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 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.