I would LOVE YouTube to be separated from Google, only problem is who could then run it.
Elon can't, he has Twitter/X, if I could literally use a genie wish, I'd want Trump to buy it, just for the salt and screams that would result from that deal lol.
Trump honestly probably couldn't afford YT. I know it's not profitable, but the sheer scale of the assets and resources wrapped up in running it would put it outside even most individual billionaires' price range. On top of that, it's so integrated with Google's other services that they can make the argument that it's a core brand and logistically impossible to separate from the rest of their properties and make saleable. They're almost certainly going to appeal this decision about Chrome making the same argument.
They may make the argument but let's be honest, thanks to DEI hiring and nepotism, YouTube wouldn't survive without Google IN IT'S current state. It might survive if they had an Elon style purge.
Oh, I'm not saying there aren't solutions to the problem. Just that it is a problem. Bardfag and company were notorious for doing it to Peddit subs they didn't like.
Youtube is a special case. It does not make money. It doesn't even break even last I heard. Whoever wants it would need to be insanely rich and have ulterior motives for wanting it.
Even Rumble with it's advantages of being new and designed for it from the ground up, more limited upload limits, and not having a long tail loses twice as much as they bring in.
Youtube does make Google many billions now according to their reports.
But only because of leveraging Google's monopoly position in ads and taking 30% of superchats. Anybody buying youtube wouldn't have monopoly advantage and they'd sink like a rock.
Forcing them to sell chrome is fucking stupid. Chromium, which is the basis of chrome, is already open source. Chrome is chromium with Google telemetry. Pretty much all browsers outside Firefox (and niche browsers that have little user base) are based on chromium. This effectively does nothing.
Probably why the Biden DOJ is targeting Chrome, and not an actual significant portion of their revenue stream. They get to look like monopoly busters, and keep the Alphabet donations rolling in.
Google controls Chromium, which means they control all decisions that impact Chromium, including web standards or browser features. Chromium-based browsers have to either deal with it and include Google's changes, or keep a perpetual fork.
Google's decision to remove Manifest 2 extensions, or that Chrome Extensions have to go through the Google Chrome Extension Store is a method that Google uses to control the browser and ensure that ad-blockers and malware blockers become more insufficient.
Aka, Google is working to make it so that adblockers don't work, and no Chrome alternative has tried competing with a seperate extension store except Firefox. And Firefox is controlled opposition.
Yes, Google is asshoe, but realistically what does "selling chrome" look like? And who would maintain it? There aren't that many orgs that can, so it would likely be someone like MSFT, which is also asshoe. Who will "buy chrome" who also isn't interested in shoving ads down your face? That Chromium is open source means that google would likely retain control of it regardless, same as linus is in control of linux.
Firefox is controlled opposition.
Mozilla is pozzed, but I wouldn't call them "controlled opposition"?
Alphabet does given them something like 400m a year and like you said, effectively owns Mozilla, but when I think "controlled opposition" I think like Fox News. But the existence of Mozilla, and their current situation, just seems like an artifact of of the history of browser development. Google also gives a lot of money to various software organizations, so outside funding them what's the controlled opposition angle exactly?
It prevents google from arbitrarily deciding "web standards" on it's own.
If your only experience is using the browser and not supporting it or writing code for it then your point of view is severely limited and your reasoning is faulty.
It prevents google from arbitrarily deciding "web standards" on it's own.
Anyone who "buys chrome" would most likely follow a similar agenda. If you can base your browser on Chromium, free of cost, as most do, and are not interested in dictating web standards, what incentive do you have to "buy chrome" (which is to say buy the marketshare of chrome users who use Chrome because Chrome)?
Google most certainly has other means of dictating web standards, simply by being Google.
I fail to see the scenario in which Chrome is purchased by a benevolent entity which engages in less shitty practices and/or one where Google doesn't just upstreams their bullshit in to chromium itself . I don’t really understand how this would work in practice - Google's Ad business obviously calls the shots, and that's a bad thing for the web, but I'm not sure how we get from here to there.
So back when I went, gmail was barely a thing. It was either in beta or just to-be-born. We had a unix mail server, and they deleted your login if you graduated/left.
But I went to do an alumni thing, and I noticed they had switched over to gmail.
Google adsense is the only profitable arm of the enterprise. If google sells chrome-- to whom? Microsoft? Meta? Amazon?
I don't want to engage in an argument about the 'devil you know' being trustworthy, because web manifest v3 proves google isn't. But when the DOJ talks about splitting off the fruits of the monopoly without striking the root... how realistic are their asks?
Yea, that's a problem: many Google products are run at a loss to prop up their ad business. If somebody bought them they'd have to fundamentally change them to turn a profit.
With Chrome maybe the software industry could create a shared foundation because so many big browsers rely on Chrome these days.
Yeah. I believe Google is paying Mozilla $400 million a year to cover their operating costs. It probably would have been better if Google had been broken up 15 years ago when we had a more fragmented industry before everything started running on the Chromium engine.
Chrome addresses what probably the government thinks is the problem. I think they're stuck on the browser wars and probably congratulating themselves for killing Internet Exploder.
The rest of us are concerned about Google's poor behavior in the free speech space. And ad market manipulation.
I think it's being understated what is actually happening here. The DOJ is forcing a partial collapse and consolidation of the Internet with this move.
For example, Mozilla/Firefox is gone in a year if Google is no longer allowed to pay them for search engine priority. Apple loses around 15% of their profitability for the same reason (around $20B/year). Many other companies depend heavily or entirely on Google paying for priority.
This will have a domino effect that, as I see it, largely benefits Microsoft as they also stop support for Win10 next year. (Note that the decision on Google and how it will be broken up comes down summer of next year.) The timing, I think, is not a coincidence.
Hahaha. You think they spend the money on maintenance. The Mozilla Foundation funnels Google's money into far left causes while keeping up a pretense of there being a Chrome competitor. They can't collapse soon enough.
Movement Complexities and Geographic Issues
We recognize that the global majority are disproportionately impacted by disparities in technological developments and power. We seek to align with existing movements using a geography-focused commitment to contextualize our grantmaking in a relevant, intersectional and impactful way.
Reframed Community Justice
Our work is framed through a commitment to community justice, which includes where and how inequality manifests globally and how different issues intersect in specific communities. This encompasses, but is not limited to, racial justice, decolonization, indigenous justice, economic justice, anti-caste movements and gender justice and recognizes the complex history of migrations, colonialism, economic colonization and systems of power.
Intersectionality
Intersectionality as a lens and method that is dynamic, evolving, internal and external facing, that recognizes different identities and realities, acknowledges the way those are interconnected, and the ways in which power impacts those interactions, or power relates to those interconnections.
80%+ of Mozilla's revenue comes from Google's payments for search engine priority. The rest of their revenue comes from Mozilla VPN/Relay and a bit from other advertisers. They'll be dead in no time if the government's request for Google to stop these payments is granted.
Their major expense is software development and of course employees who further service it (tech support, etc.). In 2022, they had $220 million in software development expenses, out of $425 million total expenses. Google paid them $480 million that same year.
They could cut back, but it would irreparably damage their ability to compete and function as they are now. They would become a shadow of their current existence, if they survived that transformation. Mozilla might survive in some capacity, but Firefox likely would not.
I do believe that's part of the point. I think the powers that be (IC) want to transform and corral Internet users, and carving up Google lets them accomplish that, including an detonation of both Chrome and Firefox browsers as we know them.
I can't help but think you guys are missing the forest for the trees. Desktop browser isn't the important piece of it. Android (71% of all mobile) comes with Chrome, which funnels people into Google search, which funnels them into AdWords. This kind of anti-trust decision is congruent with the Microsoft/Internet Explorer anti-trust case from back in the day.
I agree that YouTube would be a more substantive split, but there is certainly some logic to picking Chrome.
Some long overdue concessions will be made but Chrome is a choice, not a monopoly.
While I have massive problems with Google, and they are in everything, this is government overreach and hinges on Chinese control levels.
Some new GPDR guidelines or laws will come into practice to protect the end-user and Google's flex on banning adblocks and distribution of data will be sculpted but regulating a program which is given freely, with alternatives available, can be legally adapted to suit any particular niche and has increased productivity in every market is more complex than simply selling it off and presuming everything is fixed.
Count me among those who think this is stupid. If the DOJ was going to do anything, the advertising branch is the only rational target. While there are improvements that could be made to the browser market - namely, gutting half the Mozilla Foundation - the current situation with Google propping up almost the entire browser market as a loss leader has been pretty good for everyone.
Chrome & Android become Foss projects and lose google branding/features, meanwhile google keeps it's app store which will always remain downloadable directly from google itself.
VirusTotal goes independent
Google's (alphabet) hardware and research divisions go independent.
Google's ISP would also be a thing that goes independent, but they will likely keep company internal infrastructure including tier 1 peering.
Monopolies basically don't exist. I agree with economists on this.
I just want youtube to shut down and die though. I think it'd be the best thing for the internet if it did. I remember pre youtube days and a decentralised net was far better.
I would LOVE YouTube to be separated from Google, only problem is who could then run it.
Elon can't, he has Twitter/X, if I could literally use a genie wish, I'd want Trump to buy it, just for the salt and screams that would result from that deal lol.
Trump honestly probably couldn't afford YT. I know it's not profitable, but the sheer scale of the assets and resources wrapped up in running it would put it outside even most individual billionaires' price range. On top of that, it's so integrated with Google's other services that they can make the argument that it's a core brand and logistically impossible to separate from the rest of their properties and make saleable. They're almost certainly going to appeal this decision about Chrome making the same argument.
I know that's whynI said Genie wish it.
They may make the argument but let's be honest, thanks to DEI hiring and nepotism, YouTube wouldn't survive without Google IN IT'S current state. It might survive if they had an Elon style purge.
Says they.
If anyone based buys it the troons will flood it with CP.
You mean like they tried to do to Twitter after Elon bought it, or what they are currently doing in that Bluesky thing the lefties are 'fleeing' to.
Anyone based probably knows this and would talk to Elon on how he did it for advice to purge day one.
Oh, I'm not saying there aren't solutions to the problem. Just that it is a problem. Bardfag and company were notorious for doing it to Peddit subs they didn't like.
Youtube is a special case. It does not make money. It doesn't even break even last I heard. Whoever wants it would need to be insanely rich and have ulterior motives for wanting it.
Even Rumble with it's advantages of being new and designed for it from the ground up, more limited upload limits, and not having a long tail loses twice as much as they bring in.
Youtube does make Google many billions now according to their reports.
But only because of leveraging Google's monopoly position in ads and taking 30% of superchats. Anybody buying youtube wouldn't have monopoly advantage and they'd sink like a rock.
I hope Elon Musk buys YouTube so all the pretentious leftist video essayists fuck off to another platform.
Based tech people with money? Carmack could prolly offer them tree-fiddy and a Subway coupon.
Google being declared a monopoly is great.
Forcing them to sell chrome is fucking stupid. Chromium, which is the basis of chrome, is already open source. Chrome is chromium with Google telemetry. Pretty much all browsers outside Firefox (and niche browsers that have little user base) are based on chromium. This effectively does nothing.
Separate YouTube or their ad platform
Probably why the Biden DOJ is targeting Chrome, and not an actual significant portion of their revenue stream. They get to look like monopoly busters, and keep the Alphabet donations rolling in.
Google controls Chromium, which means they control all decisions that impact Chromium, including web standards or browser features. Chromium-based browsers have to either deal with it and include Google's changes, or keep a perpetual fork.
Google's decision to remove Manifest 2 extensions, or that Chrome Extensions have to go through the Google Chrome Extension Store is a method that Google uses to control the browser and ensure that ad-blockers and malware blockers become more insufficient.
Aka, Google is working to make it so that adblockers don't work, and no Chrome alternative has tried competing with a seperate extension store except Firefox. And Firefox is controlled opposition.
Yes, Google is asshoe, but realistically what does "selling chrome" look like? And who would maintain it? There aren't that many orgs that can, so it would likely be someone like MSFT, which is also asshoe. Who will "buy chrome" who also isn't interested in shoving ads down your face? That Chromium is open source means that google would likely retain control of it regardless, same as linus is in control of linux.
Mozilla is pozzed, but I wouldn't call them "controlled opposition"?
Mozilla is literally "controlled opposition." Google (Alphabet) is effectively the owner of Firefox through "donations".
Alphabet does given them something like 400m a year and like you said, effectively owns Mozilla, but when I think "controlled opposition" I think like Fox News. But the existence of Mozilla, and their current situation, just seems like an artifact of of the history of browser development. Google also gives a lot of money to various software organizations, so outside funding them what's the controlled opposition angle exactly?
And patented codecs.
It prevents google from arbitrarily deciding "web standards" on it's own.
If your only experience is using the browser and not supporting it or writing code for it then your point of view is severely limited and your reasoning is faulty.
Anyone who "buys chrome" would most likely follow a similar agenda. If you can base your browser on Chromium, free of cost, as most do, and are not interested in dictating web standards, what incentive do you have to "buy chrome" (which is to say buy the marketshare of chrome users who use Chrome because Chrome)?
Google most certainly has other means of dictating web standards, simply by being Google.
I fail to see the scenario in which Chrome is purchased by a benevolent entity which engages in less shitty practices and/or one where Google doesn't just upstreams their bullshit in to chromium itself . I don’t really understand how this would work in practice - Google's Ad business obviously calls the shots, and that's a bad thing for the web, but I'm not sure how we get from here to there.
Or Gmail, as OP mentions. Gmail (and GSuite) are ridiculously ubiquitous. Even my Uni used to have it for all students.
That'd hit them, at least a bit.
So back when I went, gmail was barely a thing. It was either in beta or just to-be-born. We had a unix mail server, and they deleted your login if you graduated/left.
But I went to do an alumni thing, and I noticed they had switched over to gmail.
Also, Safari is webkit, not chromium, so... It's not quite as black and white as that.
But in general? Yeah, I guess...
True. Technically, Chromium's current engine, Blink, is a fork of WebKit which itself was originally forked from KHTML/KJS.
Google adsense is the only profitable arm of the enterprise. If google sells chrome-- to whom? Microsoft? Meta? Amazon?
I don't want to engage in an argument about the 'devil you know' being trustworthy, because web manifest v3 proves google isn't. But when the DOJ talks about splitting off the fruits of the monopoly without striking the root... how realistic are their asks?
Yea, that's a problem: many Google products are run at a loss to prop up their ad business. If somebody bought them they'd have to fundamentally change them to turn a profit.
With Chrome maybe the software industry could create a shared foundation because so many big browsers rely on Chrome these days.
Yeah. I believe Google is paying Mozilla $400 million a year to cover their operating costs. It probably would have been better if Google had been broken up 15 years ago when we had a more fragmented industry before everything started running on the Chromium engine.
Chrome addresses what probably the government thinks is the problem. I think they're stuck on the browser wars and probably congratulating themselves for killing Internet Exploder.
The rest of us are concerned about Google's poor behavior in the free speech space. And ad market manipulation.
They will probably spin it off into a 501(c)3 or something similar to the Mozilla Foundation.
Weird that they would pick Chrome and force them to sell that vs something like YouTube.
I think it's being understated what is actually happening here. The DOJ is forcing a partial collapse and consolidation of the Internet with this move.
For example, Mozilla/Firefox is gone in a year if Google is no longer allowed to pay them for search engine priority. Apple loses around 15% of their profitability for the same reason (around $20B/year). Many other companies depend heavily or entirely on Google paying for priority.
This will have a domino effect that, as I see it, largely benefits Microsoft as they also stop support for Win10 next year. (Note that the decision on Google and how it will be broken up comes down summer of next year.) The timing, I think, is not a coincidence.
What costs Mozilla so much to maintain a browser product? Clearly I have no idea how this works
Hahaha. You think they spend the money on maintenance. The Mozilla Foundation funnels Google's money into far left causes while keeping up a pretense of there being a Chrome competitor. They can't collapse soon enough.
https://foundation.mozilla.org/en/what-we-fund/
The global majority (really pluralities) to me would be 1 billion+ indians and 1 billion+ Chinese.
So offer Firefox in Chinese and Hindi. IDK. I'm not sure what other special treatment they'd need.
80%+ of Mozilla's revenue comes from Google's payments for search engine priority. The rest of their revenue comes from Mozilla VPN/Relay and a bit from other advertisers. They'll be dead in no time if the government's request for Google to stop these payments is granted.
What business expenses do they even have though? Can't they just... lay off until they're profitable?
Their major expense is software development and of course employees who further service it (tech support, etc.). In 2022, they had $220 million in software development expenses, out of $425 million total expenses. Google paid them $480 million that same year.
They could cut back, but it would irreparably damage their ability to compete and function as they are now. They would become a shadow of their current existence, if they survived that transformation. Mozilla might survive in some capacity, but Firefox likely would not.
I do believe that's part of the point. I think the powers that be (IC) want to transform and corral Internet users, and carving up Google lets them accomplish that, including an detonation of both Chrome and Firefox browsers as we know them.
Maybe if that happens we can get native GUI applications again instead of everything being some damned web app running in Electron.
>Ctrl-F, Android
>0 results
I can't help but think you guys are missing the forest for the trees. Desktop browser isn't the important piece of it. Android (71% of all mobile) comes with Chrome, which funnels people into Google search, which funnels them into AdWords. This kind of anti-trust decision is congruent with the Microsoft/Internet Explorer anti-trust case from back in the day.
I agree that YouTube would be a more substantive split, but there is certainly some logic to picking Chrome.
Sweet, that's fantastic news. Thanks for sharing. Today my scroll was not a doomscroll.
Can't happen, or rather shouldn't happen.
Some long overdue concessions will be made but Chrome is a choice, not a monopoly.
While I have massive problems with Google, and they are in everything, this is government overreach and hinges on Chinese control levels.
Some new GPDR guidelines or laws will come into practice to protect the end-user and Google's flex on banning adblocks and distribution of data will be sculpted but regulating a program which is given freely, with alternatives available, can be legally adapted to suit any particular niche and has increased productivity in every market is more complex than simply selling it off and presuming everything is fixed.
It's the whole market that matters, not a single product. You're missing the forest for the trees.
Count me among those who think this is stupid. If the DOJ was going to do anything, the advertising branch is the only rational target. While there are improvements that could be made to the browser market - namely, gutting half the Mozilla Foundation - the current situation with Google propping up almost the entire browser market as a loss leader has been pretty good for everyone.
Selling chrome is meaningless by comparison Google and YouTube need to be forced apart and with entirely unrelated companies. Say... YouTube with elon
Possible actions:
Chrome & Android become Foss projects and lose google branding/features, meanwhile google keeps it's app store which will always remain downloadable directly from google itself.
VirusTotal goes independent
Google's (alphabet) hardware and research divisions go independent.
Google's ISP would also be a thing that goes independent, but they will likely keep company internal infrastructure including tier 1 peering.
Monopolies basically don't exist. I agree with economists on this.
I just want youtube to shut down and die though. I think it'd be the best thing for the internet if it did. I remember pre youtube days and a decentralised net was far better.
Now do Amazon and (less likely) Disney. Go on, I dare you, DOJ.