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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
No. That part of the post was answering your question about how it impacts people. Not what makes it a monopoly.
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.
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.
High market share almost always means high market power. That's why people focus on market share since it's easy to cite.
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.
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.
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!