Skip Navigation

Google reacts angrily to report it will have to sell Chrome

www.bbc.com Google reacts angrily to report it will have to sell Chrome

It's reported the US government wants the world's most popular web browser to be sold off to address monopoly concerns.

Google reacts angrily to report it will have to sell Chrome
26

You're viewing a single thread.

26 comments
  • chromium is the problem.

    • TL;DR;

      They have an effective monopoly and have repeatedly shown they will use it to serve their needs.


      One concrete way is the level of control that google has over the inner workings on the rendering engine giving it significant control over web standards.

      A real life example fo this is the controversy around the JPEG-XL format, google decides to drop support for it, doing so removes support for every single browser based on the rendering engine in chromium (eventually).

      Now, other browsers ( firefox for example) have to decide if it's worth it to add in and maintain support for a format that will only work in their rendering engine.

      Sounds like a win right? now firefox has a feature that chrome doesn't.

      Now, developers/businesses have a choice.

      • A: Add/Maintain/Test features that use the JPEG-XL format exclusively, this feature is only available to the Y% of people not using a chromium based browser.
      • B: Use some other format that is supported in chrome (and other browser).
      • C: Do A with B as a fail-over, adding additional cost to development/maintenance and testing.

      In almost all circumstances, B is the fiscally responsible option, which means that google has effective control over web standards and their implementation.

      A non rendering engine example is ad-blockers, google decides there are underlying security issues with how some integrations with the web browser works, this "just so happens" to break how almost all decent adblocking is done at a browser level.

      They go ahead and create an updated version of the specification that describes how this interaction works, implement this upstream and suddenly all chromium based browsers now can't use the most effective adblockers.

      Technically the downstream browsers could do some shenanigans to keep the ability to block ads effectively , but the technical and monetary barriers to such an endeavour are so high it is absolutely not worth it.

      There is more technical nuance to this story, the security issues are real in V2 but the need to break adblockers in process of fixing these issues is debatable.

    • In what way, do you think?

      • most browsers are based on chromium. if Google sells Chrome they still control chromium, and through chromium they control chrome, brave, Edge etc. what I'm saying is that Google selling chrome won't really fix anything.

        • I'm curious about this analysis, because as a lay person to the business and its relationship to the tech, I have no opinion either way currently. That is to say, I neither agree nor disagree with what you're saying.

          What I am is interested in why this string of comments is being down voted without comment, and I'd love to hear a bit more as to why from anyone who has some more to contribute.

          • I'm not sure myself what people disagree about. I'd celebrate if Google loses chrome, but I don't think it would fix the problem of Google seemingly controlling all Browsers except Firefox and Safari. if I'm wrong about something id love to hear about it, I try to be open-minded and I have to admit I don't know /that/ much about this topic.

26 comments