DOJ’s proposed Google anti-trust remedies

Cmaier said:
Not sure I understand what selling off Chrome would accomplish (or why anyone would want to buy it as a stand-alone thing). And I don’t understand what “debundling Android” really means.
Click to expand...

Never understood the browser wars to begin with.
 
Cmaier said:
arstechnica.com

Report: DOJ wants to force Google Chrome sale, Android de-bundling

Cutting off Google’s control of the world’s most popular browser may be necessary.
arstechnica.com arstechnica.com

Not sure I understand what selling off Chrome would accomplish (or why anyone would want to buy it as a stand-alone thing). And I don’t understand what “debundling Android” really means.
Click to expand...
For what it is worth Android == ASOP + Google Services. So it seems like the DOJ wants Google to call ASOP Android, and not offer this new Android with Google Services.

I'm not sure why Google just doesn't say as much.
 
diamond.g said:
For what it is worth Android == ASOP + Google Services. So it seems like the DOJ wants Google to call ASOP Android, and not offer this new Android with Google Services.

I'm not sure why Google just doesn't say as much.
Click to expand...
Don’t they already offer ASOP stand-alone for those who want it? Is the DOJ proposing that they can’t also offer Google Services for android? I remain confused.
 
Cmaier said:
Don’t they already offer ASOP stand-alone for those who want it? Is the DOJ proposing that they can’t also offer Google Services for android? I remain confused.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure DOJ realizes AOSP (sorry mixed up the letters in the acronym) exists in nearly the configuration they are asking Google for.

To also be fair we all know that Android without Google Play Store isn't very useful (ask Amazon how well the fire tablet App Store sales are going). Which is also probably why they talked about having Google list competitor stores in theirs (because the side loading provisions apparently aren't enough).
 
Cmaier said:
I don’t understand what “debundling Android” really means.
Click to expand...

It might mean this: an Android phone has a home screen somewhat similar to an iPhone, with the dock-like row of icons across the bottom. However, just open the Google app and the bottom row moves up to make room for a google search field, and once it is there, it cannot be made to go away. Hence, Android is directly tied to Google and may fail to function properly without it.
 
Herdfan said:
Never understood the browser wars to begin with.
Click to expand...
Different browsers = different/competitive functionality that has shaped many of the standards we use today. Anyone who supports free market/enterprise should support the browser wars, they're good for the consumer short of when MS hard-baked IE into their OS to monopolize the market.
Just my .02.
 
Eric said:
Anyone who supports free market/enterprise should support the browser wars, they're good for the consumer
Click to expand...

Remember when Apple murdered Flash? That was semi-anti-competitive. Who here wishes Apple had not murdered Flash?
 
I am reading this story and keep coming back to the simple fact that they only have a "monopoly" because people are lazy.


There are other search engines people can use that will provide 99.% of what most people need and you can change the default search engine on your phone. MS tried something similar with Bing and I just went and changed it to Google. Took less than a minute.

So the question is should a company have a monopoly simply because consumers are lazy or stupid?
 
Herdfan said:
I am reading this story and keep coming back to the simple fact that they only have a "monopoly" because people are lazy.


There are other search engines people can use that will provide 99.% of what most people need and you can change the default search engine on your phone. MS tried something similar with Bing and I just went and changed it to Google. Took less than a minute.

So the question is should a company have a monopoly simply because consumers are lazy or stupid?
Click to expand...
If a company forces their browser on you through it's default service and it's big enough, it then becomes a monopoly and rightfully so. Whether MS or Google, if it's baked in then changing it to another "default" is deliberately hard to do and often leaves it crippled. I mean look at all of the legal action it took force MS to make it so you could remove their browser from Windows.

Sorry, but calling people lazy after these companies force such underhanded practices is the total Republican mindset and exactly why you need consumer protections.
 
Eric said:
Whether MS or Google, if it's baked in then changing it to another "default" is deliberately hard to do and often leaves it crippled. I mean look at all of the legal action it took force MS to make it so you could remove their browser from Windows.
Click to expand...

But it's not baked in, not hard to change and changing it doesn't cripple anything. The MS thing was a bit different since they were using "Explorer" as both a web browser and to access settings.

Eric said:
Sorry, but calling people lazy after these companies force such underhanded practices is the total Republican mindset and exactly why you need consumer protections.
Click to expand...

As for the Republican mindset, most Republicans would love for Google to suffer as much pain as possible, but this seems a stretch.
 
Herdfan said:
But it's not baked in, not hard to change and changing it doesn't cripple anything. The MS thing was a bit different since they were using "Explorer" as both a web browser and to access settings.
Click to expand...
I'm sure if you aren't aware of what you're missing it won't seem crippled to you. For the rest of us, it's crippled.

Herdfan said:
As for the Republican mindset, most Republicans would love for Google to suffer as much pain as possible, but this seems a stretch.
Click to expand...
Unless it comes to holding any company responsible for their actions. Republicans will always support corporations over consumers.
 
Herdfan said:
But it's not baked in, not hard to change and changing it doesn't cripple anything.
Click to expand...

But, like I said, if you happen to open the Google app on an Android phone, it helpfully provides you with a search box below the dock-like icon row, and once that happens, if you want that to not be there, you are SoL. It does not matter if you set a different default search engine, google is IYF.
 
Yoused said:
But, like I said, if you happen to open the Google app on an Android phone, it helpfully provides you with a search box below the dock-like icon row, and once that happens, if you want that to not be there, you are SoL. It does not matter if you set a different default search engine, google is IYF.
Click to expand...
In other words, it's baked in and changing it out cripples the functionality. Help him to understand.
 
Yoused said:
But, like I said, if you happen to open the Google app on an Android phone, it helpfully provides you with a search box below the dock-like icon row, and once that happens, if you want that to not be there, you are SoL. It does not matter if you set a different default search engine, google is IYF.
Click to expand...

Ok, I was able to change my default search engine on my Android tablet in Chrome and it stuck. But as you noted, I was not able to change it on the main page search field. So yes, hinders functionality. But what if Google simply removed that function and took that bar away? It would penalize both type of users, those who want it and those who want to be able to change it. Is that better?

The thing is I don't know if Google put it there as part of Android or if Samsung put it there.
 

Similar threads

SuperMatt
Anti-trust legislation
Replies
2
Views
322
lizkat
lizkat
Back
Top