Note: Original report by Bloomberg, article by Reuters proxied by Neuters to bypass paywall.

  • samus12345@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    40
    ·
    4 days ago

    They can just wait it out until it becomes the corpo-friendly Dept. of Injustice on Jan. 20th.

  • normalexit@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    68
    ·
    5 days ago

    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.

    • Zetta
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      3 days ago

      AWS is amazing’s money maker, they might as well just sell Amazon and keep AWS lol

    • cultsuperstar@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      13
      ·
      5 days ago

      Why force one company to sell off their browser? Shouldn’t MS have to sell Edge and Apple sell Safari?

      • kiagam@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        25
        ·
        5 days ago

        Microsoft having IE/Edge as the default browser has already cost them in the past. I don’t think Apple faced anything with Safari.

        The problem today with chrome is how prevalent it is and how that influences the main product of the internet (advertising), which happens to be Google’s mais product too. Apple can at least make the argument that they make their money with the hardware, not the browser.

        Either way, I think all OS should at least give you a list of browsers on first use to choose from.

        • cultsuperstar@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          4 days ago

          Right, I remember the MS/IE issue in the past. I never understood why Apple wasn’t held to the same scrutiny. They don’t have the corporate hold like Windows does, so maybe that was why.

          So if Google has to sell off Chrome, what happens to Chromebooks? It runs on ChromeOS with Chrome being the main interface. Could Google not spin off Chrome as another company?

        • Semi-Hemi-Lemmygod@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          5 days ago

          Either way, I think all OS should at least give you a list of browsers on first use to choose from.

          I like this idea if only because it means I don’t have the default web browser hanging around only ever having been used to download another web browser.

  • barkingspiders@infosec.pub
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    137
    ·
    5 days ago

    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.

    • Arkouda@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      76
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 days ago

      Chrome is now owned by a company, owned by a company, owned by another company, that is owned by Google.

      • WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        73
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 days ago

        And even in the case where there is actual separation, and competition, it will only be temporary!

        see history of telco consolidation after a monopoly breakup in 1984

            • anomnom@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              4 days ago

              Thanks to this thread TIL it was one of the few serious competitors to ATTs monopoly.

              Southern Pacific Communications and introduction of Sprint

              Sprint also traces its roots back to the Southern Pacific Railroad (SPR), which was founded in the 1860s as a subsidiary of the Southern Pacific Company (SPC). The company operated thousands of miles of track as well as telegraph wire that ran along those tracks. In the early 1970s, the company began looking for ways to use its existing communications lines for long-distance calling. This division of the business was named the Southern Pacific Communications Company. By the mid 1970s, SPC was beginning to take business away from AT&T, which held a monopoly at the time. A number of lawsuits between SPC and AT&T took place throughout the 1970s; the majority were decided in favor of increased competition.Prior attempts at offering long-distance voice services had not been approved by the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC), although a fax service (called SpeedFAX) was permitted..

              In the mid-1970s, SPC held a contest to select a new name for the company. The winning entry was “SPRINT”, an acronym for “Southern Pacific Railroad Internal Networking Telephony”.

        • rottingleaf@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 days ago

          If they split Google, MS, Apple, Meta and Amazon all simultaneously, with some condition for the splinters to not merge back, and that contaminating the results of their allowed mergers, there may be good outcomes.

          Or there may not. It’s about people, not laws, after all.

      • Eldritch@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        42
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 days ago

        It’s like they’re a company pretending to be another company, disguised as another company. Tropic Thunder all the way down.

  • Rogue@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    102
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    5 days ago

    Google will bribe trump and this’ll be undone immediately

    • Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      97
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      5 days ago

      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.

      • ayyy@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        21
        ·
        5 days ago

        You forgot the unrelated rant in the middle about toasters being too dark these days or some shit.

        • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          edit-2
          5 days ago

          He also didn’t say his name three times in 10 seconds. Then sort of fade off and vaguely look off into the distance.

          They said to me Donald, Donald, they said Donald, they do amazing things, real bigly things, my father, my father, said to me Donald, they do big things Google land. Really good things… Yeah… Big things…

        • xor@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          5 days ago

          And a series of words that sounds kinda like a complex sentence when you listen to it, but actually means nothing whatsoever

          And he says to me… a very smart guy, Mark, he’s really doing… he’s really got to show… when he does things he really does them, you know, like he really does, very impressive, very modern

    • 0xb@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      edit-2
      5 days ago

      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.

  • julianwgs@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    4 days ago

    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_crotch@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      4 days ago

      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

        • the_crotch@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          4 days ago

          Well this process also spawned Verizon, so they do have legitimate competition now and that’s what matters to antitrust actions

          • DacoTaco@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            4 days ago

            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

  • Etterra@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    22
    ·
    4 days ago

    Better hurry, Trump’s rubber stamp DOJ will kill this faster than a cop encountering a dog.

  • vortexal@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    43
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    5 days ago

    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.

    • btaf45@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      5 days ago

      Yes I would like to know what that means for ChromeOS and Chromebooks. If the new “Chrome” company got ChromeOS also that would be huge. But if that is not a requirement Google could just put another Chromium browser in ChromeOS. They could also continue to sell Chromebooks but based on a ChromiumOS fork.

  • nyan@lemmy.cafe
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    21
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    5 days ago

    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.

    • AnarchistArtificer@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      23
      ·
      5 days ago

      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)

      • SquatDingloid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        4 days ago

        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

    • Joker@sh.itjust.worksOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      5 days ago

      What Lemmy client do you use?

      I am asking because it caught my attention that you didn’t upvote your own comment.

      Also, funny reference 😂

      • ulterno@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        5 days ago

        The Lemmy web client, same as Reddit, allows you to de-upvote your posts.
        It feels weird to upvote your own post anyway and I don’t do so unless I am asking for help and want it seen more, urgently.

        • Squizzy@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          14
          ·
          5 days ago

          That is so odd, if you dont think what you are saying is relevant or necessary why say it?

          Your conscientiousness will be lost in a sea of others self importance, at least level the playing field and support yourself.

          • ulterno@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            5 days ago

            if you dont think what you are saying is relevant or necessary why say it?

            If I worried about necessity, I would probably not have a Lemmy account.

            level the playing field

            I’m not playing dependent upon others, just upon my own ideals. I feel like an upvote needs to mean something. In my case, it means, I need more people to see it, for me.
            In most cases, the feeling behind my posts/comments are: If someone sees it, good, have fun.

            • Anas@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              8
              ·
              5 days ago

              Your own upvote on your own comment doesn’t mean anything, because every single comment starts with one upvote by default, not zero. All you’re doing is moving your comments below everyone else’s.

              • ulterno@programming.dev
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                arrow-down
                5
                ·
                5 days ago

                Your own upvote on your own comment doesn’t mean anything

                Neither do words, or little magnetic particles lain down nicely on a polymer disc, until people decide they mean something.

                • Anas@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  ·
                  5 days ago

                  I don’t think anybody decided that an upvote count of 1 means anything.

  • Scrollone@feddit.it
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 days ago

    It will never happen. But it would be a good thing for the openness of the web. More Firefox, less Chrome.

    • ByteOnBikes@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      5 days ago

      Yep.

      Tech companies have extreme “Fuck You” money. They have learned a lot from the past two decades of Antitrust acts.

      That politician is either going to quickly change their mind with some bribes, or watch their entire life disappear with an army of lawyers or paid off peers shutting them down.

    • tomatoely@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      5 days ago

      Wouldn’t it put Firefox on a pickle? Say Chrome gets bought out of Google’s hands, would they still bother to pay half a billion to Firefox to stay as the default search engine? Could Firefox survive being financially independent?

  • jagged_circle@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    4 days ago

    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.

    • btaf45@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      3 days ago

      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.

    • ccdfa@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      4 days ago

      Chromium is open source, Google bases their Chrome off of it, but Chrome is not open source.

    • btaf45@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      5 days ago

      What’s to stop them just making another browser?

      Nothing. Chromium is open source. So they could just fork it and declare a new “official” google browser and it would be a lot like Chrome.

      I’m not sure why the govt thinks forcing google to give up a particular fork/branch of an open source browser is all that meaningful. It might make more sense if Chrome was a closed source one of a kind browser.

      • ayyy@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        5 days ago

        I’ve worked in the aftermath of DoJ agreements like this one. The DoJ is not stupid (or at least didn’t used to be) and will have stipulations about removing Google employees from governance/write permissions to the project, with follow up check-ins every few months to make sure any shenanigans aren’t occurring.

        …none of that matters though now that the DoJ is going to be dissolved.

        • azuth@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          5 days ago

          They need to ban them from forking the browser. Google has the ability to get people to install the new Google totally-not-chrome browser. Especially if they keep Android as well.

      • Ilovethebomb@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        5 days ago

        That’s exactly what I was thinking. It also makes Chrome essentially worthless to anyone except Google.

        • ayyy@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 days ago

          Maybe as a whole package, but node.js servers are ubiquitous and have a ton of stakeholders that have nothing to do with web browsers.

                • ayyy@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  4 days ago

                  The JavaScript (code) engine that powers Chrome is the same JavaScript (code) engine that powers Node servers. Node is used to power a large portion of web applications and internal corporate tools. The Chromium/Node project is under the tight control of Google engineers.

    • Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 days ago

      Not needed. Internet Explorer existed for years after the 90s. It wasn’t killed by the courts. It was killed by the fact that it’s only function was to install a better browser on first boot.

      • cdf12345@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        5 days ago

        I think you are severely underestimating how many people don’t even understand the difference between windows, explorer, a web browser and even the Internet itself during the 90’s well into the 2000’s even 2010’s.

        That’s who kept IE alive

        • atrielienz@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          5 days ago

          No offense but it was the US Government. Most of their websites were coded for it, and quite a few of them didn’t work properly or reliably in other browsers as a result. This was true up until it was sunsetted and they were forced to update to Edge and some of the websites still haven’t been properly moved over to Chromium. When the pandemic hit and the Armed Forces had to setup remote work for thousands of people Microsoft basically built them a fork of Teams. The US Government is kind of running hand in hand with Microsoft on a lot of stuff if you just hazard a cursory look.

    • grue@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      5 days ago

      They didn’t make the first one! They got it from Apple, who themselves got it from KDE.