←back to thread

858 points colesantiago | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
Hansenq ◴[] No.45109151[source]
This seems like a very sensible and logical conclusion by the judge to me.

An exclusive contract with Apple/Samsung isn't great, but even Apple testified that they would not have accepted any other searcch engine because everyone else was worse. You can't make restrictions on what Apple is allowed to do because Google violated some law--if Apple wants to make Google the default, they should be allowed to do so! The ban on exclusive contracts makes sense though; they should not be allowed to use contracts to furthur their monopoly position.

And similarly with Chrome; it made no sense to bring Chrome into this equation. Google started, developed, and built Chrome into the best browser available today NOT through exclusive contracts, but because Chrome is just a better product. Users can switch to Firefox/Safari (Mac default)/Edge (Windows default); they don't because Chrome is better. Forcing Google to give up one of its best products is effectively eminent domain by the government to a private company.

With the rise of ChatGPT (I barely use Google anymore) and AI search engines potentially shifting the search landscape, who knows if Google will still be a monopoly 5 years from now. Software moves fast and the best solution to software monopoly is more software competition.

replies(14): >>45109213 #>>45109365 #>>45110031 #>>45110056 #>>45110177 #>>45110178 #>>45111329 #>>45111583 #>>45112619 #>>45112984 #>>45113110 #>>45113185 #>>45113218 #>>45118412 #
raincole ◴[] No.45110031[source]
> Users can switch to Firefox/Safari (Mac default)/Edge (Windows default); they don't because Chrome is better. Forcing Google to give up one of its best products is effectively eminent domain by the government to a private company.

Yeah. People on HN just don't use Windows, at least not a freshly installed one. Windows does nudge you to use Edge [0]. On PC, Chrome is not just competing fairly: it's competing at a disadvantage! Yet it just keeps winning.

[0]: https://x.com/frantzfries/status/1628178202395873286

replies(2): >>45112998 #>>45114118 #
OvbiousError ◴[] No.45112998[source]
The regularly flood youtube with advertisments for chrome, I've yet to see my first youtube ad for firefox.
replies(2): >>45114158 #>>45116884 #
shmeeed ◴[] No.45114158[source]
That's an interesting observation. If they don't even use it for advertising, what _IS_ Mozilla doing with all those Google millions?

JK, we all know what they're doing with them...

replies(1): >>45114512 #
deruta ◴[] No.45114512[source]
I'm honestly out of the loop, what are they doing?
replies(1): >>45115687 #
maxfurman ◴[] No.45115687{3}[source]
Paying their executives exorbitant salaries
replies(1): >>45126302 #
1. shmeeed ◴[] No.45126302{4}[source]
$6.9M to the CEO, to be precise, which is roughly the same amount as the total of all private donations, grants and government funding they receive. It's bizarre.

Meanwhile they're cutting down on devs, killing products like Pocket and Fakespot, ignoring user feedback, driving strange and off-putting community engagement, and introducing eye candy BS nobody asked for.

In short, they appear to be doing anything but advancing the brand and actually, you know, competing in the browser market. Note that I'm not shitting on the poor devs, I still think they are delivering a great core product despite it all. But market shares and even absolute user counts keep dwindling. What is management doing about that?

And all this would seem like a case of simple mismanagement, if one weren't to reflect the fact that the overwhelming majority of their income comes from Google. The way they're behaving is suspiciously convenient to the entity that is their main revenue source. One could resonably suspect they serve primarily as an antitrust litigation sponge.