Divesting Android is still on the table.
  • daggermoon@lemmy.worldEnglish
    0·
    11 months ago

    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.

    • ArchRecord@lemm.eeEnglish
      0·
      11 months ago

      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.

      • JasSmith@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
        0·
        11 months ago

        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.

        • underwire212@lemm.eeEnglish
          0·
          11 months ago

          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?

        • ArchRecord@lemm.eeEnglish
          0·
          11 months ago

          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.

        • ArchRecord@lemm.eeEnglish
          0·
          11 months ago

          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.)

  • mosscap@slrpnk.netEnglish
    0·
    11 months ago

    Trump will let this go through and behind the scenes force a deal where X buys Chrome

  • rockSlayer@lemmy.worldEnglish
    0·
    11 months ago

    They should force it to become a worker cooperative. It’s the only solution that doesn’t allow for corruption

      • Kecessa@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
        0·
        11 months ago

        Yep, nationalize everything that’s essential or at least offer a nationalized alternative and let the private sector try to compete.

        • Grimy@lemmy.worldEnglish
          0·
          11 months ago

          I literally salivate at the thought of it happening to the telecom industries.

      • bdonvr@thelemmy.clubEnglish
        0·
        11 months ago

        For a lot of things yes.

        However I do not want to use a browser developed by the US gov tyvm

        • Grimy@lemmy.worldEnglish
          0·
          11 months ago

          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.

  • 200ok@lemmy.worldEnglish
    0·
    11 months ago

    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”.

    • superkret@feddit.orgEnglish
      0·
      11 months ago

      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.

    • Jo Miran@lemmy.mlEnglish
      0·
      11 months ago

      …a radical interventionist agenda…

      That language seems very “Trump-esque”, and I doubt it is a coincidence.

    • webghost0101@sopuli.xyzEnglish
      0·
      11 months ago

      Google pretending they have any other nationality other then “the global internet” is cute in a disgusting way.

    • nooneescapesthelaw@mander.xyzEnglish
      0·
      11 months ago

      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

      1. Ads built into chrome itself (when you’re in the settings menu, homepage, reading a PDF, playing the dino game)

      2. 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

      • Beldarofremulak@lemmy.worldEnglish
        0·
        11 months ago

        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.

      • Tinidril@midwest.socialEnglish
        0·
        11 months ago

        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.

  • 200ok@lemmy.worldEnglish
    0·
    11 months ago

    If they’re allowed to choose who they sell it to this won’t change anything

  • xylogx@lemmy.worldEnglish
    0·
    11 months ago

    Who would buy this and how would they monetize it? In browser ads? A freemium paid model to remove the ads?

      • Showroom7561@lemmy.caEnglish
        0·
        11 months ago

        Um, that wouldn’t change if Google “sells Chrome”, though.

        Firefox uses Google Search as a default, so does every Samsung phone (and most other Android devices).

        Unless the DOJ is telling everyone not to implement a default search engine (and let the user decide upon first opening the browser), then who owns Chrome really doesn’t change much.

        Other remedies the government is asking the court to impose include prohibiting Google from offering money or anything of value to third parties — including Apple and other phone-makers — to make Google’s search engine the default,

        This is the only thing that makes sense, but “sell Chrome” is a laughable request.

        • themoonisacheese@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
          0·
          11 months ago

          Alright then I’ll do you one better:

          Google regularly abuses their market share dominance in browsers in order to push for changes to web standards that benefit them, such as their web integrity api (which would have prevented blocking ads). This is monopolistic behavior, and the largest ad company on the planet shouldn’t get to decide web standards.

          As a side note: both firefox and Samsung are paid handsomely (just like apple) to have Google as a default search engine. This also is monopolistic behavior, if you built a better product than them then you couldn’t outspend them to get to the same position.

          • Showroom7561@lemmy.caEnglish
            0·
            11 months ago

            Oh, yeah, don’t get me wrong, Google is highly unethical, and I avoid any and all Google related products whenever possible.

            Selling Chrome, however, doesn’t really stop them from doing damage.

            The part about not allowing them to bribe pay other companies to use their search is a much better idea.

            And regarding their influence over the internet… we need stronger regulation to prevent any company from having that much control over an essential service.

  • 52fighters@lemmy.sdf.orgEnglish
    0·
    11 months ago

    The Reuters article suggests prohibiting payments to Apple so that Chrome users on their hardware default to Google search. What about default settings to Firefox? Similar agreements finance a large portion of Mozilla’s revenue.

  • Auli@lemmy.caEnglish
    0·
    11 months ago

    Ehh just fight it for a month pay king trump some money and bam their golden.