They should force google to kick sundar, the harmful thing, what made all google software, and services shit since it is the ceo…
Strip google for parts And I mean that literally, asset strip the removed, no more youtube, gmail, sell the hardware, release all IP to public, absolutely dismantle google entirely. Do the same with all of FAANG. Then the 25 next biggest platform monopolists. They are Web2 parasites and they need to die.
If you think Sundar is bad, just wait to see who Wall Street picks to replace him.
I’m ok with google going the way of bed bath and beyond or red lobster.
I don’t wanna live in a world without scented bath oils, cheese biscuits, and gmail!
What company could actually afford to buy it other than Google, Meta, or Amazon? Unless they are forced to sell it at a loss, which is fine with me.
Oracle, sun, tencent, tita…
Broadcom
oracle would create MANGO (Microsoft,Apple,nvidia,google and Oracle)
Microsoft is probably drooling at the prospect. They’ve been trying to get that IE monopoly back since this happened to them.
Hear me out… Valve
With all due respect for Valve, they don’t need this. They exist in their niche, and they’re exceptionally good at doing their work
Chromium engine for half life 3
Elon Musk
By “sell,” they could also mean ending up having Chrome just split off from Google, as a new, independent entity that is its own company, without anybody needing to buy it in the first place.
How exactly is this company going to make any money?
Selling user data, selling ad placement, subscriptions for paid services, enterprise-grade support contracts, and the like.
They could also take an approach similar to Google, branching back out from being just a browser into a suite of related tools that Chrome can then convince users to switch to (similar to how Chrome gets users to not just use Google search, but also services like Gmail too.)
I assume by continuing to sell data.
The judge would immediately shut that down for creative avoidance. This is an order to sell, not break up. The DOJ specifically indicated behavioural remedies in this case, meaning Google must not remain in control of Chrome.
This is an order to sell, not break up.
Currently, it’s still recommended actions to the court. Nothing has actually been finalized in terms of what they’re going to actually end up trying to make Google do.
Google must not remain in control of Chrome.
While divestiture is likely, they could also spin-off, split-off, or carve-out, which carry completely different implications for Google, but are still an option if they are unable to convince the court to make Google do their original preferred choice.
A split-off could prevent Google from retaining shares in the new company without sacrificing shares in Google itself, and a carve-out could still allow them to “sell” it, but via shares sold in an IPO instead of having to get any actual buyout from another corporation.
Don’t ya love it when people comment saying something that they think must be true as if it were actually true, without having the slightest idea?
Admittedly, I don’t know enough about monopolies and antitrust laws to know how much this matters. Can someone ELI5 this and give us more info?
People wondering what Chrome has to do with a search monopoly:
The obvious benefit is that they can default the user’s search provider to Google.
But the more nefarious benefit is that, by controlling both the client and server, they can unilaterally decide the future of web standards. They don’t have to advocate for proposals, gain consensus, and limit themselves to well-supported standards the way other companies do. They can just do it, gain the first-mover advantage, and force others to follow suit.
If they don’t like HTTP/2, they can invent their own protocol and implement it for their search servers and Chrome. Suddenly, using Chrome with Google Search is way faster than using Chrome with Bing or using Firefox with Google Search. Even if Microsoft and Mozilla don’t like the protocol, they now have to adopt it or fall behind.
This has happened. QUIC was deployed in 2012. Firefox gained support in 2021.
They’re doing the same thing with Privacy Sandbox, and you can also look at browser feature compatibility tables to see how eager Google is to force their own interpretation of every not-yet-finalized web standard as the canonical interpretation.
Hot take: they sell Chrome but keep Chromium.
Seeing how tech illiterate some of these people are, I wouldn’t be surprised if that’s what ends up happening
How would that work exactly? Google would sell Chrome but keep paying teams if developers to work on Chromium?
Basically. I mean look at Edge, it’s running Chromium under the hood, but the UI is developed by Microsoft.
Who would buy this and how would they monetize it? In browser ads? A freemium paid model to remove the ads?
I’ll bid $3.50 just to GPL it.
https://www.chromium.org/chromium-projects/
It’s already under BSD license
Sure, but GPL would prevent the Chrome tracking addons and other pleasant closed-source paraphernalia (the difference between Chrome and Chromium)
deleted by creator
BSD is more open towards being closed.
This is the last antitrust win we’ll get for years, isn’t it?
I know Trump doesn’t like Big Tech, but I doubt his admin will punish them meaningfully, but just rail about censorship.
This isn’t a win I think. They are yet to meet in the court with Google.
The DOJ will file a revised version of its proposals in early March, before the government and Google return to the DC District Court in April for a two-week remedies trial.
I keep saying this. In 2 months all this antitrust stuff goes out the window. If people actually bothered to show up on 11/5 Kahn and co could actually get some wins for the American people. Instead, we’re going to get more monopolies shoved down our throats.
Microshit treatment incoming IMHO
People larp these headlines too much
Our govt is pay for play at this point, I struggle to see anything like this going through, especially so close to a new AG appointment.
sell it to Microsoft so they can finally have a web browser that people use
Microsoft run Chrome clone? But they already have Edge
Which no one willingly uses
I use it and love it tbh
How fucking dare you have an opinion!
I just used my brain this time. Not again!
You need to get out more
Like what?
Unless you’re at a company using Microsoft services, where you have no choice, other than chrome (at my company), which hot take, is worse than edge.
it was good at launch, but they’ve added so much bloat
Yes, the anti-trust lawsuit should culminate in one part of a tech giant being sold to another tech giant.
what else would happen
Never again
Imagine where the software industry would be without all the lost productivity because of MSIE quirks.
Don’t fucking let Musk buy it though
Oh no.
Trump will let this go through and behind the scenes force a deal where X buys Chrome
Nah I rather they not get deeply vested in figuring out as revenue…
Like someone commented in another fediverse community: this court case can really only keep going for two more months, after that it’s anyone’s guess what will happen to the court: Alphabet could bribe someone in the DOJ to make the case disappear or (and this is the funny one) law and order could breakdown completely, rendering the case, the court and all the rest of society moot.
Yeah, see all this stuff happening between now and inauguration day. See, we did something. Too little, too late. If there are ever free and fair elections in this country, and the Democrats return to power, they better get their fucking shit together. The dismantling of the Federal government will be almost impossible to reverse.
They should force it to become a worker cooperative. It’s the only solution that doesn’t allow for corruption
brOURser comrade.
Nationalize?
Yep, nationalize everything that’s essential or at least offer a nationalized alternative and let the private sector try to compete.
I literally salivate at the thought of it happening to the telecom industries.
For a lot of things yes.
However I do not want to use a browser developed by the US gov tyvm
My comment is more in line with the corruption aspect. As much as I think they deserve it, giving it to the employees would be more akin to them winning the lottery. In the space of a year, they will have gone public, shareholders would have stormed in and we would be at square one.
Nationalisation at least has a chance of getting rid of the money corruption aspect. Sadly, the three letter agencies are probably deep in every browser already so I don’t think any solution takes care of that.
I understand your point though. Personally, I will never use chrome no matter what happens, ha.
Alphabet’s Chief Legal Officer Kent Walker, says the DOJ is pushing “a radical interventionist agenda that would harm Americans and America’s global technology leadership.”
I’m honestly curious how this would “harm Americans”.
The same ruling would ban Google from paying other browsers to make Google the default search engine.
This would kill Firefox and make Chromium the only browser engine that’s left.It would leave the newly-split-off chrome in the same financial situation as firefox. Arguably a worse one.
That’s really sad…
Google pretending they have any other nationality other then “the global internet” is cute in a disgusting way.
That statement is technically true.
The billionaire owners are Americans.
Everyone really does need to have that at the forefront of their mind. When the C-suit, wall street, and politicians talk about “Americans” they aren’t talking about us schlubs.
I refuse to call any Billionaires Americans. A billionaire in America has far more in common with a billionaire in Ireland or France than with working class Americans. They don’t use our schools, drink our water, drive our roads, or rely on our safety nets. They don’t take out the trash, do their laundry, wait 6 months for a doctor’s appointment, or stress over defunding their retirement to pay for needed medication.
Billionaire involvement in politics should be considered foreign interference. Of course AIPAC is foreign interference too, but apparently that’s not a problem either.
The corporations are people too!
Alphabet’s Chief Legal Officer sounds like Donald Trump
I fear this is exactly who they’re courting.
…a radical interventionist agenda…
That language seems very “Trump-esque”, and I doubt it is a coincidence.
It harms wealthy asshole Americans at Google.
How does chrome make money? It uses ads from Google, chrome on it’s own is not a business.
Say you buy chrome, you have to options
-
Ads built into chrome itself (when you’re in the settings menu, homepage, reading a PDF, playing the dino game)
-
Force your own default search engine, or get a company like Google or Bing to pay you for the privilege of being a default search engine.
Neither of these options are better than the status quo
-
