I hope that this doesn’t apply to Chromium too. I would be pretty concerned about the future security of Chromium-based browsers if Chromium gets sold.
I think the goal is that Google has no direct hands in the browser space, so they would not be the stewards of the Chromium project. They probably would still be able to have employees work on the project, but someone else would have to be the owners
Article title is a bit clickbaity as Google won’t have to do anything, most likely for years, as the parties await judgement and then go through the appeals process.
2 Likes
The title doesn’t say Google has to do anything, it only communicates what the US justice department has said in their court filing. It is up for the court to decide what the end-result will be.
2 Likes
fair enough, my assumption is that most readers would interpret the title as an order Google has to comply with not just as a request to a court but I can see your point.
Do you think lawmakers can tell the difference? 
Who will manage the browser engine then? Maybe they will start a foundation (which will do no innovation, lag behind in security, and pay CEOs millions without any result, like Mozilla) or to another company (of course Chrome under Amazon is the dream right?).
This is just idiotic executive demand on the levels of making cloudflare divest its web operations. I would rather have Google and Cloudflare manage browsers and web standards than a foundation having 50 different projects with abysmal leadership and overpaid executives who can’t agree on common standards or companies like Meta or Amazon anywhere near my browser.
Hopefully the new administration kills this or at least targets other monopolies like AWS, Apple, Microsoft enterprise/Windows, Linux servers, ARM chip architecture, GSM mobile standards, etc. Let the lawmakers understand how messy and insecure the world is without common standards and their enforcers (who by virtue have the monopoly on it).
The solution to monopolies is fair market opportunities, not forced handovers. EU has the right ideas here.
4 Likes
You explained my thoughts and worries better than I could, thanks.
Yeah, I’m really not sure how this will go. I think it’s best to let Google keep Chrome and other stuff that they have made and/or improve like Android, which they also made successful as it was failing as camera software. Meta should be broken up as they bought out their competition instead of making anything other than Facebook and Messenger. They bought WhatsApp, Instagram, Giphy, Oculus, etc. Google, Apple and Microsoft at least make their own hardware and software products. Google and Apple make the most secure devices in the world (Android and iOS). Meta made Facebook and Messenger which are terrible for privacy and humanity as a whole.
In my mind, the Chrome/Chromium team would be spun off into its own company that would be sold off. That team would still be the stewards of the Browser and JS engines (Blink and V8, respsectively).
That is what I want, and what the current FTC would have kept doing if it would still be in power. It takes time to go after these large corpos.
While the GDPR and DMA are steps forwards, I do not see any real damage done to large corporations without fines in the double digit percentages to their yearly revenue or breaking them up like the USA did to Standard Oil and Bell. Google and Microsoft are essentially 100+ little companies under the umbrella of one corporation, who use their vertical integration to crush the competition.
2 Likes
Wow. I didn’t know so many people here were fans of big tech corporations’ monopolies.
7 Likes
Less a fan, more a realist. In an ideal world we wouldn’t have them, but currently can you suggest a better alternative? I am more than eager to change how I look at this, since I don’t like it anymore than you do. But I’d rather folks I know be safe, than them having to spend half their life chasing around forks, patches, and github drama to be more “free” yet less “secure”.
Also I explicitly argued against Amazon or Microsoft handling it, so I am not in favor of Big Tech. I’d rather have the practical lesser of the two evils than maintain a moral high ground.
This is just kicking the can down. Its so typical in FOSS: “Someone” will fork it, “Someone” will maintain it, etc. Nobody outside of other Big Tech has the monetary and engineering resources to maintain it.
If you are talking about FTC under Khan, it is so clear they have preferences for certain monopolies over others. Khan is about as consistent in ideology as Ted Cruz.
Previous US antitrust happened in another era. The simplistic relationships in the economic webs are too complex now for simple actions like break and sell them, or destroy their profits. The issue with EU laws has always been enforcement. The ideas underlying them are solid.
I wouldn’t hold my breath. Tech sovereignty is the hot topic now, and no way countries force the standards they control to be divested. Linux monopoly isn’t just linux monopoly, its US hegemony, same as proprietary chips, transmission standards, and data processing tools like AI.
1 Like
Ideally Chromium would just have a decentralized development model like Linux currently does. The gold standard of FOSS already exists, it’s not theoretical.
3 Likes
Linux is not decentralized. If it was the consensus mechanism would also be decentralized, not Linus Torvalds banning Russian contributors based on discussions with lawyers. Its centralized to the Linux Foundstion, its sponsors, and to the US government.
An actual decentralized system would be something how Monero community works, but that is not possible in security critical applications (users would fund bottom toolbar but not CFI protection)
3 Likes
I would say that if a company based on a browser, or any other individual product can not stand on its own, then the business model is bad whether it stays the same (Google using it as their gateway app) or changes (Chromium/Chrome is independent of Google/Alphabet)
They have always been complex. The companies being as big as they are is a fundamental problem.
Almost all the Big Tech companies are US based with multiple offices in every developed country in the world. We aren’t as sovereign as we think we are
I do find it a bit funny that many people in this community bash Mozilla for not being perfect (such as relying on Google money) and hold Chromium up as the epitome of security but also conveniently forget that Google’s monopoly is what directly led to Mozilla not having the resources to put up as good of a fight as one might want against google
3 Likes
Interesting argument. How does that work exactly? Wasn’t Mozilla dominating before Chrome even started? Are we really blaming the underdog (which it literally was) for developing a great product (Google search) and using that to push their browser? Chrome was so much better because they were competing and were the better option, while Mozilla sat on its ass bleeding users for years. How did Google’s later dominance prevent Mozilla from making the perfect browser early on? Even now, outside of maybe web standards manipulation sometimes, Google has mostly benefited Mozilla by helping fund them (not out of good intent from google, but it doesn’t matter), which otherwise runs at a great deficit. Or is the argument that good engineers chose google? That’s again on Mozilla. I don’t blame companies for providing better employment environment than competition.
My opinion is it that Mozilla is just a bad steward for Firefox? I bet you if Firefox was under a better company, it would be 10 times the browser it is now.
It was Mozilla that chose to not prioritize security. Did Google force Mozilla to stop fission development and spend funds on shitty projects that led nowhere? Is google DDoS-ing Firefox engineers to prevent them from bringing fission to android? Google can afford its graveyard, Mozilla couldn’t, yet they constantly chose badly one after the other, from the choice of how to distribute it, how to develop it, and how to fund it. Mozilla has a determination to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
Its easy to blame bigtech, I know I do. But if most FOSS projects introspect, its mostly themselves they need to blame, with perhaps the end user desire for free stuff somewhat sharing the blame.
2 Likes
So it’s Google’s fault that Mozilla couldn’t be bothered to implement Fission or isolatedProcess for their browser for over six years? Lmao.
1 Like
In 2002 Google became the most popular search engine in the world. In 2005 the company joined the Fortune 500 and was valued at $52 billion. When they debuted Chrome in 2008, they were not entering the browser market as an “underdog”.
1 Like
IE ~ 50%
Firefox ~ 30%
Chrome ~ 5%
Very much the underdog in browser markets.
And today:
IE/Edge ~ 5%
Firefox ~ 3%
Chrome ~ 67%
What happened in between and during netscape era I wonder. Surely firefox did not fall behind and lose dominant position to a newcomer?
1 Like