It says the government is asking for far too much.

Google is offering a far more pared-down solution to the court’s ruling that it illegally monopolized search

  • albert180@discuss.tchncs.deEnglish
    48·
    4 days ago

    Google can Set Standards to their own Advantage, e.g. with regards to Tracking which reinforces their Monopoly on Things Like Ads, the Same reason they crippled all the AdBlockers with ManifestV3 on Chromium-based Browsers

    And the only alternative that isn’t Chromium-based is Firefox. (Or Safari with WebKit). All other Browsers use Chromium

    So it would be really good for everyone if they were forced to sell Chrome

    • john89@lemmy.caEnglish
      4·
      3 days ago

      Chrome’s ubiquity is bad for browsers.

      I’m glad I switched back to Firefox after learning that Google removed AdNauseam from their addon store. It’s an app that clicks ads in addition to blocking them. It wasn’t breaking any rules, but google removed it and since there wasn’t sufficient backlash it was never restored.

      That kind of scummy behavior should never be rewarded with continued patronage.

    • nous@programming.devEnglish
      64·
      3 days ago

      So it would be really good for everyone if they were forced to sell Chrome

      And who do you think would buy it? Loads of companies will be jumping at the chance not out of the goodness of their hearts but because they can see massive profits if they can control it. Very likely will start to squeeze it for all the profit they can and the enshitification process will begin.

      For all the bad the Google has done they have kept chrome relatively free from the enshitification process. Likely as so much of their business would not exist if people didn’t have a good browser to access their services on.

      • albert180@discuss.tchncs.deEnglish
        17·
        3 days ago

        How is Manifest v3, Fingerprinting and the proposed “Web Integrity API” not enshittification?

        They would have gone even further with this, if Firefox wouldn’t exist. And Firefox is on life Support, because they can’t afford for it to Go away otherwise they would have the Antitrust regulators Breathing down their neck

    • Electric@lemmy.worldEnglish
      316·
      4 days ago

      Any company can do that. That’s why it’s more important to have new browsers (THAT AREN’T CHROMIUM, LOOKING AT YOU EDGE) for competition. Making a company sell the browser used by the majority of people is absolutely not the answer. That’s gambling.

      • albert180@discuss.tchncs.deEnglish
        141·
        4 days ago

        No, not every company can afford to Bulldoze the competition in the Browser Market because they have indefinite deep pockets from the Ad Business.

        If that unfair advantage goes away there will be more competition again in the Browser Segment .

        Also Marketshare can grow and shrink quick

        • BeardedGingerWonder@feddit.ukEnglish
          1·
          2 days ago

          I’d also imagine Google won’t be prevented from owning a browser indefinitely - if it’s still worth it they’ll create a new browser and try to recapture the market, further diversifying the market.

        • legion02@lemmy.worldEnglish
          62·
          3 days ago

          With the expected costs of a web browser by the general public being $0, what company would want it that isn’t going to do that? Even Firefox survives off ad revenue. There is no “browser market”, there’s an ad market.

      • deegeese@sopuli.xyzEnglish
        9·
        3 days ago

        Gambling? LOL.

        The normal solution to a monopoly is forced breakup and divesture. Why does Google deserve to be above the law?