Chrome/chromium for specific features

I might've misread.

> but trying to increase market share through more subtle means, like paying to have their search engine featured

This isn't Chromium, the open source basis of many web browsers. Now you're talking about Google the company.

> Is Linux also a monopoly?

Monopolies in the sense worth discussing are highly popular things that are held in place by things other than competition. If anything, Google props up Chrome's competitors to reduce this.

So now Chrome is a "monopoly" because they're "advertising their products everywhere possible". I guess I can only ever drink Redbull, they're a monopoly, because they're advertising their products everywhere.

Seriously? That's our standard of what is a "monpoply"?

Words have no meaning anymore.

You can choose to use something different. The device you bought probably came with an alternative! Otherwise, the device next to it on the shelf on the store where you bought it likely would have had an alternative browser, because most devices on the store shelves outside of some hypothetical physical Google store don't come with Chrome.

> Seriously? That's our standard of what is a "monpoply"?

No. That part of the post was answering your question about how it impacts people. Not what makes it a monopoly.

I'm asking what features force me to use Chrome instead of Firefox or Edge or Safari. I've yet to hear an answer other than it's advertised heavily and that it's popular.

There's nothing forcing you to use Chrome instead of Edge, but some websites don't work with Safari or Firefox because Google has pushed nonstandard stuff. And it's weirdly not only advanced WebWhatever stuff, but also some things that affects basic features like forms. Though sometimes they have a separate mobile site that was tested in iPhone Safari.

I find the discrepancy kinda minor though. It's enough that I have Chrome installed alongside Firefox and Safari, but not enough that I use it often. It used to be worse.

> There's nothing forcing you to use Chrome instead of Edge

This is what I mean. How is it a "monopoly" when one can easily just use something else?

The only thing people are saying its "its a monopoly because it has high market share". But a high market share does not a monopoly make, there's more to it than just purely market share. A monopoly requries outsized market power, something that to me at least it doesn't seem like Chrome, the web browser has.

People being able to switch relatively easily means that they're a lot more likely to lose their market power in five years. It doesn't do much to diminish their current market power, which is enormous.

High market share almost always means high market power. That's why people focus on market share since it's easy to cite.

> they're a lot more likely to lose their market power in five years

It doesn't take users five years to install a different browser. It takes maybe two to five minutes. If they really do things to piss off their users they'll be gone far faster than that.

What kind of lock-in does a browser even really have? Its not like some kind of social network or financial setup or anything like that. The browser itself doesn't have the content. Its run an installer, have it import bookmarks and extensions, and you're using a different browser. Its not like we're back in the days of ActiveX where there were entirely proprietary extensions to the web that only Microsoft blessed browsers could run that only ran on certain OSes.

> almost always means high market power.

It doesn't when the competition is so readily available, practically interchangeable, and also zero cost.

The argument others are making is that Google has a monopoly on browser engines, or that it's becoming that way. IE switched to Chromium partially to resolve compatibility issues. I don't have a strong opinion on this though.

Do you actually think the majority of everyone else is being just as pedantic (or cares) about Google Chrome vs chromium-based?

For most, for the purposes of market share (the type of "monopoly" I believe they are referring to), I think they count it as one and the same.

Do most people call Microsoft Edge or Safari "Chrome"?

Are the security and privacy implications the same for Edge, Safari, and Chrome?

Seems to me like they're still quite different products despite having some similar codebases!

Safari isn't based on Chromium.

Ah, you're right, still WebKit based.

Why do you keep talking about who installs the app? That has nothing to do with whether something is a monopoly, which is primarily about market share.

If a user is openly going out of their way to go and install a competitor's product despite a perfectly serviceable version coming by default, how can the the one being sought out be seen as a monopoly? The competition came pre-installed!

How did the user manage to install Chrome on Windows if Chrome is a monopoly, the only serviceable browser around? They copy the source code from a magazine or something? Get a floppy disk in the mail?

Whatever your definition of monopoly is, it's wrong. The threshold is not 100% market share. If that was the threshold no monopoly has ever existed.

> Whatever your definition of monopoly is, it's wrong

Ok, so enlighten me which standard of monopoly they're so obviously breaking?

> The threshold is not 100% market share.

I never once said so

I'm not arguing it requires 100% marketshare. I'm just pointing out there are tons of workable competitors out there, in fact one has to use a functional and fully featured competitors product to go and install Chrome on most platforms out there.

How can one claim Chrome is a monoply when there are tons of competitors out there which work just fine, and for most users their computers came with the competitors products?

Please, do enlighten me, how is Chrome a monopoly?

> Ok, so enlighten me which standard of monopoly they're so obviously breaking?

Breaking?

They're being a monopoly by having a huge market share. A majority of browers are directly branded chrome, and the chrome team has strong codebase control over most of the alternatives too. Especially on desktop. It's that simple.

> I'm not arguing it requires 100% marketshare. I'm just pointing out there are tons of workable competitors out there, in fact one has to use a functional and fully featured competitors product to go and install Chrome on most platforms out there.

> How can one claim Chrome is a monoply when there are tons of competitors out there which work just fine, and for most users their computers came with the competitors products?

The existence of competition doesn't change whether something is a monopoly. It only disproves 100%, which is why I mentioned 100%.

The choices of users don't change whether something is a monopoly.

> having a huge market share.

Marketshare alone isn't a defining part of if a product is a monopoly.

> majority of browers are directly branded chrome

They're not Chrome, in many extremely important aspects.

> The choices of users don't change whether something is a monopoly

The fact users can make a choice is a huge part of the argument that Chrome isn't a monopoly. There are lots of competitors out there that can be freely chosen. So much so people have to go out of their way to install Chrome.

When AT&T was ruled a monopoly it was practically the only choice in many markets. When Standard Oil was ruled a monopoly it was practically the only choice in many markets. People can choose Edge. People can choose Safari. People can choose Firefox. All of these browsers work fine (I've yet to be told a single other major feature they're missing despite asking many times), and are not Chrome.

Lay's sells like 60% or so of the chips sold in the US. Are they a monopoly? Are you practically unable to buy any other chips at the store outside of Lays products? I guess it's not really just marketshare that makes the difference! So just pointing at them and saying they're a monopoly because they have a large marketshare is meaningless.

> Marketshare alone isn't a defining part of if a product is a monopoly.

Yes it is. You're thinking of something else.

> The fact users can make a choice is a huge part of the argument that Chrome isn't a monopoly.

That argument is wrong.

It's size and market power. If users could change but don't, the monopoly company still has huge power.

> Lay's sells like 60% or so of the chips sold in the US. Are they a monopoly?

They're at least close, yeah.

> It's size and market power

Finally one states something other than its a monopoly because it has market share or because its advertised heavily. Its a monopoly because it allegedly has market power. But does it, really?

> If users could change but don't, the monopoly company still has huge power.

Is it that it has power or just that its currently popular?

I once again ask, what features actually force me to use Chrome over the other products on the market? If there are none, how does it actually have "market power"? What truly makes me use Chrome over the others? The fact its highly advertised?

Market power is usually defined as "a firm's ability to profitably raise prices above the competitive level (marginal cost) without losing significant sales to competitors." Clearly we're not talking about prices here, practically all the prices are free here. So we're talking other kinds of featuresets. What is this market power, other than users like it? I've asked many times, and yet everyone has refused to answer this core, critical part of the claim.

If people can make a choice for a competitor's product that's priced the exact same and has essentially the same feature set, how does Chrome have "market power"?

I pointed out WebUSB. For a bit pretty much only Chrome supported it. Is that really market power that's pushing everyone to use Chrome? What other things are actually giving it that immense market power you claim?

> I've asked many times, and yet everyone has refused to answer this core, critical part of the claim.

It's a core, critical part of a monopoly abuse claim, not a monopoly claim. I don't want to get in that argument.

They don't have some weird ultra low market power for their size. They're a monopoly.

You have stated a monopoly is:

> It's size and market power.

We both agree on the size. Its the most popular browser for sure. And I agree, a monopoly generally has to be quite large and it doesn't need to be 100%.

When I ask you for evidence of the market power side of the monopoly claim, you just throw up your hands and say "I don't want to get in that argument", make some claim about the self-evidence of their market power, and then just assert they're a monopoly.

I'm just asking someone to actually point out how Chrome, the web browser has outsized market power. Not just restate they have high usage numbers, but actual instances showcasing their market power. Real studies about how sticky Chrome actually is. Anything like that. But nobody here will actually point to anything other hand waving about how much its marketed and what not.

I’m constantly badgered by google apps on my iPhone to use Chrome. In fact I’m not able to just click a link and open my default browser, I have to see the big chrome logo and a smaller link to choose my default browser.

> by google apps on my iPhone

Ever thought about just not using those apps if you want to avoid the Google ecosystem? Too bad there's just absolutely no mapping application available on iPhone but Google Maps. Too bad there's no way to send an email on an iPhone outside of Gmail.

What's that? A user has to once again go out of their way to install those apps as well? Well isn't that strange. I thought Google was a monopoly on iPhones.

What's the point of this pedantry? Replace "monopoly" with "dominant market player" and their point still stands. A company doesn't need to be a literal monopoly to engage in anti-competitive behavior. The EU would call this "abuse of dominance". [1]

>> Google holds absolute authority on how websites are rendered and if websites can be found.

This is still 100% correct. Google owns the dominant browser and the dominant search engine, this means that they get to dictate how websites function and pick winners and losers through their search algorithm. If you're a publisher (i.e. anyone who hosts a website) you're forced to fall in line or go out of business.

[1] https://competition-policy.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2021-05...

> If you're a publisher (i.e. anyone who hosts a website) you're forced to fall in line or go out of business.

What features of Chrome are website publishers forced to fall in line with or go out of business that practically other browser makers aren't also pushing?

and even the iPhone Chrome doesn't use the Chromium engine, it's Safari under the hood

> Windows computers

Ship with a chromium fork called Edge

Edge isn't Chrome though, is it? Like, its not shipped by Google, it doesn't bug you to log in with a Google account, doesn't ship metrics back to Google, right?

Not quite the same thing now is it?

The usual complaint is that Chromium dominates as an engine. I don't fully understand the complaint because anyone can fork it, but maybe they're (rightfully) concerned nobody will fork it because Google controls the web standards, or they're concerned Chrome could stop using the open version of the engine.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com