The U.S. Department of Justice is ramping up its case against Google’s alleged monopoly, suggesting the government could eventually force the company to sell its widely-used Chrome browser. The move is part of the DoJ’s push to challenge Google’s hold over the digital advertising and search engine markets.

The Justice Department’s latest legal action accuses Google of engaging in anticompetitive behavior by unfairly using its dominance in search and advertising to prop up its other services, most notably Chrome. The government argues that Google’s browser and vast data ecosystem have given the company an outsized advantage over competitors, stifling innovation and harming consumers. By bundling Chrome with its Android operating system, Google has built an extensive network that could limit consumer choice and make it difficult for smaller firms to compete.

  • fuzzywombat@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    6 hours ago

    Which tech company would buy Chrome from Google? I just can’t think of a single tech company that could be an improvement over Google owning Chrome.

    • Amazon

    • Apple

    • Meta

    • Microsoft

    • Oracle

    What about media companies? I don’t see consumers benefiting from this.

    • Comcast

    • Disney

    • Netflix

    • Viacom

    What about telecom? I still don’t see consumers benefiting from this.

    • AT&T

    • T-Mobile

    • Verizon

    What about foreign companies? Will they be even allowed to buy Chrome? I’m not sure.

    • LG

    • Philips

    • Samsung

    • Sony

    The more I think about it, this won’t end well.

    • Madis@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      4 hours ago

      Of those companies, Apple seems like the best option due to their business goals (privacy). Though I am not fully sure why they’d want to as they already have a browser with a relative market share dominance and ecosystem.

      Realistically, it would make sense to see Microsoft try again, it would instantly get 70% of the world to use “Edge”, so their goals are met. Chrome already has the modern web standards, so it might just mean slower progression of the web in the future.

    • jackyard@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 hours ago

      Chromium is already there and companies like Microsoft have their own forks so… Yeah I think there’s no point of buying Chrome.

      • Rob T Firefly@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 hours ago

        It’s the most popular web browser in the world. Direct access to the browser windows and browsing data of the majority of Internet users would be the point.

  • ikidd@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    15 hours ago

    I’d cheer if I thought this was anything except a blackmail play when a Trump administration is now involved. They’ll buy him off and it’ll all be back to status quo by fall.

  • Geodad@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    22 hours ago

    Google should do the power play and completely open source the browser.

    • Madis@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 hours ago

      But Chrome is already just Chromium with some binary blobs. Chromium itself even has sync and Google services at this point.

      Besides, what would that change in regards to who develops it?

    • RightEdofer@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      21 hours ago

      Google’s ad network and YouTube are pushing the agenda more than pretty much everyone.

      • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 hours ago

        I thought so too because I only get horrific conservative nonsense from their platforms but turns out they’ve been vearing left lately, delisting conservative news and banning far right advertisers.

      • Xanza@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        11 hours ago

        They’re an open platform. Anyone can buy ad time on their platforms. It has nothing to do with Google and everything to do with people buying ad time.

        If you’re going to be pissed, then be pissed. Just be right.

  • InFerNo@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 day ago

    Microsoft Chrome

    Meta Chrome

    Amazon Chrome

    Apple Chrome

    Sell to who though

  • barkingspiders@infosec.pub
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 days ago

    I think this is good news which seems hard to believe right now. I’m sure someone will find a way to make this terrible but on it’s face we are watching an important anti-trust ruling take place. Google’s monopoly on the browser is dangerous and unhealthy. Taking it away from them is absolutely the right thing to do. Who inherits the power over the single browser used by most of the world remains to be seen though.

    • kibiz0r@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 days ago

      Who inherits the power over the single browser used by most of the world remains to be seen though.

      Probably Musk or Thiel.

      • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 hours ago

        The year is 2032

        The Hogan Browser new update reads you an AI Sermon when you attempt to access medical graphs because it autodetected pornographic content.

        You have 20 minutes to repent before the ICE justiciars show up and sentence you, but you forgot to clean and polish the Trump Crucifix Statuette this morning.

    • Ledericas@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 days ago

      mozilla doesnt have money, they are so desperate now, they are lowkey selling some data.

    • biofaust@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 days ago

      Selling it means receiving money for it. Mozilla without Google support, which at that point would be lacking, wouldn’t have the means.

      • Avid Amoeba@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 days ago

        They could sell it for $1 if they wanted to.

        Also I think Mozilla is self sustainable from investment income from its endowment. Could be wrong.

        • overload@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 days ago

          I’ve been worried about this. I figured that Mozilla is funded by Google (so they can say that they’ve taken steps to avoid the perception that they are a Browser monopoly). Would Mozilla lose their funding of Google no longer has that Browser monopoly?

          • Avid Amoeba@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            2 days ago

            I meant that they no longer need Google’s funding, however if Chrome becomes Mozilla, Google would have a real need to pay Mozilla to stay the default engine in Chrome.

            • LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              2 days ago

              How do they no longer need it? Isn’t Google like 80% of their income? Mozilla was controlled opposition. This would be a historic moment in history though Like when Gates loaned his buddy Jobs money to help Apple launch the iPhone.

  • ShittyBeatlesFCPres@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 days ago

    I don’t really get what selling Chrome and Android would accomplish. I’m all for breaking up tech monopolies but both of those projects are mostly open source that get proprietary Google crap and (for Android, at least, some monopolistic behavior like requiring what’s preinstalled, which is fine to ban).

    I don’t work on ad-supported projects so I may be out of my element but it seems like what would actually help end the monopolistic behavior is requiring Google (and Facebook) to spin off their ad network businesses. The monopoly problem isn’t Chromium or AOSP or that Google runs ad-supported search. It’s that if [insert random site] wants ads, they typically use AdSense. If Facebook and Google want to run ad-supported services, fine. But they shouldn’t also also be the middlemen for advertisers who want to run ads on third party sites. That’s a recipe for monopolistic behavior.

    In my ideal world, there would be no targeted ads at all and advertisers had to sponsor — and were so partly responsible for — the specific content they want to be associated with. But that probably isn’t going to happen since every politician is an advertiser that wants to launder their sponsorships through a middleman.

    • sbv@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 day ago

      I don’t really get what selling Chrome and Android would accomplish.

      There was a leak of Google’s old page ranking algorithm (not PageRank, but how they change the order of results on search) - it looked like they used a bunch of signals from Chrome about the amount of time users spend on a page, how quickly they go back, etc. Chrome gives the search side of the business an advantage.

      Conversely, Android feeds a bunch of extra data to the ad business about what people do in real life.

      Both products give the rest of Alphabet a significant advantage over their competitors, and make it harder for new entrants to get a foothold.

    • bdonvr@thelemmy.club
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 days ago

      Google gets to control the source code, what additions are added, and what features don’t get into it.

      Yes technically some organization could fork it and then maintain a fork themselves. But it’s a huge undertaking that almost nobody has the money to fund. Browsers are free so there’s really not a lot of monetization schemes for browsers.

      So nobody as far as I know has really been able to maintain a hard fork of chromium for very long. Remember, every change you make then has to be maintained by you and then you have to keep it up to date with the chromium master tree while also keeping all of your changes compatible. It is a big undertaking almost as big as modern operating systems. Browsers are just too complicated so Google in this position does still have a monopoly that’s very hard to fight.

      Almost all browsers other than Safari and Firefox are based on Chromium, which gives Google a ton of control.

    • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 days ago

      requiring Google (and Facebook) to spin off their ad network businesses

      That is their business. Everything else exists to bring more value to that business:

      • AOSP - ads in the browser (search engine) and app store
      • Chrome - ads in the search engine, and nudge people toward other Google products to hoover up data to serve more ads

      And so on. Google and Meta are ad companies that drive traffic to their ads through software services.

      The point in forcing them out of certain businesses is to open them up to more competition. They can keep ad margins high due to sheer volume of eyeballs coming from their other services. Gutting those services means they need to provide better value to stay competitive.

      Idk if it’ll work, but stripping out the browser is likely good overall for the open web.

    • reddig33@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 days ago

      Spinning them off into their own independent companies would make more sense than a sale to another party.

    • Madis@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      As long as they are doing the browser work independently from Google (meaning no Google integration), doesn’t sound like a bad thing. Kind of like they already present their work (Chromium and Chrome)

      • josefo@leminal.space
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        11 hours ago

        Foundation boards can are susceptible to bribe money in exchange for features or default things. Look at Firefox.

    • josefo@leminal.space
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      11 hours ago

      I’ll go and risk “shade of skin”. He is also smiling an looks a little less as a Bond villain, but I go with the shading.

    • einlander@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 days ago

      Look at all their lips. See how they look like they are ready to kiss or suck something? Now loon at Pichai. Just smiling instead of getting ready to receive a load. He bent the knee, but not far enough.

    • floo@retrolemmy.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      They’re all dickheads, but he actually looks like one. So do his weird “space” ships.

      • Billiam@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 days ago

        Yeah, but we’re not talking about Amazon guy, we’re talking about Google guy.

        Something about him is different, but I’m not white sure what it could be.

  • Singletona082@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 days ago

    Thus the price of collaboration. You are not rewarded, you simply draw attention to yourself as someone with wealth they can pillage.

  • TheTechnician27@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 days ago

    Justice Department is 100% lobbing this over to JD Vance’s buddy Peter Thiel who’s going to enshittify it even further and turn it with its massive install base into a tool for techno-fascism.

    • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 days ago

      Please, do it! That’s going to eviscerate Chrome’s userbase and push these Chromium browsers to fork so fast it’ll make his head spin.

      • pivot_root@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 days ago

        You’re putting way too much faith in the typical consumer. Enshittifying Chrome even more would piss its users off, but inertia and its market dominance would keep most of them continuing to use it while complaining about how bad it is.

        Remember: It took 8 years for Chrome to drag Internet Explorer to the point where less than 10% of people actually used it. And that’s with Firefox already being a competitor to it for years.

        • Clent@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          9 hours ago

          Google would still own android and may not be inclined to keep chrome as the default. That is a significant portion of the browser’s user base.

          With default search engine agreements being threatened, it may shake out where Google and Firefox agreed to make Firefox the default android browser in exchange for keeping Google their default search engine.

    • biofaust@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      I must say that, as a European using a Firefox fork for my daily browsing while waiting for Ladybird, I don’t see that outcome as completely negative: Google, somehow, in America has kept a completely unjustified good vibes feeling surrounding itself, while Thiel is much more evil in the public eye.

      If Chrome is associated with him in anyway it can become a more lucid image of itself.

      • green@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        2 days ago

        Acceleration-ism does not work.

        If the USA has not taught you this, after this reckless takeover, nothing will save you.

        The more likely outcome is for Chrome to become a North Korea RedStar equivalent, where you cannot freely access the internet without Chrome. And if you visit a resource with wrongspeak, the resource will have all its finances taken away (see the legislation surrounding section 230); with you being sent to El Salvador.

      • TheTechnician27@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 days ago

        I really don’t think this is true. It might push some politically engaged users to Firefox, but unlike Musk, most people don’t know who Thiel is, and as long as he keeps it that way, nobody will care.

        • Ledericas@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 days ago

          FF depends on google ad money, thats why FF is currently enshittifying right now.

        • biofaust@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 days ago

          That’s when we come onto the scene.

          I am continuously “translating” news and opinions from here on LinkedIn. Already got banned from a professional Slack that contains most people in my industry for saying in a private conversation that I like watermelon.

          Not gonna stop. People are not politically inclined because we kept our knowledge to ourselves for too long.

          • tomenzgg@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            2 days ago

            For a second, I read your fruit predilection literally and was like, “Is…watermelon controversial, now? Are they [the people who banned you] cartoonishly racist?”

            I follow you, now; sucks but expected…

      • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 hours ago

        You know, I always assumed they were conservative biased because for me personally they always pushed the most disgusting far right garbage in reccomended and adverts for over a decade, but I looked it up and I guess Google does have an anti-conservative bias in their news listings.

        TIL.