They can just wait it out until it becomes the corpo-friendly Dept. of Injustice on Jan. 20th.
this post was submitted on 18 Nov 2024
616 points (98.7% liked)
Technology
59501 readers
3131 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
They shutting force then to stop the advertising branch too
I‘ve actually when something like this will happen. A few years ago German energy providers and distributors needed to split, because it gives you an unfair advantage if you own both. Whole companies were split in two. People working for years together would no longer work together. In the end consumer were much better off after the split. I feel the same way with internet browser. It is unfair if you own the infrastructure (Chrome, energy grid) and the services that run on it (YouTube, power plants).
The US did this to AT&T. It was broken up into dozens of "baby bells". Then it gradually bought them all back up and now it's as big as it ever was
Bell telephone. AT&T was one of the resulting companies.
Thats stupid of the US to not block the merges again then.. :p
Well this process also spawned Verizon, so they do have legitimate competition now and that's what matters to antitrust actions
Very true, but in due time verizon could also be bought. Hence fcc should technically block it, like the nvidia and arm merge.
Or microsoft and activision ( which was heavily contested ).
Both were heavily contested worldwide
This seems like a sensible consumer protection to not let the ad company control the biggest web browser. I won't hold my breath, but I'm glad they are trying something.
AWS should also be split from Amazon.
AWS is amazing's money maker, they might as well just sell Amazon and keep AWS lol
load more comments
(7 replies)
Better hurry, Trump's rubber stamp DOJ will kill this faster than a cop encountering a dog.
For the right price.
Lit. It's a good ask although it's not clear what separation means here. Not going to hold my breath, the big corpos seem to usually win these kind of games.
Chrome is now owned by a company, owned by a company, owned by another company, that is owned by Google.
And even in the case where there is actual separation, and competition, it will only be temporary!
load more comments
(4 replies)
Chrome is now owned by a separate conpany with the same major stock holders.
It's like they're a company pretending to be another company, disguised as another company. Tropic Thunder all the way down.
Google will bribe trump and this'll be undone immediately
Google is such a good company, one the best. Everybody says it. I was just talking to John Google the other day, and he tells me, no really he did, he tells me we're going to do amazing things together. Oogles of googles. That's what we'll sell. Everybody will know about google by this time next year. It's true.
You forgot the unrelated rant in the middle about toasters being too dark these days or some shit.
load more comments
(3 replies)
God damnit.
load more comments
(5 replies)
That would be the logical thing according to common sense and probably according to pichai a few weeks ago, but trump just nominated an anti big tech and musk friend to the FCC. musk is behind almost everybody in ai and autonomous cars so he'll definitely push to hamper all competitors.
Sure, we don't know how far would they go or how long will musk keep having white house influence and I personally think breaking up google is now off the table, but I don't think they will get off the hook too easily.
So surely a very big bribe.
And whoever buys it won't also have some kind of ulterior motive? Chrome isn't likely to be a money-maker on its own. If it were, Firefox would have less trouble staying afloat. Anyone who buys Chrome most likely will have plans for it that are no more in the end-user's best interest than Google's.
It's not about dispelling any ulterior motive. The idea of anti-monopoly enforcement actions is that if the "business ecosystem" is good and healthy, then other companies who don't own Chrome will be able to compete with whoever owns Chrome, giving the consumer choice that people who like the free market say will reduce consumer exploitation. (If you can't tell from my tone, I am dubious, at best, of this logic)
Yeah any company controlled by the rich will act immorally
We can at least make sure it's multiple companies who will fight each other instead of one supreme leader megacorp
If this happens, I'd be interested in seeing how this effects ChromeOS. I don't use it but my mom does.
Also, if you're confused as to why ChromeOS would be effected, while it's based on Gentoo Linux, ChromeOS uses a modified version of Chrome as it's Desktop Environment.
load more comments
(4 replies)
Google: Sure, we'll sell it to anyone who pays off our Russian Govt fine.
load more comments
(12 replies)
How do you force someone to sell something thats open source?
Can the government please force me to sell my open source software too? If they could be my sales department, I'd love that. Pretty please.
I don't see how a "Chrome" company would make any money. Now if the Chrome Company also owned ChromeOS and Chromebooks that might be interesting. But it could also be bad, because such a company would probably want to take a cut of every Chromebook in order to actually make money.
Chromium is open source, Google bases their Chrome off of it, but Chrome is not open source.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
It will never happen. But it would be a good thing for the openness of the web. More Firefox, less Chrome.
load more comments
(3 replies)
view more: next ›