I know several of our contributors are against google
But should companies be forced to sell parts of themselves ?
Google was built around search engines and browsers, I know now they offer other tools in the form of storage, sheets, docs, maps … a long list.
In the same vain, should microsoft be forced to sell bing search or even edge. Several years ago we had the browser wars and microsoft had to offer the choice.
But google does not force its use, on linux when you install from the distro centre it does offer other searches.
They should be allowed to keep using/marketing it, but should be obliged to open-source it after a suitable period of monopoly to allow development cost recovery.
The pharmaceutical industry works that way. Why not try it with software.
Chromium is the open-source version of Chrome. Some features (just the proprietary features) of Chrome are missing, but it’s 99% the same.
I worry when Google is forced to sell Chrome, as the organization picking it up could make things worse in so many ways. On the other hand, Google’s monopoly needs to be broken, but I’m unsure this is the solution.
I think it would be better if Google were forced to sell Android to another company. The same goes for the Play store and all its attached functions. However, they should be forced to sell that to another competitor. This would break the Google monopoly sufficiently and allow for competition on Android, in my opinion.
I think we wait, rather than force a split or a selloff.
Most powerful organisations shoot themselves in the foot without us needing to attack them.
It would be very easy to make things worse by interfering
If we want to limit profits, use taxation.
Google is owned by alphabet so in principle it could be split. But I ask why.
It’s a successful company and works no problem for me.
I like and use chrome on my Linux boxes also on my tablet and phone.
By default I install chromium for clients as the main browser with chrome as second and Firefox do they have the 3. Perhaps overkill.
But ask them which search engine they prefer as many want the ones that are eco friendly such as ecosa or the ones that plant trees or do something with water.
Most french have no idea the difference between a search engine and a browser… They just say I want Google without knowing they are different things.
All the browsers come with a default search which is easy to change.
Chromium comes with duck duck go if you do nothing. But it does have issues with Gmail if you have multiple emails accounts which is a pain.
Me too.
Their profits can be controlled without interfering with their technology
One thing that may help would be a “Closed Source Tax”… anyone marketing closed source software would pay a Levy, proceeds of which could be used to subsidize open source developers.
I suspect privacy issues push people to want to attack google… what they ought to focus on is deficiencies in the legal system… it is not keeping up with technology
I did read that. I hate to see the need to break up a monopoly. Back when it was Microsoft on the chopping block, I thought they were basically a victim of their own success. Why should a company be penalized because they were successful?
But if we look back at when Ma Bell was broken up in 1984, that seems to have turned out alright. I don’t know that I agree with it in any case. It doesn’t smell right to me, but yet it worked out.
I used to get that a lot with Microsoft. We’d install Windows on a computer for someone and send them home, then they’d call back asking, “Where is my Microsoft?” Of course they meant Microsoft Office. It was all Microsoft to them.
What is Microsoft Office now there are so many versions. I no longer support, offer or install as even i cannot work it out. You buy you rent you use on line with all the apps with just a few …
But the worst is outlook, is it on line, on your computer or just an address. Before there was a light version
Give me libre office or open office any day.
Many dont know the difference between gmail and google and if they can get the mail through firefox.
Why in the first place?
These anti-monopoly laws prevent tech from becoming lazy or self-serving.
Currently societies are getting too dependent on Google tech - even if they don’t want to. Alternatives are so much smaller that they have no way to grow into a significant competitor.
Healthy competition is a cornerstone of every (even liberal) economy. Unless you want to expel trade as a whole, there is no alternative.
Market priorities
When Android, Chrome and Google (search engine) are one company, they serve one opaque goal. Sometimes Chrome or Android will quietly accept things because they benefit the bottom line.
I expect Chrome to become its own company, with maybe even mostly board members from the Alphabet group too… but even in this worst case scenario, compensations will have to be made explicit (e.g. compensations through money transfer).
Profitability
I don’t think it’s possible to have a company based on a (free/gratis) browser when your only revenue model is what the default search engine would be (and Google is explicitly prohibited to be the default)
Closed source tax?
I’ve read a few comments in here about having to open source Chrome (or taxing not doing it). There’s a few thoughts I have about that…
Define “open source” → is it enough to have source available, or is MIT or even GPL what we want? And can libraries be closed source? (e.g. widevine)
While the analogy with pharma is tempting, the cost to copy is much smaller in software.
Opensourcing a product after a given time, is mute in the case of software. Pharmaceutical licenses expire after 20 years iirc. Just imagine that we were now allowed to see the code of Windows 2000… not sure how relevant this would still be.
Analogy
Alphabet is a company - and a big one. Growth is a premise. In this sense, it’s like a cancer (that’s the only organism in a body whose only goal is to grow and keep growing). A healthy body will avoid cancers from growing. Every organ has a function - these functions are what keeps our body alive.
If our body discerns cancerous activity, it needs to attack it and remove those cells so the underlying organs can take up their initial activity again.
A society is not so different in this sense.
So that’s how I see it. Breaking up Google in it’s core parts… is essential to keep them functional. Otherwise, the cancer of short-term profits will slowly eat up these parts of the system.
@callpaul.eu there comes a point where there are multiple companies under the same umbrella. Yes, gathering them is what is best for the company - under the premise that “the company” equals its shareholders. If one company starts having different “products” in its portfolio that have internally competing priorities… it’s a whole different story from the perspective of the user.
One of the key priorities of a browser is to optimally render webpages while sharing no more information than necessary with the server.
One of the key priorities of an ad company, is to suck in as much information of a user as possible.
Given that Chrome is the product that costs money… and Ads the product that brings in money… you try guessing whose priorities will come first.
That kills any incentive to create software. You’d have to make all your profit in the first two years. This would open it up for anyone to use and compete against you, obviously. A nice startup company that does an IPO and creates something would then have to opensource it so that FANG companies can take it and use it against them. That doesn’t seem “fair”.
A similar topic is opensource software that is used by a company to make money. We always hear how opensource software is usually just one maintainer doing it for the joy of doing it or scratching their own itch. Then if someone else uses to make millions, all of a sudden, they are evil. If they had never used the software to begin with and created their own, would they still be evil? The opensource developer would still be a single person scratching their itch. I know it SEEMS inequitable, but life isn’t always “fair”.
That is about what happens anyway. After that it is out of date and they should be selling the next new release. Releasing 2 year old code would give startups a chance to compete equally in developing the next release. Without that chance, they are starting from too far behind.
There is no such thing as a free lunch… Google make money selling advertising and links.
I get offers from them often for my business but have never paid or used.
My only issue is with some sites where you cannot see the content for the adverts
Plus once you look for something getting rid of similar products is difficult. Hence I have to be careful what I look for if it’s a surprise gift for my wife.
I’ll give you another example… once had a chat with my brother on Facebook Messenger (a one on one platform, not a public site). I was talking about going through a rough patch in my marriage.
Two days later, I started getting ads for hookers and dating sites. So that taught me that nothing is private in these ecosystems. And if it were a benevolent algorithm, I would have gotten ads for relationship therapy. But I didn’t, so that taught me that their first interest isn’t the user experience, but it’s the revenue. What brings in most money.
The biggest fallacy of our current system is that economy is about growth. It shouldn’t. It should be about growing until you’re big enough. And then sustain. Otherwise, you’re no longer growing, you’re a cancer.
Did you know that Google has over 2 TB of data on my? And that’s me… who’s been pretty privacy aware. And that’s not counting all the data that the conveniently pseudonimized about me, but that is also out there. And that doesn’t include the analytics that AI models conjured up about me.
There are not enough checks and boundaries for a company of that size to be serving humanity. It’s its own mogol.