Google is offering a far more pared-down solution to the court’s ruling that it illegally monopolized search

  • grue@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    82
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Can we just stop and appreciate for a moment what a fucking outrage it is that Google is allowed to negotiate its own punishment at all?

  • masterofn001@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    47
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    They can keep chrome if they open source everything and remove all tracking, telemetry, and calling home of any sort, artificial crippling of addons via manifestV3, stop blocking blockers, stop injecting ads, stop breaking APIs, stop asynchronous and default DNS, stop forcing safebrowsing (URL monitoring).

    What else have I missed?

  • rottingleaf@lemmy.worldBanned
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    31
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Chrome is the exact thing they shouldn’t keep. Their main weapon together with the search engine.

    Anything but Chrome.

    • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’d be cool if at some point in the future Android and their Advertisement business were forced to split. Be a dream if they had to make Android open source again like it used to be.

      • rottingleaf@lemmy.worldBanned
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        IMHO that kind of advertisement business should be plain illegal. There are parts of it which are cheating, ultimately aimed at plausible deniability for “pay to be recommended” stuff. And what’s not cheating there, is something worse - commercial surveillance.

        Advertisement relates to competition for customer’s attention the same way as lying relates to competition for listener’s approval. It’s just harmful.

  • flop_leash_973@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    25
    ·
    1 year ago

    I wish I could get found guilty and still be able to negotiate on equal footing with the prosecution about what my punishment was going to be.

  • brie@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    It’s a miracle that Google botched messengers, Google+, cloud ('member app engine?). They could have been even more dominant. I still like them more than MS and FB.

    • Phoenixz@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yeah, the enemy of my enemy is not my friend. It’s just another asshole.

      Google, over the past few years has notably getting worse. Apps that always worked flawlessly lately started getting buggy. YouTube app on Android now crashes near daily, Gmail is suddenly riddled with bugs… It wasn’t like this.

      Google was a software / tech company that started dabbling in ads to make money. This change toe company to what it is now, an ad company that does a bit of tech on the side.

      Google Chrome is now the new ie6 and though it sucks in different ways from ie6, at the core the problem is the same

      Google and Microsoft are really the same company, it’s just that (for now, still) Google’s software sucks less

      • brie@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Have you tried NewPipe? YouTube changed the API a few times, and it broke for a day. Otherwise, it’s excellent. I had trouble with Google Pay lately, which is really frustrating, I reverted to cash. No trouble with Chrome or Gmail on Android.

      • selokichtli@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Chrome itself is rated 4.1 in Play Store, while Firefox is rated 4.6. Google Chrome dominance, at this point, is a consequence of monopolistic practices and not user preference. They are now using their predominant position in the browser market to apply ad technologies that their users rightly didn’t ask for, and they don’t like it.

    • bruhSoulz@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Ye they’re not the worst. I’d def pick then over apple for example, at least makes android which is sick

        • GissaMittJobb@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Does anyone ever actually ‘want’ Xcode? Is it not just a necessary evil to be able to do iOS development?

          Agreed otherwise, M-series macs are sick as hell

          • brie@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I’ve met Android devs with iPhones, so the answer is probably yes. I don’t know if Xcode is worse than Android Studio or Flutter. I honestly just hate mobile development in general because it can’t be done on the same device as the code runs. It feels like driving while wearing boxing gloves.

            It took Apple 15 years to break free from Intel, and that pushed Qualcomm to make laptop CPUs. In many aspects, it’s more impressive than the iPhone.

            • GissaMittJobb@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              I don’t think the Android devs with iPhones are yearning for Xcode.

              Having used both, Android Studio is far superior in my opinion. Most iOS devs I talk to seem to have a particular disdain for Xcode as well, so that seems to track.

  • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Normally I would laugh at them offering to resolve a second case to avoid judgement in the first one, but sadly they probably have enough influence to make it happen.

    • adarza@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      32
      ·
      1 year ago

      it’s a huge deal for google. they control the browser used by the vast majority of users, and the engine behind the one (such as edge, opera, vivaldi, etc) used by still more. they rely on those users to see and interact with ads to make money.

      besides the obvious–driving traffic to their web properties that have their ads; they get to siphon off all that sweet user data which makes their ads ‘more valuable’, and control addon functionality and restrictions as well as the primary ‘marketplace’ where those addons come from. their ultimate goal of killing off ad blockers completely, the limits mv3 puts on adblockers is just the next step in that direction.

      should a third-party acquire control over chrome’s development, mv3 gets shredded. restrictions and limitations on adblockers get scaled-back or reverted outright.

      • nous@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        1 year ago

        should a third-party acquire control over chrome’s development, mv3 gets shredded. restrictions and limitations on adblockers get scaled-back or reverted outright.

        That is far too optimistic. If the courts force a sale then a for profit company will but it expecting a return on investment. Which very likely means more monetisation efforts like embedding ads or even more tracking built into it. It is a fantasy to think who ever gets it will scale anything you dislike about it back.

      • Optional@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        All good points, but even without Chrome they became one of the biggest companies in the history of Earth. Even without Chrome they’ll still have Android and will undoubtedly spit out a Chromev2 browser experience that suckers will flock to - and even without Chrome they’ll still likely control all of that search traffic.

        Hey if it kills their fingerprinting plans, I’m all for it, but are they going to be prevented from developing a browser? That’s like not being allowed to develop a car. Which - again, fine by me, but still unlikely.

    • grue@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      Chrome, as the damn-near-monopoly rendering engine, gives Google hegemony over web standards. That’s incredibly valuable because it puts them in a position to (e.g.) inflict DRM on the world.

    • const_void@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      Their desperation to hold onto it speaks volumes about how valuable it is to them. I’m sure they get tons of juicy browsing data that they don’t want to give up.

      • Baron Von J@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yes but how will some other company who doesn’t run a successful ad network make aenough money from owning Chrome browser to keep it going?

  • Electric@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    14
    ·
    1 year ago

    I don’t get the boner the feds have for making Google sell Chrome. Maintaining a browser looks like a huge investment and as bad as Google is, there are much worse companies that would jump at the chance to buy it. Imagine some Tencent-tier corporation making you pay to have the ability to install extensions.